Just getting it ready...we might need it tomorrow night. And I think that as we enter this next phase of the election, it deserves a new thread.
For some general election news from Gallup:
quote:A new poll released by Gallup Monday suggests McCain may be out of step with the majority of Americans when it comes to U.S.-Iranian relations. Fifty-nine percent of Americans surveyed thought it was a good idea for the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran. When Iran is taken out of the equation, an even higher percentage – 67 percent – responded that they thought it would be a good idea for the president to meet with leaders of countries considered enemies of the United States.
A sign of the times. I think as a country, in many ways we don't think like we did 8 years ago. I think we've grown a lot more skeptical of the "implacable foe" rhetoric we're getting from people like McCain and President Bush. McCain might be doing himself more harm than he thinks if he keeps harping on this.
TIME has an article in it's more recent edition about the differences in the McCain and Obama campaigns. Obama basically already has a 50 state in depth set up. He's up and running in every state with volunteers established and ready to go, with a huge war chest that has no end in sight. McCain on the other hand is leaking staff due to his connections to lobbyists, is struggling with fundraising and is still trying to get operations moving in states he never had to campaign in. It may be that this superlong Primary process really helped Obama out in ways that might not have been obvious a few weeks ago, but he's ready to fight it out anywhere five months before Election Day and McCain, who has had weeks with no Republican opposition is fumbling the ball. It'll be interesting to see how quickly he can put together a national campaign when his best position is as underdog insurgent.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
First Post.
Obama for 08!
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Bob Barr!
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Just when you think the Democrats are experts at losing, the Libertarian Party writes, directs, and stars in a play about Foot Shooting.
Go Obama by the way Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: First Post.
Obviously not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...go Cynthia McKinney?
No, seriously, I'm pretty sure I'm voting for someone this election.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Err...go Cynthia McKinney?
No, seriously, I'm pretty sure I'm voting for someone this election.
Hey me too, it's kinda nice for once.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.
That's...terrifying. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.
It's Happening. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: First Post.
Obviously not.
Check again.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Blayne, in message boards the first post is the one who started the thread. Only in news sites/blogs is there a separation between the creator of the topic and the first poster.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
you can be "first reply". it's just as important.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
i.e. Not at all.
Here's hoping that Clinton takes the high road tonight and concedes. Emphasis on "hoping."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Blayne, in message boards the first post is the one who started the thread. Only in news sites/blogs is there a separation between the creator of the topic and the first poster.
Yet the OP is in point of fact numbered 0 (zero). So his is post number 1. Eponymously, his post is "first," although it is not the first post.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
actually, the OP isn't numbered 0. that column on the main page is titled "replies" not "posts". So it's 0 until the first person replies to the OP.
So, second post. First reply.
It took all of one post for this thread to get off track.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If you look at posting history, first posts are numbered zero in perpetuity.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Yeah that's never been linked before.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think Blayne is attempting to bring the idiotic "First Post!" meme from the World of Warcraft forums to here.
In these forums, there are Blizzard employees (with special blue text) who post on only about 1 out of every 1000 threads, and so there is something of a game to get the first post after a Blizzard employee. Often the threads are themselves created by a Blizzard employee, so the second post in these threads would be the "first post" by a non-blizzard poster.
Now, this is the meme at the wow forums, but there could be other such conventions at other forums. Since Lyrhawn is a normal poster, his post is indeed the "first post" any way you slice it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It started at Slashdot years ago, and was immature and pointless then, too.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: actually, the OP isn't numbered 0. that column on the main page is titled "replies" not "posts". So it's 0 until the first person replies to the OP.
So, second post. First reply.
It took all of one post for this thread to get off track.
That's fine. It'll get back on track as soon as we officially get to the General.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Often the threads are themselves created by a Blizzard employee, so the second post in these threads would be the "first post" by a non-blizzard poster.
Now, this is the meme at the wow forums, but there could be other such conventions at other forums. Since Lyrhawn is a normal poster, his post is indeed the "first post" any way you slice it.
But Lyrhawn is also an Eddie Izzard fan, which must've confused our dear Blayne. He was vying to be the first non-Izzard-fan poster. And he did it! Huzzah!
*Sigh* I'm so burnt out following the primary I wonder how much energy I can muster to follow the news in the general election?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You might be surprised.
This might be a General unlike anything we've seen in recent memory. There's serious talk on both sides of Obama and McCain actually campaigning together, and speaking together at various stops along the way. For all the talk of Lincoln and Douglas, that would actually be a lot closer to what Lincoln and Douglas actually did than the so called debates people are calling for.
There's also talk of more than just the regular three debates, though three have already been scheduled for the Fall. Hopefully we'll get out of the doldrums we're already in where the two of them slam each other back and forth over the same thing day in and day out.
It's a long race boys, take a breath.
You'll find the energy, and I think there'll be plenty to get excited about.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, actual unmoderated Lincoln-Douglas style debates would be cool.
But the thought of lots of lots of regular debates just makes me want to pull my covers over my head and not leave my pillow fort until Christmastime .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were 3 hour long press conferences, seriously. One of them talked for 60 minutes, then another talked 90, then there was a 30 minute rebuttal.
We don't even need no moderators. I think one or two unmoderated debates would be interesting, combined with a YouTube style debate. But moderators, when they are doing their jobs, serve an important function. What we need is more interaction between the candidates. They need to be able to talk to each other, to directly challenge each other, to ask questions of each other, with a fair moderator there to make them behave and actually make them answer the questions instead of using stump speech filler to run out the clock.
I'd like topic oriented debates. One debate on science and technology, one on foreign affairs, one on health care, etc. Cover every topic and don't let them divert the conversation by talking about something else.
I don't want dozens of debates, but I do want honest conversation about topics, and someone there to call them out on it when they start using scare tactic rhetoric. I actually have hope that we might get that this time around.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Lyrhawn, I only take issue with assumption that "they need to be able to talk to each other" suggests, which is that they actually want to.
It's seems pretty clear that the debates are as canned and controlled as they are because that's what the candidates, or their handlers, want to do. It's like a cold war- the candidates get to win by doing the most stump speech preparation, the most research, the most anticipation of questions and needed responses or favorable outcomes, essentially the most stockpiling.
What, in a one on one debate would be demonstrative of the candidates' actual real qualities, is not present in a moderated debate where they don't address each other, and I can't help but think that's exactly what they want.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't much care what they want, I care about what the people need.
I think, given a change in format, these two candidates would actually debate each other rather than regurgitate answers. It might not be a total back and forth, but I know they'd advantage of the format. It's the 30 second this and 60 second that format that really protects them. But a moderator can take care of that. If they could actually find someone decent.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I agree there. It's amazing that in a country of 300 million, we settle on the metiocre voices of the media to deal with politics so heavily.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's because the "media" aren't news services so much as entertainment services now. They're after ratings, not there merely to educate the people on what is happening.
The media shapes public opinion in ways I think no one really understands. They can create and destroy more powerfully than any other entity in the country. And I think they have little appreciation for that power, and little show little in the way of respect for the responsibility that goes along with it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If anyone's interested my mom (although were canadian) supports Obama she doesn't really understand the issues but likes how Obama grew up/came from nothing.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I want a debate moderated by Jon Stewart. If anyone's going to ask the candidates stupid and trivial questions, it at least ought to be on purpose.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He'd be an interesting choice. I think he harbors a liberal bias, but that's really hard to say. Generally he beats up on anyone and everyone he thinks is being stupid. Since his show really came into its own during Bush's presidency, it's this administration that has taken the brunt of his tongue lashings. But even in the last year and a half with Democrats in control of Congress he hasn't missed many chances to lambast them for what he considers to be inept buffoonery as well. I think he votes Democrat, but hates the whole system entirely. He thinks they all suck, but Democrats suck just a tiny bit less than the other guys. Either that, or like me, he thinks they generally have the right idea, but are utterly incapable of executing those ideas on the national stage.
He's an interesting choice because, given what I think is a liberal leaning, and the perception that he's anti-Republican (based on his attacks on the right), he still has a pretty good relationship with John McCain. McCain has been on his show more often than any other single guest. Clearly McCain is okay with it or he wouldn't keep coming back, so I suspect that, plus the huge youth audience that such a moderator would likely bring out would compel him to probably say yes, maybe. Obama would do it I think because most of his supporters big Stewart fans, and most of the people in Stewart's audience are big Obama supporters.
The funny thing about your comment Sterling, "If anyone's going to ask the candidates stupid and trivial questions, it at least ought to be on purpose," is that some of the best commentary in the media today comes layered in between his jokes. I think there are three Jon Stewarts. There's always joking funny Jon Stewart (who I don't even think is really that funny anymore), there's spot-on analysis Jon Stewart, and there's grumpy old jaded cynic Jon Stewart. The third one is what you get when he's interviewed by Larry King or Charlie Rose, when he really shows himself. He's not funny, and he spends most of his time as an iconoclast, taking a swing at anything and everything around him. The first one is never taken seriously because he's a comic.
But the second one is maybe the best newsman alive today. He asks tough questions, presses points that most people let go, and opens up insightful bits of commentary when you least expect it. I trust that the questions he would ask, if he was being serious and wasn't necessarily out to advance an agenda (as I think he would not be), I think he'd ask the perfect questions for this election. And for that matter, he wouldn't take cookie cutter answers without biting back and demanding a real answer. A lot of this gets lost in many of his interviews, especially because there already seems to be a precondition that as a "fake news" show or a "comedy show," nothing that's said has any value, but it's there, and generally pretty easy to spot.
Colbert I think is just as smart, but you don't see it as much because he's more like Stewart was a few years ago. He's funny first and makes the spot-on point second. He does hammer home good points from time to time, but almost never in his interviews, which he's gotten the hang of, but only to make them funny, not to reveal anything. I'm wondering what he'll sound like in a couple years, and if he'll be as jaded as Stewart obviously is.
Anywho, I think Stewart actually would be a really good choice for a debate, maybe for a YouTube style debate, to really marry the generational elements there together.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, we have the battle I was really hoping for: Obama/McCain. I didn't think I'd get it, but I'm really looking forward to the next few months.
However, while I have said in the past that I favor Obama but wouldn't mind McCain in the president's chair, I may have to retract that. McCain has apparently changed his views on presidential power in the last six months. Where he condemned warrentless wiretapping before, now he seems to be condoning it. I want a president who will return the executive branch to being only 1/3 of the government.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oddly, none of this content is yet available on the Foreign Affairs site.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
If Stewart were to moderate a debate, would that make him the first person to ever host the Oscars and a presidential primary debate?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Anywho, I think Stewart actually would be a really good choice for a debate, maybe for a YouTube style debate, to really marry the generational elements there together.
Given what the Daily Show had to say about the last YouTube debate, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I don't know that I would necessarily call Stewart more liberal off the bat than, say, Stephanopoulos. It would be interesting, no doubt- and despite my rather flippant comment, I agree that Stewart might have a better chance of asking a question or two that would actually cut through the baloney than many. Especially if he was permitted to comment on the responses after the rebuttals; I don't think either candidate would likely keep to pat stock responses for long with someone pointing out that they were, in fact, pat stock responses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
McCain today formally asked Obama to join him for 10 town hall debates, to begin next Wednesday in New York City.
What McCain gets out of this is obvious: Free media. He's way behind Obama in fundraising, and a free 90 minutes or whatever of speechifying every week really helps him level the playing field over the Summer.
Obama's campaign has already enthusiastically responded by saying they're very open to the idea, but actually want the format longer and less structured, which I think leans towards making it more like what we're discussing here. I think he's pushing for an unmoderated debate.
VP Watch
R There's serious talk now of McCain's top VP choice being LA governor Bobby Jindal. He's the nation's first Indian governor and would be the nation's first Indian VP candidate. He's rumored to be on the short list and has gotten a lot of attention lately. Upsides? He's young, has some executive experience, might help with the minority vote. Downsides? He's only been governor for like six months, hardly enough time to really gain meaningful experience. Before that he was a Rep. in the House. But he's a Republican's Republican. He has a 100% pro-life voting record, he's lockstep on guns, voted to make the PATRIOT ACT permanent, and even to eliminate the ban on oil drilling on the continental shelf. He voted with Republicans 97% of the time in the House. For whatever power a VP has, I think that's going to scare some people away. Moderates and Independents that might like McCain's cross over appeal certainly aren't going to see that reflected in Jindal, though he'd be great at getting Republicans who might not like McCain out to vote. Still, the real possibility that McCain's health might make a downturn makes Jindal a scary replacement for a lot of people. He'd be the youngest president in history if he were to take office (or the youngest VP ever) at 36. He's barely legal. The idea of putting a minority in the VP spot to reach out to minorities seems silly when you're running against a black guy. Besides, all the people who won't vote for Barack Hussain Obama, a black guy from Chicago, are probably going to have the same problem voting for Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, from NOLA. He'd be an unconventional choice, and I wonder what McCain really thinks he'd bring to the ticket. I'd find it curious that McCain would take on a relative newbie when he's hammering Obama so hard on not being experienced enough. Why take on someone that is literally your replacement for the office when he has less experience than even Obama? That could bite him in the butt.
D
And of course you all know that Clinton has been reported to be angling for a VP spot on the Democratic ticket. We'll see how that goes. He's going to face some pressure from diehard Clinton supporters, though most Senators and Democrats in Congress have stated that they will be quiet and let Obama make his own choice. Clinton has done way too much to shoot herself in the foot, and to attempt to harm his campaign, to say nothing of the fact that she, with Bill Clinton, represents part of what Obama wants to change away from. Cementing their place on his ticket harms his own message.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Jindal also seems to be a man after Mike Huckabee's heart. At least in regards to science education and the separation of church and state.
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
Jindal is a southerner and he may prevent Obama from plucking and flipping a Lousiana ripe with Katrina resentment against the Bush Administration.
I am torn on the VP thing, Clinton may be the wisest choice to make even if she is not the smartest choice for him to make. The rational choice, the smart choice, the choice that minimizes potential 527 attacks is anyone but Clinton. Unfortunately relying on voters to be rational in their political decision making rather than emotional has not served the democrats well in the last two elections. this is sort of creating a cognitive dissonance for me, before the primary, my main argument against a Clinton candidacy was the high level of irrational/emotional opposition to Hillary Clinton, and now it's flipped around that the argument for a Clinton VP spot is the high level of emotional support for Hillary Clinton. Has there ever been a more bizarre primary? just amazing.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Maybe Hilary could get Secretary of State for Health instead of the VP slot? Obama did emphasize her strength on universal healthcare in his speech yesterday (even though neither of their plans really count as universal healthcare). It's probably highly unlikely but it would be interesting. He would be able to placate Hilary while avoiding Republican attack ads (they wouldn't know of her appointment until he was elected).
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Mr. Jindal said that "there’s no scientific theory that explains how you create organic life out of inorganic matter"
quote:...Hillary Clinton said..."More people have voted for me than for anyone who has ever run for the Democratic nomination." These statements must be read with the sort of close grammatical and definitional care that used to inform her husband’s descriptions of his personal entanglements. They are not quite true in the normal sense, but if made under oath they would not be prosecutable for perjury, either.
Most simplisticly, organic compounds contain carbon, and inorganic compounds do not contain carbon. Scientificly, the theories of nucleosynthesis and quantum chemistrydo explain how to make organic out of inorganic.
[ June 04, 2008, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Threads -
You mean HHS? Secretary of Health and Human Services?
Adam_S -
Be careful with that. LA is a weird state this year. The only Democrat really in trouble in the Senate this year is Mary Landrieu in LA. But her brother, whose name escapes me at the moment, was elected as Jindal's Democratic Lieutenant Governor. People are pissed at Republicans nationally for the Katrina response, but they voted in a Republican to replace the Democratic Governor, Blanco. At the millions who left the state never to return were mostly Democratic voters, which might mean the state will skew wildly to the Right this time around, though it remains to be seen if the states nearby that absorbed those refugees like Texas and Georgia can deal with the uptick in Democratic voting there that may follow.
In other words, Louisiana is going to be a weird battleground state this year. It's going to be easy to tie McCain to the "heck of a job Brownie" Bush reaction, considering when the storm hit, Bush was in Arizona celebrating McCain's birthday. He was literally right beside Bush when it happened. Jindal will only have been governor for less than a year by the time the election even takes place, which will limit his influence over the voters. They're still getting to know him.
I'd be skeptical of his ability to deliver his home state this time around.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Caroline Kennedy has been appointed to head the search committee. You know, that's how Dick Cheney started out.
So could Caroline fill the VP shoes? She's certainly attractive and beloved, she's in her 50's. She is thin on experience, though - but the NAACP Legal Commission thing sounds vaguely impressive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't imagine she would be at all interested and I don't really think she is qualified.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Most simplisticly, organic compounds contain carbon, and inorganic compounds do not contain carbon. Scientificly, the theories of nucleosynthesis and quantum chemistry do explain how to make organic out of inorganic.
That definition of organic is a bit too simplistic since by it Limestone (calcium carbonate) is organic. We routinely separate inorganic carbon compounds (CO2 and carbonates) from organic carbon compounds.
Photosynthesis explains quite nicely how CO2 and H2O (inorganic compounds) are transformed into organic life everyday on every corner of the planet.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hillary can't get the Secretary of State slot, because, as we all saw on West Wing, Obama gives that to McCain.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Well, we have the battle I was really hoping for: Obama/McCain.
Ron Paul is still in it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You're delusional.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that the supporters of Ron Paul are going to have a heck of a time against the never let go supporters of Hillary Clinton in the imaginary elections of 08. I just don't think they have enough support among unicorns, leprechauns, or vampires.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The vampires vote Republican and the leprechauns are voting for O'Bama.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's my point. To win, you'd need strong support from one of the fairy contigent, the wee folk, or the undead (can't win Chicago without them). Ron Paul doesn't poll strong in any of these.
There was some talk about him courting the hispanic vote by making the chupacabra his running mate, but while it eats goats, it is still having problems swallowing his position on immigration. Plus, after Dick Cheney, many experts doubt that the American people are ready to have another monster as VP.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
heh
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
MrSquicky wins the thread.
Now what will we do until November?
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
According to this article in my local paper, Obama is considering Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as a VP
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: MrSquicky wins the thread.
Yep. Hands down.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Derrell: According to this article in my local paper, Obama is considering Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as a VP
I keep hearing that from Arizonans, but I haven't heard much of that rom a more national perspective. I think the Arizonans are deluding themselves again. (I'm from Arizona, so I feel free to mock).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That would be a big gamble in trying to turn McCain's home district. Strategically, Sebellius makes more sense.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Squick -
Don't forget that Cheney secured the pivotal Sith vote for Bush.
Napolitano is on the short list probably. The two big push/pull factors are going to be executive experience versus military experience. He needs someone to shore up both of those perceived inadequacies. Any governor who has been around for awhile will fill in the executive gap.
The thing about the military is, I don't necessarily think that prior military service is the be all end all of military experience. Nothing can prepare you for being Commander in Chief, unless maybe you ran NATO or were a CentCom general or some such. McCain flew planes 40 years ago. So? None of the technology or hardward he used back then is in service today. It's not like you really have to be familiar with every piece of machinery or what not. You have experts and Generals around you to present options. Foriegn policy experience and general knowledge about the world in that sense is even more important that prior military experience.
In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform. If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
Don't discount dark horse candidates like former general Wesley Clark.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
Really? It seems to me that if you were make a Venn diagram where one set represented people who would balk at voting for candidate because he's black and the other set represented people who would balk at voting for a candidate who is black because his choice for VP is Latino, the two sets would overlap almost completely. There's be a tiny sliver of non-overlap there, but not enough be worth factoring into Obama's decision about who to select as his running mate.
On the contrary, I think that Richardson would help enormously with bringing in the Latino vote, which could very well be crucial in Obama's winning the election.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform.
Bill Richardson is my preferred VP candidate for Obama, for all the reasons listed here. He's really the perfect choice.
quote:If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
I actually think his race is more of a asset then a handicap, since Obama could use a boost with Hispanic voters, and anyone who wouldn't vote for a ticket because there's a Hispanic on it isn't going to vote for a black man anyway.
Richardson and Obama, being 1/4 white and 1/2 white respectively, would almost equal having one white guy .
Edit: Ninja'd by Noemon!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I can't decide whether I'd prefer to see Richardson or Sebelius as Obama's VP, personally. I think that both of them would help him in appealing to key demographics, while also being good people to have in the wings ready to take office and continue with the same general vision if he's assassinated.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: In that sense, the best choice for Obama would probably be Bill Richardson. He was a governor of a Western state, has massive foreign policy credentials, executive experience, even a lot of experience as SecEnergy, which is a huge plank of Obama's platform. If Richardson was white, I think he'd easily be the frontrunner, but I think a minority ticket makes a lot of people nervous.
Right now, I think what might make people *more* nervous about Richardson is the grudge Hillary and her supporters hold against him. Of all the friends and allies that went to Obama, Richardson is the only one that got called "Judas" by James Carville. And the Clinton campaign didn't object to the characterization at all.
If it weren't for that one teensy-weensy stumbling block, he might be ideal - but having people show up at rallies with "Judas" signs might not make for great campaign coverage. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Ninja'd by Noemon!
Mua-ha-ha!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I can't decide whether I'd prefer to see Richardson or Sebelius as Obama's VP, personally. I think that both of them would help him in appealing to key demographics, while also being good people to have in the wings ready to take office and continue with the same general vision if he's assassinated.
I do like what I've read of Sebelius, and think she'd probably be a great choice.
I also wonder if picking Sebelius would help ease the sting of not picking Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama picks a male running mate, and consequently gets accused then of not picking Clinton as a running mate because of her sex.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What does McCain get out of traveling with Obama for their campaign?
I had to laugh as I pictured it.
Obama gives a speech and 25,000 or 70,000 people show up to listen.
McCain gives a speech and packs the VFW hall with 2000.
Oh and don't count out Ron Paul--you are forgetting the Ron Paul Zombies. Their are a lot of of Ron Paul Zombies around this country.
(Nothing a good chain-saw/rocket launcher couldn't handle though)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Noemon -
The main reason why I said the whole "if he were white thing" is, I wonder if there are a group of people out there who are nervous about voting for a black guy, but WOULD vote for him if there was a white person on the bottom of the ticket. In other words, does Sebelius or someone similar bring in more white votes that Obama lost just by being black? I have zero polling data on that, it's just a wondering. I think Richardson would bring in a lot of the latino vote, but I wonder how that offsets the white vote, especially electorally, where pockets of latinos are only in large numbers in so many places.
Still, you're probably right, and it makes more sense to go with a probable thing, like the latino vote, rather than the maybe thing, like recapturing white votes.
In other news...
Obama, taking on the mantle as leader of his party, has proclaimed that the Democratic party itself will no longer take PAC or Lobbyist donations. He's hitching the Democratic party to his new movement in politics, and more specifically, his new way of fundraising. This comes on the heels of McCain announcing a record fundraising month in May of $21.5 million. What do you think of that?
Honestly? To me is smacks more of ideology than politics. There's no way that he personally would have been tagged by other Democrats taking those funds, though it is actually a rather small piece of the total pie. I think he's making the change because it's his party now, and he wants it run and operated in a way that fits his own personal ideology. He's the head of a movement as much as he is the head of the party now.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Wow, I didn't realize that Obama was such a big fan of mass public transit. Could it be that we'll finally have a government that's serious about bike lanes, high speed rail, subways, buses and other forms of high speed rail?
Awesome link Noemon, thanks.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:We may, God willing, elect a black man to be president of the United States this year.
And now to leap entirely off course, it mildly bugs me when people call Obama "a black man." He's a man of mixed race, one of which happens to be black. Everyone would think it absurd if I called him a white man. I suspect the whole convention has roots in old racist mongrelization fears, though I realize no one these days intends that connotation. Sterling (whom I quoted from the primary thread) certainly did not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm listening to McCain's speech from Tuesday and wow, it's riddled with holes. He's being dishonest about Obama's proposed tax hikes at the very least.
Most telling? McCain's claim that Obama is beholden to special interests while McCain is known for standing up to them. That's pretty hard to swallow considering the sheer onslaught of staff on McCain's campaign that had to be fired because of lobbyist connections, and there are still more on his staff that are former lobbyists. And Obama just today announced that neither his campaign nor the Democratic party will accept ANY lobbyist or PAC donations.
There's plenty of things to hit Obama with that are legitimate points of contention without trying to misrepresent the facts. Besides, he's going to get hammered on it later on, which makes it all the more stupid. And I'll add, from our friends at Factcheck:
Also included in that last one is a pretty weak attempt to paint Obama as "negative."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:We may, God willing, elect a black man to be president of the United States this year.
And now to leap entirely off course, it mildly bugs me when people call Obama "a black man." He's a man of mixed race, one of which happens to be black. Everyone would think it absurd if I called him a white man. I suspect the whole convention has roots in old racist mongrelization fears, though I realize no one these days intends that connotation. Sterling (whom I quoted from the primary thread) certainly did not.
Race in that aspect is tricky I think, and depends entirely on who you are talking to. I think a lot of people, probably Irami at the top of that list, would say Obama is more white than black because he's more culturally white. Debra Dickerson is the one who I think I first saw on TV say that he's not really black because he's not descended from East African slaves, he's WEST African, which I guess cuts down on the genetic afro cred.
I think that for most people, looking black makes you black, regardless of what your other roots are, in the same way that even if a 1,000 people before you aren't, you're considered Jewish if your mother was (I got that right didn't I rivka?). Plessy v. Ferguson near the turn of the 19th century established legally that a man who was 1/8th black was legally ALL black. Maybe in some ways we still haven't quite escaped the definitions of the 19th century south. But in reality, I think anyone who would never vote for a black man doesn't much care that he's half white. They see a black man, regardless of his heritage and mixed race roots and label him black. He's not viable becuase he's half white, he doesn't get points for that. Overcoming that hurdle of pigment is what's significant, and in that sense, I think it'll perfectly fair to call him the first black president, should he be elected.
On a purely physical level, he IS a black man. You're talking about roots and heritage and genetics, but none of that changes what he looks like for those it matters to. None of those people are going to say, upon learning of his mother: "oh, he's half white, well that's a horse of a different color." For people that don't care about race, it's just a word that they use to physically describe someone, and has no racial overtones at all. For people that do care about race, him being half white is a non-factor.
Sorry that was a bit of a meandering post, it's late.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I appreciate your response, Lyr.
quote:But in reality, I think anyone who would never vote for a black man doesn't much care that he's half white. They see a black man, regardless of his heritage and mixed race roots and label him black.
This is a good point, in that it accurately describes what's been happening in this race. It begs the question, though, of why we're letting these people dictate the tone like that. I understand it in a "beat them on their own terms" kind of way, but it still doesn't sit well with me.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Most telling? McCain's claim that Obama is beholden to special interests while McCain is known for standing up to them. That's pretty hard to swallow considering the sheer onslaught of staff on McCain's campaign that had to be fired because of lobbyist connections, and there are still more on his staff that are former lobbyists. And Obama just today announced that neither his campaign nor the Democratic party will accept ANY lobbyist or PAC donations.
To be more honest, he has found a nifty way around accepting PAC and lobbyist money. Fact Check
quote: Obama: Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money. And the bundlers – the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that. Gravel and Obama weren't actually contradicting each other. However, as we reported previously, Obama's policy is an ethical tightrope.
The senator’s official policy “specifically states that the Obama campaign does not accept donations or fundraising help from federal lobbyists or PACs,” according to a campaign spokesperson. Obama, however, is sticking to a strict interpretation of his ban on lobbyist contributions. His campaign does take money from spouses of lobbyists, partners in lobbying firms who do not themselves lobby, ex-lobbyists and state lobbyists, according to numerous news reports.
Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank and chairman of its Americas division, has raised money for Obama and encouraged his employees to make contributions, which they did, to the tune of $194,930 as of July 15. Those contributions don't violate the letter of Obama's pledge, even though UBS, like most large corporations, has lobbyists in Washington. Obama voluntarily listed Wolf, along with 254 other “bundlers” (influential types who agree to encourage and collect individual contributions) on his Web site. (Gravel is correct in that the list previously had totaled 134 people.)
While Obama did sponsor an amendment to the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (S.1) that would require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, PACs or parties for whom they collected money, action on the measure stalled after it passed the Senate in January. Furthermore, since Obama isn't accepting money from federal lobbyists, the amendment wouldn't even apply to his bundlers.
quote: During his presidential run, Obama has raised $115,163 from "lobbyists," as of March 20, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Obama campaign states that this is all from former lobbyists, not those currently active. That distinction is important for Obama. As we've written before, Obama is doing a bit of a tightrope act here. He does not accept funds from registered federal lobbyists, but he does accept money from spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists.
If McCain had said he accepted no money from lobbyists or PACs then was caught pulling these stunts I am quite sure the press would hammer him into the ground.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dark Knight: I don't think he would. It's hardly reasonable for us to punish ex lobbyists and state they can never raise or donate money towards any political candidacy in their lives ever again.
$115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.
I'm sorry I can't give your post more response time, I just realized I am going to be late for work.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think a lot of people, probably Irami at the top of that list, would say Obama is more white than black because he's more culturally white.
He is black. He is just the kind of black who is more scared of ticking off whites than he is for standing up for the black masses.
In a powerful way, I agree with this some aspects of this article. Are we going to get the conversation about education, criminal justice, and the influx of Supermax prisons in the Obama campaign? I don't think so. Instead, Obama is going to spend the next eight months making white people feel like he shares their values. Now, I think he is going to lose anyway, and what's even worse is that I think he is going to lose while sucking up to "middle America." And if he wins, I'm just not convinced he isn't going take the same attitude to the white house, the attitude that threw his priest and Sam Power under a bus. I still think he is a better bet than McCain, with respect to issues like Iraq and the environment and whatever else it is that white liberals like and Obama will champion.
[ June 06, 2008, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Have you ever considered that he might just disagree with you, Irami?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The attitude of the office was one of, "The Senator agrees, he just can't say." It's been a year, but I can't imagine much has changed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Because appearing to have such an attitude isn't obviously necessary whether he actually has it or not.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Dark Knight: I don't think he would. It's hardly reasonable for us to punish ex lobbyists and state they can never raise or donate money towards any political candidacy in their lives ever again.
$115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.
I think they are saying he got $155,163 from former lobbyists but they did not say how much he got from "spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists."
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: $115,163 is pocket change especially if you divide it amongst all the ex lobbyists.
More importantly, it's also pocket change compared to the millions of dollars Obama has raised in his campaign so far from small donors.
quote: but they did not say how much he got from "spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists."
Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins? Should I not donate to Obama's campaign if I sat next to a lobbyist on a bus once?
But yeah, to say he's not taking money from federal lobbyists but is okay with taking it from state lobbyists does seem like splitting hairs.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
My family's real gun-ho for Jim Webb for Obama's VP. What do people think of that choice?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: But yeah, to say he's not taking money from federal lobbyists but is okay with taking it from state lobbyists does seem like splitting hairs.
I don't think so. Someone who lobbies a state legislature on issues that are the the realm of state decision makers isn't nearly the conflict of interest for a presidential candidate that someone who is advocating for a change in federal laws is.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins?
So if McCain did the same thing, I am sure you would extend him the same 'pass' that Obama gets? I rather doubt it. Obama taking money from spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists is a way for him and the DNC to get around his promises while the press can print glowing reports about how Obama and the DNC is 'lobbyist influence free'.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My sister used to be a lobbyist. She is not currently one. She is a huge fan of Obama (who from what I remember of her lobbying work, probably would not have been who her firm would have raised money for). Her husband also LOVES Obama. It seems unfair to me that those two should not be able to donate to him just because of what job my sister used to have. And if my sister did still work as a lobbyist, her husband should be allowed to donate as he pleases. There is a difference between personal and professional contributions and I think Obama's rules designate that. I think that Obama does not see any of his money as from oil or whatever cause, but instead from individuals who support him.
As far as race, my brother in law is half black and he says in white America, there is no such thing as half. You are black and people make sure you know that. Of course, marrying a white woman, he is not really accepted in the black community either, including his own family.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: My family's real gun-ho for Jim Webb for Obama's VP. What do people think of that choice?
I don't know enough about him, really. He has some obvious positives, but this post in The Atlantic lists some of the "baggage" that will have to be assessed by Obama's VP selection committee.
Some key points:
*He's a Dem senator in a red state - no guarantee that another Dem will be elected in his place.
*Even supporters admit he's a poor campaigner
*Referred to affirmative action as "state-sponsored racism" in the same year he endorsed George Allen's Senate run (2000)
*Authored an "infamous" 1979 article titled "Why Women Can't Fight" which was widely disseminated and used against women in the military
*Was accused of showing more sympathy for the accused than the alleged victims in the Tailhook scandal
That's a partial list -- and I can't honestly evaluate the accuracy of these claims without doing further digging. I'll leave that to others - even if "others" means Obama's VP selection team. Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: My family's real gun-ho for Jim Webb for Obama's VP. What do people think of that choice?
I think there's some attractive pros and a couple of cons to him. The pros being that Jim Webb would represent military experience that Obama lacks. Even though I tend to agree with Obama's foreign policy ideas, he still doesn't have military experience to boot. Considering that Obama is against McCain, I think he'll need to get a way to appeal to veterans, and Jim Webb could do that. Further, Webb is a southerner, and I think that quite a few southern states could be put in play with a strong southern appeal. Virginia is already a clear battle ground this year, perhaps there could be more. Webb also could appeal to the nostalgia of Reagan because of his being in the Joint-Chiefs then. This might help Obama pull more right leaning independents and perhaps more Republicans.
A couple of cons on Webb are that he has less legislative experience than Obama. Obama has been constantly hammered for being 'inexperienced' and the polls in South Dakota and Montana show that Obama lost on experience roughly 94-6. Obama needs a face that has more experience to try to grab some of those voters, and according to CNN's exit polls, roughly 1/5 of voters wanted the candidate of experience. (From Montana and South Dakota.) Another con on Webb is that he really hasn't come out of his shell yet on what kind of politician he is. We know he's a great public servant in regards to the military, but when it comes to politics, there is a lingering question of whether or not he'd be able to stick to Obama's message appropriately. Edit to Add: And if what sndrake said is true on what Webb's said before, it adds to my point that Webb might have trouble sticking to Obama's change encompassing message.
All of that said, my preference for VP choices are... Sebelius Richardson And then a toss up between Clark and Webb.
(My ideal cabinet, for any who care... Secretary of Health and Human Services = Clinton (Some arguments could be made to this, I understand, but I think that with her commitment to health care for everyone, having her work through Obama's plan could represent a stronger push for the plan to encompass more people.), AG or Secretary of Labor = Edwards, Secretary of State = Richardson, Secretary of Defense = Clark, VP = Sebelius.
Edit to add: I'm not so sure if those exit polls were CNN now, I took a look again and couldn't find them, while I'm sure I saw those numbers somewhere (The experience numbers and how big of a block experience made) I can't remember where.
[ June 06, 2008, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
On CNN, there is a video of the press complaining that Obama did not bring the press to his meetings with people yesterday. I don't know if I feel comfortable with that level of entitlement from the press core.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Of that list, the only one that bothers me for him to get money from is state lobbyists. Because the others are not lobbyists. If he's not supposed to take money from spouses or coworkers of lobbyists, what of friends of lobbyists? Parents? Cousins?
So if McCain did the same thing, I am sure you would extend him the same 'pass' that Obama gets? I rather doubt it.
And that's where you're wrong. I'm not going to argue that point for anyone other than myself, of course. If McCain (or any other politician) said he didn't take money from federal lobbyists I would not expect that to be extended to anyone other than federal lobbyists. Part of that is probably just my cynicism about politicians in general - I don't expect many of them to stand by anything but the most narrow definition of their promises. If that.
Honestly, your habit of insisting there must be a double standard is something that makes it really hard to take your posts seriously. It seems like every time you post about something political you throw in "But if this were a republican everyone would be mad!" or "But if this were a democrat they'd get a free pass!" No, actually most (not all, certainly) people have reasons to their opinions beyond blind partisanship.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On Webb,
The fact that VA is a red state is irrelevent. There's a Democratic governor that would appoint a Democrat in Webb's place if he were to be appointed VP, so, Democrats wouldn't lose the seat. Besides, there's a titanic battle shaping up this year between two former governors for the open Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. Mark Warner, Democrat, and a Republican whose name I can't remember are both running, and they are both very popular former governors. Warner has been considered for a VP spot too, but he more or less recused himself from consideration. I think Warner has a great chance of winning. The glow of his years as governor is a little brighter than the other guy's.
Webb is more of a Blue Dog Dem. He's so close to the center he probably teeters over to the right a fair bit. I think he'll get a fair bit of consideration for the VP spot, but the biggest reason why is his military credentials. That's why Wesley Clark is going to get a good look. He's got the cred, and at the same time he also is more in line mainstream Democratic views. But really, when you ask yourself "who would I want to actually take over the Oval if something happened to Obama?" I think Sebelius and Richardson are the only two I'd feel comfortable with.
So often we think of Veeps as the guy that balances the electoral math on a ticket. But an honest candidate should really think about who would best fill his shoes should the time come, and I wouldn't likely vote for Webb or Clark for president, not over Sebelius or Richardson. Richardson I think is the most well rounded candidate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I would still really like to see John Edwards as VP but I haven't heard anyone mention his name recently.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
scholarette,
in all fairness to the reporters on the plane last night...
quote:The evening began in routine fashion, with Mr. Obama holding a large rally in northern Virginia. Then, he was scheduled to travel by motorcade to Dulles International Airport and fly to Chicago. The motorcade arrived, but Mr. Obama did not, stirring alarm among reporters who had been aboard the campaign plane for 45 minutes as it sat on the tarmac.
Shortly before takeoff, one part of the secret was divulged. Robert Gibbs, the campaign’s communications director, said Mr. Obama would not be flying to Chicago as previously scheduled. He gave no reason for this mysterious pronouncement and there was little time for questions, considering that the engines had started to whir.
Sunlen Miller, who covers the Obama campaign for ABC News, filed an urgent dispatch via Blackberry to report that the senator had abruptly changed plans and had given the slip to those who were traveling with him all day. “I sent it as the wheels were going up,” Ms. Miller said of her message, recounting the agitation and confusion among her fellow travelers as the 757 lifted off.
It wasn’t until after the plane landed in Chicago — sans the presidential candidate — that Mr. Gibbs confirmed a meeting had taken place between the rivals. Details? None given.
Translation: The press assigned to follow Obama around find themselves locked in on an airplane and flown to Chicago - while the candidate stays back to meet with Clinton.
From what I've seen of the coverage, journalists *not* on the plane found this pretty amusing when they reported it. As for journalists *on* the plane - not so much.
This morning on MSNBC, he told Joe Scarborough that he emailed David Axelrod as the plane took off, something along these lines:
If I don't make it through this flight, please make sure my wife and kids are taken care of. My son deserves to go to a good school.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I would still really like to see John Edwards as VP but I haven't heard anyone mention his name recently.
I think I saw a blip on CNN today that Edwards has announced that he doesn't want to be VP.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Richardson I think is the most well rounded candidate.
I'm not convinced on that. The anger toward Richardson by the Clinton team and others will be a factor that could weigh against him.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:He is black. He is just the kind of black who is more scared of ticking off whites than he is for standing up for the black masses.
On last night's Daily Show, they did a segment on the sexism that Hillary Clinton faced in the campaign by showing commentators blatantly showing their sexism on cable news. I especially enjoyed Glenn Beck's mocking of Hillary Clinton's cleavage and voice, more than anything because it reminded me of just what a tool that guy is and how incredibly sexist and prejudice he can be when he opens his mouth. I've said it before that Hillary faced a sexism in this election that almost seemed to be embraced by those who wanted to see her defeated, and the sad thing is that I see the same kind of attitude towards African Americans in this election.
When Barack Obama spoke about race he claimed that while White America was angry, so too was Black America, and I think part of that anger is encapsulated by what Irami said above. Barack Obama walks a tight-rope that is incredibly thin, he has to appease Hillary Clinton's supporters and white women throughout the country, he has to appease blue-collar white voters throughout the country, and he has to address African American issues without making his white supporters afraid. Of course, there is a belief in this country that the successful black man or woman is one two people: the first is the African American who is not mad about the racial situation in America and who placates white America, assuring them that he is not out to take their jobs or money or success, and the second is the angry black person who is angry about the racial situation and seeks to take the success of white America through programs like Affirmative Action and who embodies that angry black man who wants to take all that white America maintains. It's exactly like what happens when we view Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., and it is that division that is most insidious about the racism that we face.
See, in his statement above, Irami equates appeasing white America with failing black America, as if those were mutually exclusive events. And it might be. It may in fact be the case that appeasing white America inherently implies failing black America, but there is a greater question to be asked here. Why does a black man have to appease white America to be elected? And why does that ridiculous division concerning African Americans in America exist in the first place?
Those are interesting questions about race in America I believe, but it is more interesting to me that suddenly we are faced with issues that are suddenly exclusive to certain races and genders. If Obama is the President of the United States, he will not be the President of white America or of black America, he will be the President of the United States of America, and thus, his problems should be ours and not theirs. And of course, that division is a racial and sexist one that we should face.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why does a black man have to appease white America to be elected?
Perhaps I'm missing the real crux of your question but to me the answer to that question seems obvious. The majority of Americans are white and in a democracy you can't be elected unless you satisfy the majority. That doesn't mean a black candidate has to satisfy all the white people or even a majority of the white people, but no one black or white can win an election in this country without the votes of a whole lot of white people. Its mathematically impossible.
The converse isn't true. Its mathematically possible to win a Presidential election in the US without getting a single black vote.
quote: And why does that ridiculous division concerning African Americans in America exist in the first place?
The answer to that one again seems obvious -- Slavery and Jim-crow. Even before this countries inception, we had laws which allowed the systematic dehumanization of people of African decent. If you want to ask why race continues to divide us nearly a century and a half after emancipation and 40 years after the civil rights movement then there is something to debate. But you asked why the division exists in the first place -- that's a no brainer.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:The majority of Americans are white and in a democracy you can't be elected unless you satisfy the majority. That doesn't mean a black candidate has to satisfy all the white people or even a majority of the white people, but no one black or white can win an election in this country without the votes of a whole lot of white people. Its mathematically impossible.
To some extent, every candidate must placate the people who will vote for her, but I guess what I am really getting at is whether or not an African American must be forced to do so in a different way when it comes to white America. While John McCain simply has to show up as a white guy for some people to vote for him, it would seem that for some people, Barack Obama's color forces him to prove something beyond what John McCain would ever be forced to prove. In other words, for some people, clearly not all and maybe not even the majority, Obama must prove to those blue-collared white voters that he is not the angry black man who has come to take their children's spots in colleges and whatnot. The same goes for the African American community as well because Barack Obama is faced with the kind of conundrum that Irami seemed to reveal in his earlier post. For some African Americans, becoming that "kind" of black man who tries to fit in with white America makes them insensitive to black issues.
My question really then is why that seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst some African Americans and white Americans, and I believe it's an important question because it speaks to our racial attitudes and biases in this country. Thus, the division I speak of is not merely amongst black and white, but also between what "kind" of black person we see and what "kind" of black person we would elect. And thats a question that I believe defines the racial divides within America.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The answer to that one again seems obvious -- Slavery and Jim-crow. Even before this countries inception, we had laws which allowed the systematic dehumanization of people of African decent. If you want to ask why race continues to divide us nearly a century and a half after emancipation and 40 years after the civil rights movement then there is something to debate.
Slavery is looming, but there was a war to wash away quite a few of the sins. I actually think it was Jim Crow and urban white flight that sealed the deal, and a civil rights movement that was started with a court decision and articulated with an Executive Order. The Supreme Court and the Executive branch aren't the most democratic of institutions, and with Nixon's very effective "Southern Strategy," Bush's timely rumor of McCain's black step child, and the neglect with which criminal justice is administered, American whites have proven time and time again that anytime they feel uncomfortable, they don't have a problem digging their heel into black necks, and this American government is organized to enable them to do so. I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency. If they want to ease racial tension, whites should move back into the cities and send their kids to public schools, as a first step. Voting for Barack Obama is a cheap alternative.
[ June 06, 2008, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay, I live in the city and don't have kids. Do I get a pass, or do I still have to feel guilty? Does it help that there were two shootings within a mile of my house within the last week?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Slavery is looming, but there was a war to wash away quite a few of the sins. I actually think it was Jim Crow and urban white flight that sealed the deal, and a civil rights movement that was started with a court decision and articulated with an Executive Order. The Supreme Court and the Executive branch aren't the most democratic of institutions, and with Nixon's very effective "Southern Strategy," Bush's timely rumor of McCain's black step child, and the neglect with which criminal justice is administered, American whites have proven time and time again that anytime they feel uncomfortable, they don't have a problem digging their heel into black necks, and this American government is organized to enable them to do so. I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency. If they want to ease racial tension, whites should move back into the cities and send their kids to public schools, as a first step. Voting for Barack Obama is a cheap alternative.
See Irami, I think this is both a cheap trick and highly unproductive if we ever want to fully address and deal with racial problems. This is accusatory and extreme, it tends to lump people into groups they do not belong, and it will cause people to react negatively instead of logically because that's natural. When someone is offended like that, nothing good ever comes from it, and if your purpose was to do just that, then I believe you miss the point of what a productive and useful conversation would and should be.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Why should I give up my beautiful house in the suburbs and send my kids to substandard schools in order to prove I am not a racist? I pay for the schools even if I don't use them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:
quote:Richardson I think is the most well rounded candidate.
I'm not convinced on that. The anger toward Richardson by the Clinton team and others will be a factor that could weigh against him.
I mean well rounded in who I think would be the best president, best able to take over if anything happened to Obama, not most electable. But even then, I think you drastically overestimate the influence of Richardson's "betrayal" of Clinton. The Clintons and the high powered people that support them might be pissed, but you really think regular Joe citizen guy won't vote for him because he BETRAYED Clinton? To assume that I think vastly overestimates the average person's interest in politics, and further, overestimates their loyalty to the sensibilities of a particular candidate. Absolutely no one is going to NOT vote for Obama because Richardson is there. Anyone who is that pissed is already pissed at Obama for "stealing" the election, Richardson will just be icing on the cake. I'm not even slightly worried about it.
Irami -
Sometimes I feel like you won't be happy until you actually get White America to approve a national referendum on a statement that says: "We hate black people."
quote:I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency.
And it's statements like this that realy make no sense. I think much of America ALWAYS has to be brought along kicking and screaming, white, black, and everything in between. And who does most of that dragging? White people. White abolitionists, white elements of the Republican party in the 1850's and 60's. Whites by the hundreds of thousands who fought and died in the Civil War not just to preserve the Union but to free slaves. Whites by the millions who voted for people that passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. White by the millions who voted for Johnson and got the Civil Rights Act passed. White who fought to end Jim Crow, to end segregation, to elect blacks into local, state and national office.
You think all that happened in a vacuum, or that black America did it to the consternation of every white in the country? Yes, the opposition was whites, but it was progressive whites versus status quo whites, not all whites on one side and all blacks on the other. I'm not trying to say that we did it all, that's absurd. The pioneers in the black community that later became icons have earned their position in history. But they never would have gotten anywhere if not for whites. We did it together.
White America in the way you describe it doesn't exist. We aren't one solid voting bloc that thinks alike and votes alike on every issue. You're treating us the way the whites you don't like treated and treat blacks, as if they are all bad just because of what they are and the stereotypes that go with it. Maybe you should see to your own predjudices before you come after everyone else's.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Consecutive thread titles on Drudge
Obama confidence: 'In 2016, I'll be wrapping up my second term as president'... McCain would like to see man on Mars...
Guess which particular man Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Why should I give up my beautiful house in the suburbs and send my kids to substandard schools in order to prove I am not a racist? I pay for the schools even if I don't use them.
The argument (which has some merit, IMO) is that at the time of white flight, the schools weren't substandard... Except for the perception that the newly arrived African-Americans in the neighborhood were going to drag it down. Now, I think the argument goes, the only way to really fix the schools is to have folks move back in to town and thus have a real personal investment for improving schools.
For the record, you largely DON'T pay for another town's/city's schools, unless your state funds all of education.
-Bok
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: For the record, you largely DON'T pay for another town's/city's schools, unless your state funds all of education.
-Bok
I thought that was the purpose of Robin Hood laws- to equalize the amount schools get. I think both states I have lived in have had laws like that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Instead, Obama is going to spend the next eight months making white people feel like he shares their values. Now, I think he is going to lose anyway, and what's even worse is that I think he is going to lose while sucking up to "middle America." And if he wins, I'm just not convinced he isn't going take the same attitude to the white house, the attitude that threw his priest and Sam Power under a bus.
He has to make white americans feel like he shares his values. As though being black makes the effort duplicitous on his part somehow.
Okay. Seriously. Stop.
Stop.
The lens through which you interpret race relations and cultural realities is dominated by ... I don't even know what to call it. Two parts determined attempt to forever maintain race preconceptions, two parts philosophy of adamant and perpetual victimhood, one part double standard, one part assumption that whites will never be able to view blacks as equal, one part sweet&sour, and a dash of Sprite. Call it the Iramipolitan.
You need to stop trying to fit reality into your contrived and preconceived "Racial Contract" notions. The more you talk about race relations, the less you seem to know about them.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:one part assumption that whites will never be able to view blacks as equal
Actually, I do think that whites will be able to view blacks as equal. I just don't think that they will be able to view us as identical to them, which we aren't, for historical reasons. And in a panicked attempt to maintain their own financial stability, cultural sovereignty, and position of privilege in the hierarchical order, they will continue to look over their own hypocrisies, at home and abroad.
scholarette,
You can't buy your way out of civic responsibility, in military exercise or community engagement. Writing a check is qualitatively different from sending your kid to the military or the local school.
[ June 08, 2008, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You continue to perpetuate the myth that all whites view each other equally and that we view all blacks as different, but the same, and for that matter that all blacks do the same as well.
It's when you say stuff like that, that people stop taking you seriously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Actually, I do think that whites will be able to view blacks as equal. I just don't think that they will be able to view us as identical to them, which we aren't, for historical reasons. And in a panicked attempt to maintain their own financial stability, cultural sovereignty, and position of privilege in the hierarchical order, they will continue to look passed their own hypocrisies, at home and abroad.
'Actually, I do think that whites will be able to view blacks as equals. I just think that whites will not be able to view blacks as equals.'
You have just offered, as a defense, a totally contradictory double-statement which reinforces what I'm saying about you. How can you sit there, hit the corresponding keys, look at what you wrote, and then think to yourself "Yeah. Hitting 'Add Reply' is a good idea."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I guess I am missing why my child going to a bad school is my civic responsibility.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
So Irami Osei-Frimpong, are you going to respond to Humean316 and Lyrhawn's posts? I am anxiously awaiting your response.
[ June 08, 2008, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I think that the supporters of Ron Paul are going to have a heck of a time against the never let go supporters of Hillary Clinton in the imaginary elections of 08.
I still support Ron Paul, both financially and with introducing him to people. I have no belief he could possibly win, however I think he still can have an important influence in the Republican party to become more fiscally conservative and to get away from nation building.
Here is Ron Paul talking with Iraq Lawmakers. He is always worth the watch.
Part one: 3:48 minutes Part two: 9:19 minutes
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
There isn't much to say. I disagree. De Gustibus Non Disputatum Est.
quote:You continue to perpetuate the myth that all whites view each other equally and that we view all blacks as different, but the same, and for that matter that all blacks do the same as well.
It's when you say stuff like that, that people stop taking you seriously.
I will say that the "people" referred to in the last sentence are white people, and black people only to the extent that they are scared of the backlash from white people.
quote: This is accusatory and extreme, it tends to lump people into groups they do not belong, and it will cause people to react negatively instead of logically because that's natural.
Two things: 1) They should start learning how to suck it up. 2) "because that's natural" is hardly ever a good excuse for anything regarding human affairs.
[ June 08, 2008, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
And what do you have to say about all the white people who died and/or voted to end inequality? I guess they should just learn to suck it up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow, so every black person takes you seriously, unless they're scared of white people. What sad hubris.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I will say that the "people" referred to in the last sentence are white people, and black people only to the extent that they are scared of the backlash from white people.
So every black person who doesn't think you're full of it is afraid of not fitting in?
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
IMHO opinion race will become less of issue compared to class. I already see a huge disconnect between middle and lower class blacks. It's likely the same disconnect between middle class and lower class whites. Let's be realistic here, middle class white people look down on what they refer to as "white trash" the same way as middle class blacks look down on people from the ghetto.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wouldn't say they do so "in the same way." I would say they do so about as much. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I can't speak for every individual, I just speak the large swaths as I see them. You can try to catch me in some logical gotcha game if that makes you feel strong, but I don't use the words "every" or "any" too casually or at all.
This comment, "I will say that the 'people' referred to in the last sentence are white people, and black people only to the extent that they are scared of the backlash from white people."
Refers directly and only to this comment:
"It's when you say stuff like that, that people stop taking you seriously."
Now, I take people seriously, even if I don't agree with them.
[ June 08, 2008, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You can try to catch me in some logical gotcha game if that makes you feel strong
You frequently make no sense and say frustratingly racist and accusatory things which are very poorly reasoned. If pointing that out to you is now magically a 'logical gotcha game' that you 'play' to 'feel strong,' then thanks for making me feel like hercules over here.
The people here who aren't me are also touching upon this point, and repeatedly pounce upon your logical errors and fallacious sociological conceptualizations, and it all bounces off of you. You move forward, intent on making statements that I can only generously describe as oblivious. You have to wake up someday and realize some things about how you let fallacy and sweeping, improvised generalizations about blacks and whites (which are ironically more racist than anything else I've even seen in this forum and many others) draw you into making stupid statements and indefensible propositions about 'how society works.'
Or you are going to continue to make no sense and really have no credibility and people will keep needling you for it and pointing out the same obvious flaws that you never correct.
Which makes it more like theatre, but c'mon.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
The Michelle Obama whitey video has finally showed up on youtube, and it is not good. Not good at all.
Come one, dude, really.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama and McCain have both turned down an offer to have their townhall be on ABC. The both insist that the townhalls must be viewable on every station, the internet, and whoever else wants to show and see it.
But it's looking like they'll probably happen at some point this summer.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
You would think the GOP website would feature pictures of Mccain, but their website seems entirely devoted to smearing Obama rather than promoting their candidate:
How scared are they? =D
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Re: Senator Obama and accepting contributions from PACs and such, I seem to recall a segment on NPR last Friday I think it was where claims made by both McCain and Obama on the subject of donors-including most of Obama's-were viewed with extreme skepticism.
We'll see how things shake out.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: but their website seems entirely devoted to smearing Obama rather than promoting their candidate
Unlike the Democrats whose webpage immediately wants your money which does seem to be very telling and appropriate. DNC Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: but their website seems entirely devoted to smearing Obama rather than promoting their candidate
Unlike the Democrats whose webpage immediately wants your money which does seem to be very telling and appropriate. DNC
Isn't it a bit misleading to link us directly to the donation page rather than the DNC home page?
The GOP home page has a page for donations and the link to it is just as prominant and just as close to the top of the home page as the one on the DNC homepage.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Hmm, yes it is....the very first time I went there I just typed in www.dnc.org and that is where I went....I will have to check into this
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DNC.org does redirect to the donation page for first time visitors; I just tested it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I can confirm DK's experience. The first time I clicked on it, it took me to the donation page. Since then, it has been the main page.
---
The "smear the opponents" strategy didn't work for the GOP in the special elections. I don't see it working for them now. That strategy looks like it'd be playing to Sen Obama's strong points. He looks better the more people get to know him and, if Sen Clinton is actually seriously going to rally behind him, I don't think he's beatable with a primarily negative campaign.
Besides which, I just think it's wrong to do it that way. The primary focus should be building a case for your candidate. I hope that they move away from this soon. There are important points that need to be made or at least considered for Sen McCain's side. I still hope for a campaign that tries to honestly present the issues for people to choose between. (edit: An ideal campaign shouldn't end with the only real result of one side or the other winning, but rather with people coming to understand where people on the other side are coming from. There are often paths that combine the interests of the varying sides that may be as good or better than trying to pursue one side only, and even when you don't go with a compromise solution, there is value to understanding what other people are thinking. One of the reasons why I think that Barack Obama is a good candidate is that I think he understands this.)
Then again, I don't know the Sen McCain has a chance anyway, with the territory he's picked out. He's got to hope for some really good news from Iraq or really bad news from somewhere else. Without that, Sen Obama is likely to pick up the lion's share of independents and swing voters, and Sen McCain will have to play up the base, which isn't one of his strong points and is likely to hurt him even more further on.
That's the one thing I'm a little upset about. I would have liked to see a McCain campaign aimed at picking up the moderates because of the wedge it would drive between the GOP and their extreme base. It might have gone a long ways towards redeeming the party towards what I always wanted it to be.
[ June 09, 2008, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: You would think the GOP website would feature pictures of Mccain, but their website seems entirely devoted to smearing Obama rather than promoting their candidate:
I (cynically) think their strategy is to get people to NOT pay attention to McCain, because if they did, they probably wouldn't like what they see.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Thanks Squicky...I was thinking it had to be cookie related or something like that. Sneaky Democrats!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Honestly, I barely think that's bad.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Wow, the redirect to donations page for first-time viewers just seems dumb. Is that really the very first impression they want to make on someone who's never been to their website before? A sidebar link to the donation page from the frontpage, sure. Redirecting straight to the donation page? Stupid.
--Enigmatic
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Wow, the redirect to donations page for first-time viewers just seems dumb. Is that really the very first impression they want to make on someone who's never been to their website before?
I think that the assumption that although this maybe a persons first visit to the website, it is unlike their first impression of the DNC.
I think most people who go to the DNC website aren't going there to decide whether or not they support the democrats.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I would be incredibly surprised if they haven't done research into new users of the DNC website, and figured that a redirection to the donations page best served their goals.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've never been to the DNC page, and considering their low fundraising figures recently, I'm betting a ton of others haven't either, they all go to Barack Obama's website. Either way I wouldn't care, chances are if you go to the DNC website, you're probably going to donate anyway. Why else go to the DNC site and not the candidate's site?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There was a Yahoo article yesterday saying Obama was considering Retired Generals for VP. My first thought, "Wasn't Powell a Republican?"
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Party affiliation aside, I think that Powell's been too tarnished by his role in the Bush administration to be an effective VP for Obama.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There was a time when Powell was respected by the majority of Americans. He blew his credibility with his speech to the UN on Iraq which turned out to be a pack of lies.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yep.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't feel bad for Lisa. I am sure I support Ron Paul as much as she does, and I don't feel bad. Ron Paul has said over and over again that his focus/revolution is to help change the Republican Party back to it's more fiscally conservative and non interventionist roots. He is working at using his funds wisely to maximize influence.
Eat that news casters who kept focusing on his libertarian run for presidency and disbelieving him when he said he would not run third party. He's been the most honest republican candidate.
While I would have loved a Ron Paul presidency, I am happy that he is being wise about how best to influence politics and how to use his cash reserves. His book is also timely.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And he may be out of this race as a candidate, but he's still talking good sense.
I find whats hes saying completely unsubstantiated by the facts, as a Canadian and a citizen of a country thats taking up the vast lions share of the rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan I know only all to well that we NEED MORE US support in Iraq not less, Afghanistan is not a write off like iraq we can accomplish something here we can do something but we can't do it forever.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
When the US is so deep in debt, why on earth should we be spending billions on any other country?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because it is a reinforcement of the lesson to declining superpowers that Imperial overextension has its unforseen consequences for them and the rest of the world, a rapid withdrawl of American strength too fast and too soon may cause instabilities elsewhere, its a domino effect. Chop off the finger to save the hand, no need to hack off the arm.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When they talk about generals for VP candidates, I think they are mostly talking about Wesley Clark, but I'm sure there are other dark horse candidates. I think the actual list of candidates is down to like 20 people.
I hope for the country's sake that Ron Paul doesn't return to obscurity. I might not agree with his minimalist policies entirely, but he talks a lot sense, and he deserves a seat at the table.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: They blamed much of the decay on shortsighted thinking by local, state and federal officials.
So all the money we have spent so far has been misspent on who knows what and to solve the problem we are going to give the people who created the problem even more money????
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: From Lyrhawn's link
quote: They blamed much of the decay on shortsighted thinking by local, state and federal officials.
So all the money we have spent so far has been misspent on who knows what and to solve the problem we are going to give the people who created the problem even more money????
Hm.
I wonder if they plan to request supplemental funding?
From what I've read in numerous other articles, that's largely because the Fed or states will never provide enough money to actually do a real long term project that could last awhile. So instead, they provide just enough money to patch things up and last a little bit longer instead of spending more to do it right. It's a huge problem from top to bottom that requires some serious investigation and fixing, and much more money.
Noemon -
That's disappointing. It's widely assumed that Obama has nothing to gain in such a setting since he has so much more money, McCain needs the free media, plus it's his home turf. But I think Obama absolutely needs the format, both because of his message and because of his percieved lack of hard policy. Hopefully something will change soon and we'll get a couple of these. 10 seems unnecessary. I mean, I just don't think they need that many. But three or four, and then the formal debates if they are really necessary in the Fall, would be sufficient.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, I agree--10 would probably have been overkill, but a handful of them would have been good. I'm not sure that I agree with you that Obama needs these; given the cash advantage he's got, I think that he'll probably just be able to outspend McCain and win that way. However, I wish that he'd have them anyway. I'd like him to win because the majority of Americans are pursauded by his vision rather than the depth of his war chest.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I cannot BELIEVE that Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack obama's "baby mama."
It's so racist and disrespectful at the same time I'm shocked it went on the air.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: I'd like him to win because the majority of Americans are pursauded by his vision rather than the depth of his war chest.
I think you've got an overly optimistic view of how American elections work.
There's a chunk of people out there who won't vote for Sen Obama because he's a Muslim.
---
DK, I'm not sure I understand your comment. The mayors mentioned in the article aren't the same people who have been making poor, short-sighted decisions on infrastructure.
Also, the article talked about people trying to move away from the short-sighted system into one where infrastructure would hopefully be treated as a long-term investment.
I'm just not sure what you'd like to have happen with infrastructure problems. Could you explain?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I'd like him to win because the majority of Americans are pursauded by his vision rather than the depth of his war chest.
I think you've got an overly optimistic view of how American elections work.
: laugh: : No, I'm aware of how naive that wish is.
[Edited to get rid of that stupid emoticon]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Noemon -
I agree that that's how I'd like this election to go as well. I think Obama probably could get by just from outspending McCain all over the board. But I also think he underestimates himself if he thinks he can't take McCain in an open forum.
But really, he's opening himself to a lot of damage by not doing more than one. He says he'll debate "anytime anywhere," attacks the politics of the past, and that he's looking forward to debating McCain, and then only one townhall and the rest are the chereographed debates that we're all grown tired of for 40 years? If I were an independent, that'd push me towards McCain.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Good point, Lyrhawn.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I cannot BELIEVE that Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack obama's "baby mama."
It's so racist and disrespectful at the same time I'm shocked it went on the air.
They're the same people who labeled their fist bump a "terrorist fist bump".
It's Fox News. They don't have a sense of decency. That's one of the reasons that a big chunk of their target demo tunes in.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
RIP. Russert had his detractors, but I always liked the guy. He got massive kudos from me last month for being the first prominent newscaster (well, after Olbermann perhaps) to bluntly point out that Obama was, short of complete self-annihilation, going to be the Democratic nominee.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Wow. Thanks for quoting on that, Tarrsk; I missed Dag's post.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that going back on what he said and limiting the town hall debates reflects pretty poorly on Sen Obama. I hope that this is just developments along the way and not the final state of things.
10 debates does seem excessive, but 1 seems too few, especially when it is intentionally set for a time where there would be many fewer people watching.
If Sen Obama does have the substance that many people seem to believe he lacks - and I think he does - this is a good way for him to show it. It is also something I think we should expect from our candidates, especially one who has said he would do it anywhere, anytime.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I cannot BELIEVE that Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack obama's "baby mama."
It's so racist and disrespectful at the same time I'm shocked it went on the air.
They're the same people who labeled their fist bump a "terrorist fist bump".
It's Fox News. They don't have a sense of decency. That's one of the reasons that a big chunk of their target demo tunes in.
They're rapidly losing viewers this year, faster than the other networks--O'Reilly is behind Olbermann in ratings for the first time.
Also, RIP Tim Russert.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jesus, that's sudden. I liked Russert. I agree that it'll likely have no effect on the final outcome, but it's sad, both because it's sudden and tragic, and also because we have one less good reporter talking about the process and only more bloviating to fill the void.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If Sen Obama does have the substance that many people seem to believe he lacks - and I think he does - this is a good way for him to show it. It is also something I think we should expect from our candidates, especially one who has said he would do it anywhere, anytime.
Depends. If they toss him only softballs, like they've done before, it won't highlight anything.
And I don't think he lacks substance. It's that his substance is simply more of the same. There's no "change" here at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
proof.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If you claim you're for change, the burden of proof is on you. You have to say what kind of change you're for. You can't just throw around the word and have it actually mean something.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think there is more then abundant proof discussed on these very forums that reiteration is unnessasary.
If you say the sky is green when it is obviously blue it is up to you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami: I still think that American whites have Manifest Destiny sensibilities and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the appearance of decency.
You are a racist. How about that?
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I cannot BELIEVE that Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack obama's "baby mama."
It's so racist and disrespectful at the same time I'm shocked it went on the air.
Well, it is worth mentioning that Michelle Obama has used the term 'baby's daddy' in reference to Barack at a stump event. Clearly, she doesn't find it to be overwhelmingly offensive.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm not sure how the two are equivalent. "baby moma" is a derogatory slang term applied to black single mothers. Does "baby's daddy" have a similar connotation of which I am not aware or do they just sound similar to you?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:My husband, my man, my honey, my babies' daddy, Barack Obama!
"Baby momma" has a bunch of bad connotations to it. "Baby daddy" does too, for similar reasons. "Babies' daddy" does not in the context of her statement. The two aren't even comparable.
--j_k
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm not sure how the two are equivalent. "baby moma" is a derogatory slang term applied to black single mothers. Does "baby's daddy" have a similar connotation of which I am not aware or do they just sound similar to you?
Why is this relevent to this thread? Remember awhile ago when Obama said he'd attack inside Pakistan if he had actionable intel? Remember when he was roundly criticized for it by members of this Administration, and Republicans everywhere?
President Bush this last week in Europe also promised that diplomacy was the best way to go with Iran, despite the fact that he with others have roundly criticized Obama for wanting to meet with their leaders.
We don't yet know whether or not any Pakistanis were actually killed, but it seems like it may have been bungled, and possibly at the worst possible time for US/Pakistani relations that are already frayed very, very thin.
I guess my point is twoful: Interesting that so many would criticize Obama on one hand and trumpet the President on the other when they seem to have similar ideas. On the other hand, Obama would hardly want to say "hey, the President and I are buddy buddy on military issues!" considering the railing he's doing against the President.
Though he might get by on something close to "the President is finally starting to make some good choices..." to change the dialogue to his favor. Bush is taking a dramatically different track with Europe recently to try and get stuff done, even showing remorse over his previous "tough talk" style of "diplomacy."
The President certainly doesn't have a problem being in the limelight during the election.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'ld consider the violation of territorial sovereignty a big no-no irregardless of the circumstances, isn't this a casus beli in most circumstances?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ June 14, 2008, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'ld consider the violation of territorial sovereignty a big no-no irregardless of the circumstances, isn't this a casus beli in most circumstances?
Casus beli is often whatever the country that declares war says it is. In today's world, no, that isn't casus beli, at least not to most nations.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:My husband, my man, my honey, my babies' daddy, Barack Obama!
"Baby momma" has a bunch of bad connotations to it. "Baby daddy" does too, for similar reasons. "Babies' daddy" does not in the context of her statement. The two aren't even comparable.
--j_k
Agreed. Here it's obviously a pop culture reference, and not some kind of racial gaff. As part of a list of appellations, it's tame.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'll agree it's disrespectful. I don't think it is (necessarily) racist.
I think it's pretty dumb of FOX to have done but not necessarily any dumber than letting Michelle Malkin be a regular guest.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is racist, because "baby mama" is a woman who has children with a man who is not her husband or boyfriend or partner. It means that not only did she have kids while not married, she had them with someone with whom she was not even romantically involved.
There was no context, and it was not respectful. For MO's comment, calling Barack her babies' daddy was part of a long list of traits that started with "my husband." Not even comparable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'ld consider the violation of territorial sovereignty a big no-no irregardless of the circumstances, isn't this a casus beli in most circumstances?
Casus beli is often whatever the country that declares war says it is. In today's world, no, that isn't casus beli, at least not to most nations.
So if Russia launched a conventionally armed ICBM and destroyed what they considered a terrorist target within US borders this would be COMPLETELY fine with you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'ld consider the violation of territorial sovereignty a big no-no irregardless of the circumstances, isn't this a casus beli in most circumstances?
Casus beli is often whatever the country that declares war says it is. In today's world, no, that isn't casus beli, at least not to most nations.
So if Russia launched a conventionally armed ICBM and destroyed what they considered a terrorist target within US borders this would be COMPLETELY fine with you?
If the terrorists were fleeing through the mojave desert when they were hit with said ICBM, sure why not? You afraid the cacti will form a PAC?
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is racist, because "baby mama" is a woman who has children with a man who is not her husband or boyfriend or partner. It means that not only did she have kids while not married, she had them with someone with whom she was not even romantically involved.
There was no context, and it was not respectful. For MO's comment, calling Barack her babies' daddy was part of a long list of traits that started with "my husband." Not even comparable.
You've completely neglected to explain why this is 'racist'. Disrespectful, sure. Baby-mama is not an exclusively black term.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Baby-mama is not an exclusively black term.
But it did start in the black community to address a rampant, complicated problem in the black community, a profound problem with the state of black love, and one that in no way touches the Obama family. You can talk about Obama this and Obama that, but he seems every bit the good husband and father. It's as if someone said that Obama got his domestic policy ideas from the 48 Laws of Power, looking passed his background as a constitutional scholar and a legislator. It's disrespectful and it's racist, but it's not a big deal. The guy is running for president, people are going to call him names.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
From the article aspectre linked to above:
quote: It also looked calculated to spark debate on the future of the Supreme Court – one of the most important election issues for many conservative voters.
I suspect that this is a miscalculation on McCain's part, if this is really his intent. The future of the Supreme Court is important to many people across the political spectrum. I could see this turning moderates away from his camp, and I could certainly see it being enough to drive disenfranchised Clinton supporters to hold their noses and vote for Obama.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree. I think it'll play excellently with his base, but this election is largely I think going to be won in the middle, as much as it will be about bringing out voters from their respective bases, and for all his tough talk, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on. I think if McCain and his ilk had their way, they'd do away with the Supreme Court entirely.
At the same time, Obama has to be careful with his rhetoric, or McCain will easily paint him as a terrorist appeasor. Still, I lean heavily towards agreeing with Obama. We're a nation of laws. We've already experienced a degree of, for lack of a more potent phrase, inter arma enim silent leges, but when we deny these rights that we consider fundamental not just for Americans but for ALL people eveywhere, you have to really start wondering who we are as a people. The Founders talked about inalienable rights for all men, not just for Americans. I think that'll be the best argument for him to use against McCain's "but Obama wants to give special rights court dates to people who just a few months ago were killing Americans!"
Blayne -
quote:So if Russia launched a conventionally armed ICBM and destroyed what they considered a terrorist target within US borders this would be COMPLETELY fine with you?
In Blackblade's hypothetical, I wouldn't be completely fine with it, but I certainly wouldn't declare war on Russia over it. There are, by the way, lots and lots of degrees between "COMPLETELY fine" and war.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Al Gore is endorsing Obama tonight in Detroit.
I was going to go see it, it's at the Joe (Joe Louis Arena) and it's free, but my grandpa is coming into town tonight and I'm not even sure I'd be able to get in anyway. I wouldn't be able to leave until 5 and doors open at 6. Much as I'd love to see Gore and Obama, I think I might pass.
Interesting though that a second major endorsement is being done in Michigan. Obama is certainly taking our "battleground" status seriously.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Tough luck, Blayne, ya hafta root for McCain. China's official news organ, the People'sDaily has slammed Obama. OTOH, Irami's gained support for his contention that Obama is "just another whitey dedicated to keeping the black race down."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I read the article aspectre and unless our understanding of english is radically different from each other it didn't "slam" Obama it merely cautioned its possible American readers to not hold to high of expectations of wide ranging reforms.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MrSquicky From the article:
quote: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Congress to abandon the tradition of earmark spending, in which individual lawmakers often deliver dollops of taxpayer money to small local projects that don't provide much help for the long-term needs of their districts.
"We're as guilty as anybody," Bloomberg admitted. "We ask for money for things that are totally local, and why the federal government does it, I don't know. They shouldn't be doing it, although we will continue to ask as long as they are giving it out. Our senators have the obligation to bring home the bacon like everybody else does. ... Seems to me the Senate should get together and say together, 'We're not going to do it anymore.' "
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not getting the relevance of that DK. Could you explain?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: OTOH, Irami's gained support for his contention that Obama is "just another whitey dedicated to keeping the black race down."
The greater danger is ceding whites the power to pick and choose black leaders. It's like the Archbishop of Canterbury picking the Pope.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Or like people of goodwill taking a racist like yourself seriously.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
. . . I really don't know what you mean by that, because the most obvious way I can interpret that in the context of Obama is that you think any black President would need to be elected by black people but not white people, and I think that is too absurd even for you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Squicky -
DK is talking about the discussion we had at the top of this page about infrastructure spending and earmarks. Honestly I'm not sure what point he is making though I think he is saying that Bloomberg is admitting that Mayors ask for and use these funds even though everyone realizes that it'll have no long term good.
But in the same article he decries the practice and says that Congress needs to say no and stop doing it, but he also says that they need to start doing projects with long term interests in mind, and I agree.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
There are a few of those coming out soon, and on the other side against Obama.
The PACs are coming...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lyr, I get what conversation he's referencing. I just don't see what he is trying to say with that quote. From what I can tell, it doesn't support what he was saying.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Ah okay. Yeah I'm with you there, I don't really get what he's saying with that either. Knowing him, I think I know what he's TRYING to say, but without explicitly stating his point, you could take that article a couple different ways.
Strider -
Wow, that's a huge reversal from before. Obama was trying to make an argument as to how he could win without those states, more or less writing Florida off entirely and hoping to keep MI and PA and maybe pickup OH and then leverage the difference with VA and maybe SC. The electoral college is looking funkier all the time. Also don't forget that several states have signed on to that compact to apportion their delegates to the popular vote winner. I think that has passed in 4 states now.
In general news -
It looks like the latest controversy is going to be over Continental Shelf Drilling, or offshore drilling, which has been banned for like 20 years. Bush is saying it's the way we secure energy independence, and I'll leave out for a moment the ridiculousness of that argument. McCain in 2000 was against the practice, and is now supporting it. Ironically, the two states that perhaps have the biggest stake in the issue are California and Florida, both who have Republican governors, and both who oppose the Federal government forcing offshore drilling on them. Arnold says no, outright. Charlie Crist in Florida says he isn't going to reject the idea, but that state governments should decide, and nearly every coastal state says no, emphatically. Most everyone loves the idea of more domestic production, but no one wants it in THEIR back yard. Especially in a swing state like Florida, McCain is going to have a hard sell with this one, and it might be a great place for Obama to pick up some points.
Florida would've been a great place for one of those townhall meetings that he turned down. Bad move Obama.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Also don't forget that several states have signed on to that compact to apportion their delegates to the popular vote winner. I think that has passed in 4 states now.
Depending on the states, that could be a huge deal. I'm surprised it's not getting more press. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are you saying that some states are agreeing to drop the electoral college "winner-take-all" system for the general election?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
President Bush is pushing for starting off-shore drilling. From what I've read, Sen McCain is saying that he wants to end the federal ban, but leave it up to the states to decide.
---
I never took the primary matchup polls seriously for either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama versus Sen McCain. The supporters for either had no resaon to say that they would vote for the other Democratic candidate and lots of reasons to say that they wouldn't.
I'm pretty sure, come November, nearly all the states that could be in play are going to be.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Also don't forget that several states have signed on to that compact to apportion their delegates to the popular vote winner. I think that has passed in 4 states now.
Depending on the states, that could be a huge deal. I'm surprised it's not getting more press. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are you saying that some states are agreeing to drop the electoral college "winner-take-all" system for the general election?
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement to apportion electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote. So even if a majority of voters in the state vote for one guy, whoever wins the national popular vote gets all the electoral votes. Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey have all signed onto the Compact and it is now state law. New Jersey has swingstate potential, but Illinois, Maryland and Hawaii have traditionally been fairly safe Democratic states.
I took am surprised, given the fact that Illinois has 21 electoral votes, and as Obama's home state is expected to go to him. But if McCain gets the popular vote, that's a big swath of votes he'd steal away.
The measure was passed in both houses of the California state legislature last year but was vetoed, and has since again been introduced and sits in the Senate I believe after being passed by the House. Similar measured have been introduced in one or both houses of state legislatures in North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota and a couple others and still remain in the legislature as introduced legislation.
All in all, between the four states that have signed on, there are 50 electoral votes that will automatically go to the national popular vote winner regardless of who that state actually votes for. (IL - 21, HI - 4, MD - 10, NJ - 15).
Largeley I see this is as a lose only position for Obama, since I think he'll win all, or at least three of those states, and if McCain can win the popular vote it'll be an electoral landslide, but frankly I don't see that happening. I think Obama's voter registration efforts in communities and enthusiasm for his campaign make him far more likely to win the popular vote, even if he loses the electoral college. Far more in the south, where Democratic turnout especially among the African American population is often depressed, there will be a huge uptick this year in turnout, that even if it doesn't win him those states I think will put him over the top in the popular vote.
So whenever you see any speculation for those four states this year, it's likely the commentators are just wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All in all, between the four states that have signed on, there are 50 electoral votes that will automatically go to the national popular vote winner regardless of who that state actually votes for. (IL - 21, HI - 4, MD - 10, NJ - 15).
Wow. That's amazingly stupid.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Wow. That's amazingly stupid.
How so?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I suppose those votes could represent the spill over votes we get from every state where you don't have quite enough for another electoral vote.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I'd just like to say thanks to all of you who regularly post links and the like- I come to Hatrack to get my news more than any other place. So yeah- keep up the good work!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
How so? They're giving away their votes. A majority votes for one guy in the state and because of the national popular vote, the guy they voted for gets nothing? Yeah, that's beyond stupid.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I thought there was a condition on those laws that they didn't go into effect until enough states had signed on that there were enough electoral votes committed to decide the election. In other words, once states totally 270 electoral votes make a similar law, then each of their electoral votes goes to the winner of the popular vote. In the meantime they are assigned in the old way.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kat - You could make the same argument for the status quo. I vote for a certain guy in my state but since my guy gets however many less votes, every vote that was cast for him makes zero difference nationally since the winner take all system means the minority is entirely shut out for that state, and the guy I vote for gets nothing.
Eljay -
Whoops, apparently I don't know what I'm talking about. I missed the part about when it goes into effect, and frankly that makes a heck of a lot more sense. Thanks for the correction. Sorry about that!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yeah, it would be pretty silly otherwise. I remember reading about it in 2004, though, and I was pretty sure there was that loophole there. It's basically an end-run around the electoral college, and I think it has a much better chance of getting the president directly elected (effectively) than trying to actually abolish the electoral college. I also don't think it will get enough states to sign on until/unless we have another situation where the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the election. Too much inertia otherwise.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I saw this on DailyKos. Their post said that it made McCain look "creepy" but I think it shows that he has a sense of humor..
Using something like this against McCain would be pretty dumb...
[ June 19, 2008, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: the_Somalian ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Sen. Barack Obama notified supporters Thursday that he has decided not to accept public financing for his general election campaign. Sen.
In an e-mail message, Obama said the decision means that his campaign will forgo about $85 million in public funds that would be available when he officially becomes the Democratic presidential nominee in August.
"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama wrote. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."
What do you think? This decision does allow him to raise and spend significantly more money than he would be able to otherwise, so its not exactly like this is going to hurt the campaign, just the opposite.
[ June 19, 2008, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I agree that it's a neccesary step Obama's campaign had to do. The extra money will outweigh the political hay McCain is trying to make out of it.
I see that AP has swallowed the meme that Obama "committed" to take public financing in the general, despite the weak language he used in a questionnaire last year.
quote:Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well. [snip snip] Last year, both Obama and McCain indicated in separate commitments that they would participate in the public system for the general election, as long as both candidates agreed.
In response to a questionnaire in November from the Midwest Democracy Network, which is made up of nonpartisan government oversight groups, Obama said: "Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Not much of a commitment. *shrug* Obama's campaign did have talks with McCain's about this. They were fruitless.
I do admire this from the McCain campaign:
quote: "Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds."
I admire both it's chutzpah, coming from a candidate who's thumbed his nose at the FEC, and it's sly use of Watergate. It implies corruption without needing to lay out a case for it.
Ultimately, I don't think the McCain campaign will change any significant number of votes by harping on this.
quote:When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The most frightening possible outcome of this is a court action in, say, Maryland about what the actual popular vote count in Florida was.
Granted, the odds of that happening are slim, because one state totals have much less impact under a national popular vote system. But if the disputed amount in one state exceeds the national margin, the resulting legal tangle would be impressive, to say the least.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
He never promised to accept public funding, though I think that he probably didn't live up to aggressively pursuing a publically financed general election.
Considering how Barack Obama has raised most of his funds from small donations, I think he's pretty close to the spirit of public financing anyway.
Maybe a minor bad, but pretty minor to me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
McCain Camp Timeline of Obama and Public Funding Hmmm, there's a little more to it. Obama's said a bevy (a pack?) of weasel words about accepting public financing, not just that Nov. '07 questionnaire.
AND McCain's using Clinton's blasts about this issue against Obama.
Yeah, nobody saw that coming.
I still hope the issue won't get any traction. McCain's weak statement washing his hands of any responsibility for 3rd party attack groups helps Obama's case.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have no problem with him turning it down. The grand majority of his money is coming from small five, ten and twenty five dollar donations to his campaign from regular people, over a million of them now, including me as of a few days ago.
If he can outraise the government election fund using regular citizens to do so, then I think that's not only fair, I think it's preferable. I still think the public financing option should be available to level the playing field a bit, but I'm okay with this. Republicans have had a fundraising advantage for years, and now McCain is going to cry foul? Meh.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
(After reading the linked time line) Yeah, but there is the problem of him making a commitment to this several times. If he's going to break that now, I'd like him to be upfront about it. "Yes, I said this. It was a mistake to bind myself like that. I feel confident that with the lion's share of my fund raising coming from regular people that the spirit of what I was trying to do is intact."
I'd respect a politician who realizes they want to change their course and owns up to it, while also remaining true to the basic principle of the thing.
[ June 19, 2008, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
two funny headlines on the cnn political ticker...almost back to back
Cindy McCain: Families of candidates not fair game Cindy McCain not backing down on Michelle Obama comment
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The grand majority of his money is coming from small five, ten and twenty five dollar donations to his campaign from regular people
Can you provide a definitive source on that. I haven't seen one that I'd feel comfortable citing to, but the consensus seems to be that most of his money comes from $200+ donations, and that he has a lot of max ($2300) donors. Also I've seen claims that he has a significant number of $200,000+ bundlers.
I've also seen claims such as the one you make here. Neither side seems to be sourced better than the other. I'd love to see something definitive on this one way or the other.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think the Obama camp tries to stress the small donations as much as possible to make a point. I agree that must also get a good bit of larger donations as well, or he wouldn't have raised as much money as he did, but I also think it's fair to say he's raised an unprecedented amount from smaller donors.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The NYT articles said that 90% of his money came in increments of less than $100.
quote:All indications this year are that Mr. Obama will have no problem raising more than that amount for the general election; he raised $95 million in February and March alone, most of it, as his aides noted Thursday, in small contributions raised on the Internet. More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.
This is ambiguous. It could meant that 90% of the money came in individual contributions of $90 or less. Or, it could mean that of the total number of individual contributions, 90% were for $90 or less. If the latter, then it's likely that significantly less than 90% of the money came in through $90 or less transactions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Unless he mispoke, I'm pretty sure it's the latter.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Ok- is this really the story or is this the news "interpreting" things? Obama said that he thinks we can fight terrorists within the bounds of the Constitution and McCain responded that's naive, pre 9-11 thinking. Surely a candidate running for a position where they take an oath to uphold the Constitution is not really saying that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.
This is ambiguous. It could meant that 90% of the money came in individual contributions of $90 or less. Or, it could mean that of the total number of individual contributions, 90% were for $90 or less. If the latter, then it's likely that significantly less than 90% of the money came in through $90 or less transactions.
This is not making sense to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
scholarette, That's most likely coming from their reactions to the recent Supreme Court rulings on the prisoners in Guantanamo. I'd be amazed if it wasn't some pretty out there extrapolation of something like this.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm of a few minds about this. I wish Obama would have accepted the public financing because I don't like the idea of any candidate buying an election, and I'm sure Obama is going to be able to outraise McCain by a large margin. I liked the idea of them going forth with even monetary resources. Then again, why not raise the limit and let individuals donate as much as they'd like?
The good part of public financing, for me, was that it would lead to a campaign that depended on the quality of the message rather than the number of donors. I don't envy McCain's position here. I mean, for a candidate to champion limited government, but then have his hand out to the voters is a peculiar position. The truth is, I'd rather have public financing and relatively free and equal media time for the candidates. I'm not sure that raising money should be the primary objective for the future President of the United States.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:More than 90 percent of the campaign’s contributions were for $100 or less, said Robert Gibbs, the communications director to Mr. Obama.
This is ambiguous. It could meant that 90% of the money came in individual contributions of $90 or less. Or, it could mean that of the total number of individual contributions, 90% were for $90 or less. If the latter, then it's likely that significantly less than 90% of the money came in through $90 or less transactions.
This is not making sense to me.
Suppose I receive individual contributions in the following amounts:
10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.
These total $550. 9 of these contributions are $90 or less. That means 90% of the individual contributions are $90 or less.
However, only 450 out of 550, or 81%, of the total money contributed came from contributions of $90 or less.
The maximum donation by law is $2300. Each single max contribution is greater than 25 $90 contributions. This would magnify the effect I illustrated above. If we had 10 $90 donations and one max donation, the total donations would be $2750. 90% of the individual donations are still $90 or less. But now only 16% of the total amounted donated comes from individual donations of $90 or less.
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. Again, I don't have hard figures on Obama's finances. I just know that the statement presented is ambiguous about which meaning applies.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I'm of a few minds about this. I wish Obama would have accepted the public financing because I don't like the idea of any candidate buying an election, and I'm sure Obama is going to be able to outraise McCain by a large margin. I liked the idea of them going forth with even monetary resources. Then again, why not raise the limit and let individuals donate as much as they'd like?
The good part of public financing, for me, was that it would lead to a campaign that depended on the quality of the message rather than the number of donors. I don't envy McCain's position here. I mean, for a candidate to champion limited government, but then have his hand out to the voters is a peculiar position. The truth is, I'd rather have public financing and relatively free and equal media time for the candidates. I'm not sure that raising money should be the primary objective for the future President of the United States.
Firstly by putting a cap on it, hopefully it will lessen the impact of lobbyists on the electoral process making it a campaign that relies on public support rather then the support of the rich and powerful.
I think the truth of the matter is that I don't think people really trust whichever organization is in charge of "keeping things fair" to remain fair.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depending on your opinion, that'd either be the FEC or Congress. I certainly don't trust Congress on it, and as of now, the FEC is without a quorum, and can't do anything at all.
Congressional Democrats are forcing the issue on McCain's own public financing problems, to come to a decision on whether or not he broke the law on loans he received.
I'm surprised McCain hasn't made any comments about his flipflopping on OCS drilling. I agree with Squicky on Obama and public finance though. While I don't have a problem with him opting out of the system, I would have liked to see him give a better explanation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the taxpayer-financed system, administered by the Federal Election Commission, and Obama's chosen path diverge in significant ways. Obama's campaign isn't built entirely on small donors--about 55 percent of his total haul so far has come from big donors (those giving more than $200), CRP has found.
Obama has 141,658 donors who've given over $200, 28,215 who've given the max of $2300. He's received 55% of his money from those giving over $200, and 28% from those giving the max.
For McCain, it's 52,564 donors who've given over $200, 15,953 who've given the max of $2300. He's received 76% of his money from those giving over $200, and 46% from those giving the max.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:A single question in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll says all you need to know about the problems facing Republicans in the fall election.
Asked if the election were held today which party's candidate would they vote for in their own congressional district, 53 percent of registered voters said they would back the Democratic candidate, compared with just 38 percent said they would support the Republican candidate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, it's looking ugly for Congressional Republicans this Fall. I think they're going to lose as many as six Senate seats, with only one real chance to pick up a seat, in Louisiana from embattled Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Plus I think they'll hold on the Minnesota, as I really don't see Al Franken winning, but you never know. Even he has a lot going for him.
But the problem for Republicans is downticket racing. It was bad enough 2 years ago during the midterms when they took heavy losses, but this time around, Democrats and independents are flocking to and rallying around Obama, which will have a huge effect on downticket racing, which is most significant because Obama is campaigning in every state, which few Democrats I can think of in recent memory have really tried seriously. It will drive up turnout in districts that are usually heavily Republican, largely because Democrats don't bother voting in presidential years because they think there's no point.
Combine that with a glaring lack of enthusiasm on the Republican side, their lack of rallying around McCain as a standard bearer, and the three big failures this year in special election runoffs, most notably in MS-01, and yeah, they have a big, big problem.
I don't think Democrats will come away with a fillibuster proof 60-40 advantage, but I think it could be as wide as 57-43, which will still give them a big advantage. Republicans will have to be careful in how they use their fillibuster, or Democrats will threaten to do what Republicans threatened to do a few years back, which is to change rules to eliminate the fillibuster entirely. And either way, inaction will only spur more losses amongst them, and they'll be forced to negotiate rather than stymie with those kinds of margins. In the House, Republicans have a chance to steal back some of the seats they lost in the midterms. A lot of right leaning Blue Dog Dems got elected to Republican districts by slim margins, and the glow might have worn off two years later, giving a lot of Republicans a chance to win back their seats, but incumbency is a big advantage. Besides, they're going to lose in a lot of new places. I could see a net gain of another 20 seats for Democrats this Fall easily, barring a major shift in the country's politics. If the economy is still bad in six months, which I think it will be, and the war in Iraq isn't doing anything, or even gets worse, then McCain will be in even more trouble, and it'll spell doom all over the map.
Even Ted Stevens of Alaska might lose his seat, which is telling. Alaksa has voted Republican in every presidential election except 1964 since it became a state. He's been in the Senate representing Alaska since 1968, along with Alaska's only Representative, who has been elected to 17 straight terms in office. He's popular because of his ability to bring home a surprising amount of money to a state with a relatively tiny population. But he's facing a big challenge from I think the former mayor of Anchorage, and is also facing multiple charges of corruption and is being investigated by the IRS and FBI.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that more democrats will vote in Texas this year, not enough to flip us, but it will not be the blowout it normally is. The primary showed that there are more of us out there and just knowing that should help get people out voting.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Plus I think they'll hold on the Minnesota, as I really don't see Al Franken winning, but you never know. Even he has a lot going for him.
Franken isn't the only option. Former Governor Ventura is thinking about entering the race as a third party candidate. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's interesting! I hadn't heard that. Ventura is a weird figure in Minnesota politics. He's anti-teacher lobbys, which will hurt him with liberals, but he's also pro abortion, and pro gay rights, which will kill him with the Republicans. With any serious opposition, I wonder if he'd really draw moderate votes from both sides and make it a real three way race. He does have a few good ideas to my mind, but he also seems to be a bit of a gaffe machine, and didn't run for reelection after having a sharp drop in popularity. And all that will come back in a campaign. I don't know enough about politics at the state level in Minnesota to know which side his running would help more.
Noemon -
Looks tactical to me. In general it looks tactical. Democrats caved because they want the issue settled before we really get into the thick of the election so Republicans can't hammer them for being weak on domestic security, and in order to do that they granted retroactive immunity, not even knowing what the hell they are granting immunity for. It was a political move. I'm glad the program has ended, and that FISA courts would be restored to their rightful place, but Americans deserve to know what happened to their records and how such a breach was allowed to happen.
As for Obama, I'm not satisfied with his explanation. On the surface it looks EXACTLY like old school politics and smacks a bit of a sort of betrayal of his espoused principles. The bill still has to be voted on by the Senate I think, so we'll see what happens. I'm most interested in hearing Dodd's speech on the matter, as he has been an ardent and well spoken opponent of the provision, and is also an Obama supporter.
Voting for a bell that has something in it that you oppose isn't automatically wrong. It happens all the time. No bill is perfect and no one is ever 100% totally satisfied with a bill. But the pill he has to swallow here was pretty big. I would have either liked to see him reject the bill entirely with that provision and then campaigned on why he thought he was right, or I would have liked to see something more strong than "we'll get 'em next time!" as his defense for this caving.
Bit of a let down, but that's my knee-jerk reaction. I was pretty stunned when I heard about the deal that Hoyer announced today when I was listening on NPR, and I'm even more stunned to find Obama supporting it. But like most times, I'm still awaiting more details and analysis.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm starting to wonder about the money issue at hand now over fundraising. I'm reading stories about how Obama will raise half a billion dollars for the Fall campaign, and that he'll outspend McCain by as much as 8 to 1, and since McCain will have nearly $90 million for the Fall Campaign, that's a crazy guess.
But Obama's fundraising seems to have tapered off a bit in recent months, even as McCain's has picked up a bit. McCain can't actually raise that much more money from what I understand. Since he is taking public financing, he's limited to what he can raise, and from what I can tell, he's over the limit for what he can spend for the primaries, which technically we're still in for another month and a half.
Election day is four months and change away. Obama has less than $35 million on hand, and he's raising between $35 and $50 million a month on average. Where is this massive war chest supposed to come from that everyone is talking about? Even if he raised $60 million every month for the next four months, he still wouldn't have the vast sums of money that a lot of analysts are talking about. Is there an element I'm missing here, or is there some really faulty journalism going on?
Recent reports have questioned the money advantage that many assume the Democrats will have. May was the weakest month yet for Obama, and was McCain's strongest. The RNC has several times over the funds that the weakened DNC has. That means it will fall on Obama to spend to help a lot of downticket races that traditionally the DNC would fund. Obama has raised almost $300 million so far in this campaign, which is a massive amount of money, but that represents over a year of fundraising. How is he supposed to raise that again, and then another half of that, in three or four months? Something's not right here.
In polling news, Obama has surged to a 15 point lead in a recent Newsweek poll. Not like it means anything this far out.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lyr, the DNC is cash-poor, but the democratic senate and congressional re-election groups have a very large advantage over their Republican counterparts.
At least, if electoral-vote.com is to be believed.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm looking at the site, but I don't see where they is any kind of fundraising breakdown. Can you link me?
Edit to add: On rereading your post, are you talking about the DCCC and it's Senate counterpart?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Still, what's clear is that energy policy is a major issue in this year's election, and nothing highlights that more vividly than today's bold proposal by Senator McCain to offer a "$300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."
You read that right: McCain wants the U.S. government to offer $300 million for the development of a car battery that is 30% cheaper than current technology
quote: For starters, he suggested that automakers that fail to meet current efficiency standards should be subjected to greater fines. He also wants to see Detroit build more flex-fuel vehicles, and proposes more incentives "to increase use of domestic and foreign alcohol-based fuels such as ethanol." (One way he wants to increase the use of foreign ethanol is through the abolition of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, which is cheaper and far less energy-intensive to produce; he also wants to reduce or eliminate subsidies for American corn-based ethanol) Finally, McCain discussed a 'Clean Car Challenge' that would "provide U.S. automakers with a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they develop and sell."
What I'm most curious to hear is how Congressional Republicans respond to this, but I certainly have no problem with it. Private donors have already already come together to create the $10 million X Prize, to the winner of a competition to create a 100mpg car that is commercially viable, and is relatively cheap. But a major boost in funding will I think get more people involved and result in better, faster results.
The tax credit sounds good but, I don't think it'd do much. Tax credits only work for people who pay enough taxes to get the money back. McCain is offering tax credits for so many things, who but the uber wealthy will actually pay enough taxes to actually collect on all these things? Someone making $25K a year isn't going to get enough out of a credit like that to make buying such a car affordable. It's the problem with offering $5K tax credits for health care to the poor when the poor pay few or no taxes.
I think the better solution would be to give the tax credits to the car manufacturers themselves. They can fully realize the benefits, collect full value, and then drop the price of the car accordingly, which will make it much more affordable to regular people. It's either that or I find a rich friend to cosign with so they can write me a check after I buy it.
But the idea is sound, it's beyond sound, it's awesome. I hope Obama comes back with something equally impressive! This is the beginning of what could be the kind of debate on science and technology that I was waiting for. Regardless, it's an impressive announcement that, given the Congress, stands a good chance of becoming law if he's elected.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:One way [McCain] wants to increase the use of foreign ethanol is through the abolition of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol, which is cheaper and far less energy-intensive to produce
I'm not sure I like the elimination of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol. It may be cheap, but wouldn't it pretty dramatically hasten damage to the rain forest there? Those types of areas, as I understand it, are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth. It doesn't sound like a good trade off.
Other than that, though, it's good to see McCain addressing these issues.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think the better solution would be to give the tax credits to the car manufacturers themselves. They can fully realize the benefits, collect full value, and then drop the price of the car accordingly, which will make it much more affordable to regular people. It's either that or I find a rich friend to cosign with so they can write me a check after I buy it.
Isn't that what the proposal is? According to the part you quoted:
quote: Finally, McCain discussed a 'Clean Car Challenge' that would "provide U.S. automakers with a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they develop and sell."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The tax credit sounds good but, I don't think it'd do much. Tax credits only work for people who pay enough taxes to get the money back. McCain is offering tax credits for so many things, who but the uber wealthy will actually pay enough taxes to actually collect on all these things? Someone making $25K a year isn't going to get enough out of a credit like that to make buying such a car affordable. It's the problem with offering $5K tax credits for health care to the poor when the poor pay few or no taxes.
That depends on how the credit is designed. Some tax credits, such as the EIC, are "refundable" and can reduce tax liability below zero. These types of credits aren't limited by how much tax one earns.
Do you have some information that the credits proposed are not refundable? I've been very annoyed with the coverage of tax credits in this campaign because the articles seldom mention this aspect of the plan. And it's crucial.
Edit: plus, what dkw said.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry dkw. I actually read three or four different articles on McCain's proposal, and most of those I read said that he was offering the credits to consumers, not the manufacturers. I'm going to have to look into that and report back, because there seems to be conflicting info.
Dag, my understanding of credits is that they reduce your total tax. So that if you pay $3K in taxes, a $5K tax credit would just reduce your taxes to zero, and you'd get that $3K back in cash, but you can't get more than you pay in from a tax credit. But I'll be the first to admit that tax law isn't my forte.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, my understanding of credits is that they reduce your total tax. So that if you pay $3K in taxes, a $5K tax credit would just reduce your taxes to zero, and you'd get that $3K back in cash, but you can't get more than you pay in from a tax credit.
That's correct for some tax credits, not others. My complaint with the coverage is that it almost never makes it clear what type of tax credits are being discussed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
McCain's words specifically:
quote:For every automaker who can sell a zero emissions car, we'll commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be; the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
On credits: Ah okay. I didn't know that. And I agree, the coverage often sucks. It's those details that could make or break the actual usefulness of many of these proposals for the majority of people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: McCain's words specifically:
quote:For every automaker who can sell a zero emissions car, we'll commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be; the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
Well that could certainly go either way. He needs to clarify.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
quote: I'm not sure I like the elimination of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol. It may be cheap, but wouldn't it pretty dramatically hasten damage to the rain forest there? Those types of areas, as I understand it, are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth. It doesn't sound like a good trade off.
Other than that, though, it's good to see McCain addressing these issues.
The usual sugar-cane plantation sites over here in Brazil are, generally, far away from the rainforest, whose biggest predators, nowadays, are ILLEGAL loggers and cattle dealers. Ethanol is a major fuel option over here since the 70's. Today it's waaaaay cheaper than gasoline.
Oh, yes. See... I'm all for preserving my country's endangered rainforests. Heck! I "preach" a lot about that in my classes and to people in general. Still, it never stops to amuse me when American or European people, who already destroyed their own forests decades (or centuries) ago talk about undermining my country's newfound economical growth under the (usually bogus) premise of enviromentalism (most peopple do not utter such nonsense in good faith - which I believe you really did). What can I say? Stop drilling (and excavating) Alaska, already! Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama has asked top contributors to help his former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, retire her debt, an Obama campaign source said Tuesday.
Obama did not direct members of his National Finance Committee to contribute to Clinton's campaign, the source said, but asked them to do so if they were so inclined.
Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination this month.
She has amassed a campaign debt of about $22 million, but about $12 million of that is money the New York senator loaned to the campaign herself.
Individual donors can contribute $2,300 to individual candidates.
Interesting move. I'm not sure exactly what the desired message is: "we're on the same side, we help each other"? I just hope people don't see this as a pity move by Obama.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Not pity, pragmatic. There's been talk about him doing it since before she conceded. If she has to focus on fundraising to pay off her debt, she can't focus on campaigning for him. If his donors help her pay if off she'll be a lot more motivated to help get him elected. Especially since if she doesn't pay back the part she loaned herself before sometime in August she loses all but $250,000 of it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Helping someone who has $100 million pay off her debts is just about the lowest priority I can come up with.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yep. If I wanted to support Hillary, I would have given her money before.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It must be hard to fundraise to pay off debts. I can't imagine what an effective "pitch" would be.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
She doesn't have $100 million. She's made $108 million over the past 8 years. I imagine she's spent some of that on, say, her house in New York and townhouse in DC and a bunch of pantsuits, among other things. And even if she had it, her debts are going to basically equal a quarter of that. I would have a real hard time paying off debts equal to a quarter of my net worth, and probably wouldn't be able to pay off debts equal to a quarter of my income for the past 8 years.
Granted, we're talking about vastly different amounts of money, and she probably can afford to lose the money she's loaned her own campaign. Especially since Bill is probably going to continue pulling in huge speaking and consulting fees for the forseeable future. But I can understand her wanting to not loan her campaign any more money to pay off debts. . . I think it's reasonable for Obama to ask his large donors to consider donating to her to cover the $10 million or so she owes other people. The request only went to people who have already donated the maximum to his campaign, so presumeably they are people who can afford to kick another grand or two to her. I get Obama's fundraising emails, and I've certainly only gotton ones asking for more money to him, nothing for her.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Y'know, he's probably a good part of the reason Bush won in 2000. And he's continued to run in election after election, long after there was anything to be gained from it beyond stroking his own ego.
But I think this is the first time I've really wanted to say: Nader? Shut the hell up.
This is not helpful to the nationwide discussion. It's tacky, insensitive, and stupid. Do you have so little of merit to say for yourself that you're attacking a candidate for not echoing you?!
[ June 25, 2008, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I'd have more respect for Nader if he would run for government offices other than President. Try to get a governorship or a become a congressional representative, go for something that he might have a shot at winning instead of being a candidate just to have a soapbox.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader told the paper in comments published Tuesday.
"Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards,"
I agree, and I'm glad Nader spoke up. I'm also shocked that nobody has spoken out about this. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American."
A swing and a miss.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yep. If I wanted to support Hillary, I would have given her money before.
Thank you. Word for word that was precisely my response when I first saw her plea for money. What in God's name would I give her money after she failed when I never wanted to give her money to help her win?
Eduardo -
I don't know, most of what I read on Brazil, other than illegal logging is that an area of the size of Massachussetts disappears every year (or so) due to slash and burn tactics used on the Amazon to clear more land for farmers. Vast tracts of new farm land crop up every year where there wasn't any before. And yeah, I can easily see how it'd look pretty silly for a nation that has clearcut its way from coast to coast to lecture another country about deforestation, but there's two things to that: 1. Two wrongs don't make a right. It was stupid of us to do it, and we'll pay local consequences for it. 2. Climatologically, your forests are more valuable than ours. The value of the Amazon as a carbon sink is dramatically more important than the forests of the American east or even more so than Alaskan forests.
To be fair, I'm perfectly okay with coming to some sort of international agreement whereby Brazil gets some sort of compensation or benefit from keeping the Amazon intact. Once it's gone it's gone, and it's your demand for more exports and ours for imports that's fueling the deforestation as much as anything else.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh one more thing. I think it's Noemon that's the big Sam Powers fan, but either way I think you'd all appreciate this article she wrote for TIME magazine on American leaders dealing with enemies abroad.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks Lyrhawn!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Thank you. Word for word that was precisely my response when I first saw her plea for money. What in God's name would I give her money after she failed when I never wanted to give her money to help her win?
I might have made a donation back in March to get her to drop out sooner. A pity she never tried that as a fund raising tack. 'I'll suspend my compaign as soon as I've raised enough money to pay my debts'. I bet it would have been popular enough to crash her fund raising web page.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Still, it never stops to amuse me when American or European people, who already destroyed their own forests decades (or centuries) ago talk about undermining my country's newfound economical growth under the (usually bogus) premise of enviromentalism (most peopple do not utter such nonsense in good faith - which I believe you really did). What can I say? Stop drilling (and excavating) Alaska, already!
Eduardo, You do realize how utterly obsurd that is? America and Europe aren't monolythic creatures. Its not as though we think and act in unison first destroying our own habitat and then chiding others for doing the same.
The Americans or Europeans who are gungho to drill and excavate in Alaska are almost never the same people as those who are trying to halt destruction of tropical rainforests. Those who are destroying North American Temperate forests by over logging, are not the same people who are worried about destruction of tropical rainforests.
I have donated money to groups who work to preserve Tropical Rainforests in places like Brazil. I've donated alot more of both by money and time trying to preserve forests and wildlands in North America. The only thing I have in common with the people who destroyed the forests of the US and Europe, or the people who want to drill the Alaskan wild life refuge or strip mine Montana, is that we were born on the same continent. I can't see that this makes me responsible for their actions or a hypocrit because I'd like to see other places in the world avoid similar mistakes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But I think this is the first time I've really wanted to say: Nader? Shut the hell up.
Good luck getting that guy to shut up. He's like a relevance zombie.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
The Rabbit, as I said, I'm all for Rainforest preservation, and I did mention that I believe people here are talking in good faith (although many others, unfortunately, have a hidden agenda in their 'protect the Amazon' statement). The most important part in my post is that, usually, sugar-cane farmers do not burn the Amazon because the best areas for such plantations are elsewhere in Brazil. It would be nice if all enviromentalists were as you, but it just isn't true. Anyway, sorry if you found fault in my previous statement. My bad.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"DON’T fault Charles Black, the John McCain adviser, for publicly stating his honest belief that a domestic terrorist attack would be 'a big advantage' for their campaign and that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination had 'helped' Mr. McCain win the New Hampshire primary." "...McCain terror expert...former C.I.A. director James Woolsey...cheerleader for Ahmad Chalabi...who helped promote phony Iraqi W.M.D. intelligence in 2002."
[ June 29, 2008, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Can someone explain to me is so awful about Wesley Clark's comments which McCain attacked and Obama rejected?
quote: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not,' " Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences either nor has he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable point to bring up if people are talking about experience. I do think military service is a plus for a president, particularly because it usually means a bit more understanding of what war really is before getting the country into one. But it seems to me that McCain's senate experience is much more relevant than his POW experience.
I don't see why this should be a closed topic. If anything, McCain and his campaign should treat it as an open door to have a discussion on why military experience matters and what a person gains from it - I don't think that's a hard thing to convice people of, and it seems a better reply to Clark's comments than dismissing them they way they seem to be. But I'd really like to hear from someone who feels differently on this, because I feel like I'm missing something here.
--Enigmatic
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree with you. We have gotten really touchy, though, and anything that looks like he is dissing someone's military service is problematic for Senator Obama since he hasn't served int the military and is already fighting the "unpatriotic" rap. I think General Clark has every right to bring this up.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I see nothing wrong with those comments. He basically just said that being a POW doesn't qualify McCain to be president. Which it really doesn't.
And he said it after praising McCain and his service and saying he was a hero... I don't get it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think it was slate that said that this campaign seems to be the umbrage campaign. Personally, I am getting sick of it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was hoping that Obama wouldn't reject his comments. I think what Clark said was perfectly fair, and actually respectful all things considered.
It's a perfectly valid point to bring up, and just goes to show, like kate said, how touchy we are, and how scared everyone is of being painted as unpatriotic. It also goes to show, I think, that military glorification is a part of our culture now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course, belittling the service of democrats is fair game.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Of course, belittling the service of democrats is fair game.
Just because a member of McCain's Truth Squad used to be a Swift Boater does not mean McCain agrees with them. And besides, the Swift Boaters were about bringing forth truth, whereas Clark is just trying to make McCain look bad. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
The Christian right is going to be really confused this election. McCain is kind of leaving them in the dust, maybe his VP pick will pander to that group- but especially his renunciation of several prominent pastors' (John Hagee and the like) endorsement of McCain.
And then you have Barack Obama started to try and get more evangelical votes. Since most of my friends and family are unequivocal members of the Christian right it's interesting to see that really none of them like McCain, but don't know what to think of Obama.
That's the most fascinating part of this election to me, but that's for religious reasons more than it is for political ones.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The Christian right is going to be really confused this election. McCain is kind of leaving them in the dust, maybe his VP pick will pander to that group- but especially his renunciation of several prominent pastors' (John Hagee and the like) endorsement of McCain.
And that'll get even MORE interestig if he picks Romney as his running mate. They'll be baffled.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Yeah. Huckabee might be a somewhat safe choice though for that regard- I don't know too much about his other credentials and how he'd fit with the McCain campaign and message.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And that'll get even MORE interestig if he picks Romney as his running mate.
While I agree, for me it would simplify things as I wanted Romney in the first place. Huckabee always seems a little out there with mis-placed priorities to boot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
CNN's political ticker is starting to really annoy me. Every day this week that I've opened up CNN the headline has either read "New poll shows troubling signs for Obama" or "New poll shows worrying trend for McCain." After a couple of them, you start to wonder if ANY of them matter if it's just going to bounce back and forth every day.
I feel a little special as Michigan hasn't really been bombarded with a lot of ads in recent years, but we've been carpet bombed by Republican ads lately, and a smattering of Obama ads too. There's a tv version of the web ad that's been airing that portrays McCain as the savior of the environment and Obama as unwilling to do anything for innovation. It leaves me seething every time I see it. It says Obama is against cutting the gas tax, which is true, but doesn't mention any of the couple hundred economists who say that it's a bad idea because people will just drive more and drive the price back up. It says he is against nuclear power, which is just a blatent lie. He doesn't love it, but he realizes it'll probably be necessary. It says he is against innovation, but he proposed a $150 billion energy initiative to get us off oil and into future energy products. An idea that McCain attacked. And Obama has said no to OCS drilling because there are a lot of unused leases that oil companies aren't drilling on, it won't yield results for a decade, and I can't think of a single state that is clamoring for a repeal of the moratorium. It's just such a dishonest ad, and I'm surprised to see him come out with such a dishonestly negative ad so quickly.
Now I'm wondering what's out there with Obama's name on it. Anyone catch any bad Obama ads on TV?
In other news Obama will be holding his acceptance speech not at the 20,000 seat convention center where the Democratic National Convention is, but instead at the 75,000 seat Invesco Field where I think the Broncos play. While it might seem a no brainer that he'll be able to fill all the seats, I wonder if that'll be the case. It's summer in an outdoor stadium with a dynamic and popular figure, so maybe. He filled 20,000 seats easy here in Detroit. I suppose if they don't charge, or don't charge much, for tickets to get in, they won't have a problem.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Now I'm wondering what's out there with Obama's name on it. Anyone catch any bad Obama ads on TV?
The answer is on the website you link to for your anti-McCain message Obama Work Claim and just to go back a bit... Obama's Lame Claim Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CNN's political ticker is starting to really annoy me. Every day this week that I've opened up CNN the headline has either read "New poll shows troubling signs for Obama" or "New poll shows worrying trend for McCain." After a couple of them, you start to wonder if ANY of them matter if it's just going to bounce back and forth every day.
Yeah, this far out I don't think that the polls aren't really worth paying attention to.
quote:I feel a little special as Michigan hasn't really been bombarded with a lot of ads in recent years, but we've been carpet bombed by Republican ads lately, and a smattering of Obama ads too.
That's interesting. From what I've read, McCain is out-spending Obama by quite a margin on TV ads in Missouri, with the airwaves saturated with McCain ads and there just being a few Obama ads here and there in amongst them. I wonder what the Obama camp is up to; they certainly have deep enough pockets that they could be matching McCain ad for ad if they wanted to. I wonder if this is part of some strategy on their part, or if there is some fumbling going on in terms of putting together a strategy for the general.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Good Interview. The Military Times Editorial Board should be allowed to host a debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Yeah, this far out I don't think that the polls aren't really worth paying attention to.
I agree. And the analysts even say so. Historically polls this far out are wrong as often as they are right.
quote:That's interesting. From what I've read, McCain is out-spending Obama by quite a margin on TV ads in Missouri, with the airwaves saturated with McCain ads and there just being a few Obama ads here and there in amongst them. I wonder what the Obama camp is up to; they certainly have deep enough pockets that they could be matching McCain ad for ad if they wanted to. I wonder if this is part of some strategy on their part, or if there is some fumbling going on in terms of putting together a strategy for the general.
It's curious. From everything I've read McCain is way behind Obama in terms of organization. I think it's possible that Obama just doesn't want to spend the money this far out, he'd rather wait until people start to pay more attention. But he's still spending big chunks of money, mostly in states that didn't get a lot of attention during the primaries. He spent a lot of time im Missouri, and he has Claire McCaskill schilling for him whenever she's home. She apparently is gaining a lot of importance pretty quickly for a freshman senator.
I have seen a few Obama ads, just not as many as McCain. But Obama is pushing for a 50 state strategy this time around, which McCain can't hope to keep up with. It's possible that a lot of his money is going right now to places he didn't see a lot of during the primaries, and is thus keeping away from places that already know him well.
Here's some pretty big VP news: Webb says no to being VP. With Webb out of the running, that really widens the guessing game. I think that pushes Biden, Richardson and Sibelius into the top three most obvious choices.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, I saw that bit about Webb on TPM earlier this afternoon. Interesting, eh? Sebelius is definitely the person I'd like to see in the VP slot, but I feel like either she or Richardson would be good choices. I'm not so sure about Biden. On the one hand, he's got a ton of great experience. On the other hand, he can barely open his mouth without sticking his foot in it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Webb has plenty of time to run for higher office if he so chooses to. He probably felt that this wasn't his time, and it might be a good choice, as the Republicans would be sure to hit the Dems for running two first term senators on the same ticket.
I agree about Biden. He DOES speak rather...candidly. Sometimes I appreciate the straight talk he gives, or at least the bluntness of it, but it'd likely offer up too much ammunition to the opposition. I agree on Sebelius. I think electorally she brings women and the midwest to the table, but I think Richardson is just the better VP. I think his vast international, domestic and executive experience make him the perfect second in line in case anything happens to Obama. I think they are both responsible choices, and I think they'd both do a great job of filling in any gaps that Obama might have in his own experience.
DK -
I don't count the job thing. He works a summer job, it might me mildly dishonest if you take "worked my way through school" to mean that he worked a job while he was taking classes, but this isn't a vital matter of policy OR of personal history, and as such, the distinction doesn't much matter to me, which is why I didn't include it when I brought up those others.
But the "lame claim" one certainly looks weak. And that isn't going back that far, it's only a couple weeks ago.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Obama may not have the experience of being shot down while flying a fighter plane in Vietnam, but he now has the experience of a forced landing in St. Louis during a July heat wave.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Was it a corkscrew landing? Because if it wasn't, it doesn't count for nothin'.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But the "lame claim" one certainly looks weak. And that isn't going back that far, it's only a couple weeks ago.
Agreed. Obama's decision to not accept public financing was made out of political expediency, and nothing else. His attempts to frame it as anything else are just spin.
[Edit--I can't really blame him for going with the private financing, but I was a bit saddened to see him do it. I really liked the idea of he and McCain going toe to toe on equal footing, and the winner becoming so by virtue of the strength of his arguments. We've been over that, though.]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I saw a clip where Obama raised his hand that he supported public financing for elections. Is there any other evidence that he had committed to using public financing for his campaign? His raising his hand in response to that question doesn't say to me that he agreed to USE public financing, only that he supported its existence.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Top of page post!! Mwhahaha!!
*runs away cackling madly*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, he talked about it quite a bit early on, before it became clear what a fundraising juggernaut his machine would turn out to be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Some perspectives from around Asia on the presidential election:
I gained respect for Jackson after the remark. For all the pomp surrounding Jackson's considerable ego, Jackson making such a visceral remark off-camera shows that he is still invested in the black community.
There is a way to make blue-blood look good. The Kennedys did. Chris Dodd does it. John Biden does it. On being considered for VP:
quote: "I made it clear to him and everybody else, I never worked for anybody in my life. I got here when I was 29. I never had a boss. I don't know how I'd handle it."
[ July 12, 2008, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Slate had a vote to select VP candidates for both Obama and McCain.
Results are here.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, that's accurate. Ron Paul followed by Mitt Romney.
EDIT: Paul's vote differs from his previous vote on Kucinich's impeachment articles. His position is based on supposed constitutional violations rather than Kucinich's which focuses on Bush's actions leading up to the war with Iraq.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Woah.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
That blog post is terrible, Threads.
Here's a somewhat more understandable version of what's happened (courtesy of AP).
The lone article of impeachment has not "passed" in the House. It has been sent to committee as have all Kucinich's previous articles of impeachment. In this case, however, the Speaker indicated that there would actually be hearings regarding the article. She pointed out that this was not, in any way, the first step to removing Pres. Bush from office. Rather it was just a forum for discussing the current administrations abuses of executive power.
To me, it seems like a cynical way of using the current Congress to play election year politics, by televising a list of grievances against the current administration.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Or maybe this is the only way Cheney gets a crack at the Oval office. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The house sent Kucinich's impeachment articles against Cheney to committee last year. I guess it's Bush's turn this year.
Also, on the vote, 100% of the Democrats in the House supported it. As a side note, of the recent House votes listed at GovTrack, the Dems refused to break ranks much more often than the GOPers (for Dems, 98% support or higher on 55% of votes; for GOP, 98% support or higher on 34% of votes). The GOP got this "iron-fisted party" (to quote the DailyKos post) reputation under Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, but recently it's been the Dems who have been afraid to break with party leadership. Maybe Nancy Pelosi needs a catchy nickname: Nancy "the Screwdriver" Pelosi, perhaps.
<edit>Oops; I included both House and Senate votes. If we restrict just to the House, we have 65% for Dems and 41% for GOPers. Averaging over the 17 House votes listed, Dems garnered 98.7% unity while GOPers achieved 95%. Anyway you slice it, the Democrats are a more cohesive party right now.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: To me, it seems like a cynical way of using the current Congress to play election year politics, by televising a list of grievances against the current administration.
To me, it seems like Congress finally getting on record their objection to the abuses of the executive branch.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think you will find that when a party is in the majority, there is a strong pressure to tow the line to actually make that majority matter.
I wonder if there are stats on it out there?
-Bok
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: To me, it seems like Congress finally getting on record their objection to the abuses of the executive branch.
I guess they have been pretty busy over the past two years. They were probably so swamped that the soonest they could get to this just happens to be a couple of months before the election.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I think you will find that when a party is in the majority, there is a strong pressure to tow the line to actually make that majority matter.
My hypothesis is that its a second order effect. I would guess that in 2005, when (IIRC) the GOP still controlled the House but Dems were widely viewed as "on the rise" that you saw greater Dem cohesiveness. I think it's a natural ebb and flow, but that it's not tied to power but perceived changes in power. By that hypothesis, the greater cohesiveness among Dems indicates a perceived continued ascendancy (which matches polling data for the upcoming election).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Where is the judgement here? It is likely not to be a big deal, but why would he even mention it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How many "gaffes" does Senator McCain get to make before he stops being the candidate with foreign policy experience?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Which recent gaffe are you referring to? His referring to the non-existant border of Iraq and Pakistan, or his twice referencing the present day non-existant country of Czechoslovakia?
Their excuse seems to keep being that he's constantly misspeaking. I think it's less damaging to his foreign policy experience than it is contributing to the "old man constantly forgets things" problem. I think at this point, the second problem is going to end up hurting him more. No matter how many little gaffes he makes, I don't think Obama will be able to dislodge his foreign policy cred with a nation that really isn't that interested in geographic or even geopolitical details like that. But Obama COULD successfully make him look like an old dottering mistake ridden fool. That only servces to make Obama look more young and vibrant, and McCain more old and knocking on death's door.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I stopped caring about the election when I realized that they are closer to each other than either of them are to me. Both of them are going to ignore education and punt on criminal justice. They are both pro-death penalty, and to be honest, in terms of alternative energy, I think it's even money between them.
I took Bush's win in '04 pretty hard, and I'm not going to vote for Obama just to vote against McCain. And since I can't stomach voting for Cynthia "Don't you know who I am" McKinney, I guess it's going to be Nader.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Then you stopped caring for your nations future.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Then you stopped caring for your nations future.
The world is not going to end if McCain is elected, and it's quite possible I'm not going to like a Barack Obama America.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How would you know? He could very well go off his rocker and order some random country of brown people nuked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The world is not going to end if McCain is elected, and it's quite possible I'm not going to like a Barack Obama America.
I thought the same thing in 2000 Bush vs Gore. While I suppose the world has not technically ended, the difference between Bush and Gore has turned out to be far more consequential than I would ever have imagined.
The difference between the republicans and the democrats are indeed very small compared to the difference between political parties in most other countries, but Bush has shown us exactly how great the consequences of those small differences can be.
I'm quite confident that a Barack Obama America won't be my ideal America, but I'm also certain that an Obama America is far more likely than a McCain America to be an America I can live with.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: While I suppose the world has not technically ended
But it has ended in a general sense? Really? Things are that bad? We are that close to having the world end?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I don't think "generally" is the proper antonym to "technically" in this sense, perhaps "metaphorically" might be better.
"The end of the world" is a common metaphor for generic catastrophe and in my opinion Bush's presidency has been catastrophic in many many ways.
[ July 22, 2008, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nader, Irami? Really?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: The federal government must not impose an overemphasis on high-stakes standardized tests. Such testing has a negative impact on student learning, curriculum, and teaching by resulting in excessive time devoted to narrow test participation, de-enrichment of the curriculum, false accountability, equity and cultural bias, and excessive use of financial resources for testing, among other problems. Federal law should be transformed to one that supports teachers and students -- from one that relies primarily on standardized tests and punishment. The government should encourage schools to infuse their curriculum with civic experiences that teaches students both how to connect classroom learning to the outside world and how to practice democracy.
quote:Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
Make Math and Science Education a National Priority: Obama will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels. Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
There are a lot of bells and whistles in Obama's plan, but I think it's still fundamentally wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That still doesn't explain a vote for Nader. Nader's position on most things is closer to my own as well, but that doesn't actually matter since he has no chance of being elected President in 2008.
The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.
Given the option of using your vote to help choose whether McCain or Obama will be our next President, or using your vote in symbolic protest of these options -- why would you choose the latter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Drive-by post from Alexandria, VA.
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.
I understand this, but I think I'm justified if I didn't have a horse in the Democratic Party.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Drive-by post from Alexandria, VA.
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think the Iraqi PM is really putting the republicans in a tight spot.
The unspoken goal of the Republicans in Iraq has always been to set up permanent US military presence there. The right wing won't consider it "victory" unless the US is able to maintain a military presence in the region to protect oil interests and Israel. What's more, the McCain campaign is heavily invested in the argument that democrats want to "cut and run" and don't have the stomach to continue the fight against terror. Additionally, the republicans have been pushing the "surge has been successful" angle as evidence that the proposed democratic time table for withdrawal is unneeded.
The recent revelation that the Bush administration's current proposal included defacto permanent US military bases in Iraq (despite admin claims to the contrary) set off a fire storm in the Iraqi parliament. The Iraqi leaders know that their government will never be considered legitimate as long as US forces remain in Iraq. They know that setting a time table for US withdrawal is the primary thing they need to stabilize the country. Now they've put themselves on record in support of a Time-Table that closely matches the one Obama has proposed.
How can the republicans respond? If McCain supports the time-table the Iraqi's have requested, he is forfeiting the major card he's been playing against Obama. (Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.) Despite that, its a change in position that won't play well with the hard core republican base and that could be a big problem financially for the campaign.
If McCain tries to go the other way and continue opposing a time-line for withdrawal, it will be hard to keep arguing that the surge has worked, that real power has been turned over to the Iraqi government, and that our efforts there have been "successful".
It sure looks like a lose, lose situation for McCain.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:The simple fact is that unless there is some dramatic unforeseen change, our next President will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. Choosing to vote for Nader, Paul, or any other third party candidate, is a choice not to participate in choosing our next President.
I understand this, but I think I'm justified if I didn't have a horse in the Democratic Party.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Drive-by post from Alexandria, VA.
Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think the trip was a couple things. Before he even went, the trip was both necessary and fraught with possible pitfalls. McCain has said dozens of times that he should go, and when he went, it could look like he only did it because McCain challeneged him to rather than because he actually wanted to or needed to. Frankly I think CODELs are a big waste of time generally, but I'll make an exception for this one only because Senator Jack Reed is there with him, and he has a reputation on MidEast CODELs for getting around the handholding and talking to people on the ground that can offer unvarnished opinions on what is really going on.
McCain has spent Obama's entire trip hammering away at him, sometimes unfairly misrepresenting his positions and statements, but I think on the whole he's got the general gist right. The media precursored the whole trip as a giant potential disaster, but I think thus far it's been largely pretty mundane.
If you look at the regular news, you'd probably just see McCain breathing fire and Obama looking like a statesmen, which you'd think would be bad enough, but not really. If you look a little closer to the news this week, you see that the White House sent a peace envoy to meet with Iranian diplomats, and that Al-Maliki has agreed with Obama that there should be a timetable for withdrawel, added to recent disagreements with the White House over any sort of long term agreement on the composition of US forces in Iraq, which Maliki and others in Iraq have said will NOT be a permanant fixture, and many there favor a designated deadline for withdrawel.
Add to that some of McCain's recent verbal gaffes on things like where Iraq and Pakistan are on the map (or he's just confusing Iraq and Iran), not knowing (twice) that Czechoslovakia is no longer a country, and his previous Sunni-Shiite gaffes, and I think you have a feeble looking McCain lashing out, and a prescient looking Obama that the rest of the world wants to deal with and that Iraqi leaders agree with and appear to be supporting.
It's really all in how you frame it though. Despite these facts, recent national polling data shows McCain with a 20 point lead over Obama in "would the candidate make a good Commander in Chief?" On the bright side for Obama: 1. That's pretty much the only thing that McCain leads Obama in. 2. At present, this isn't about Iraq and terrorism, it's about the economy. The fact that McCain is spending so much time on the war I think proves how desperate he is to keep the country fixed on the issue because he knows that's how he wins. Obama to his credit is doing a halfway decent job of pivoting between the economy, where he is strong, and trying to bone up on his foreign policy cred to take that issue away from McCain.
But the bigger problem? Other than die hard politicos like anyone reading this thread, no one really gives a damn this far out. For all the hand wringing and tours and the tens of millions of dollars they've spent on ads (McCain REALLY pumped out the ad buy in June), the polls haven't budged, and Obama still leads by a couple points.
There's a lot of murmering in the blogosphere, even on CNN I think, about the McCain camp naming a VP this week, and most of that buzz is centered around LA Governor Bobby Jindal, who McCain is set to meet with later in the week.
And news for Lisa: Ron Paul is apparently holding his OWN convention as an offshoot of the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis next month. He just recently announced that he was moving it to a larger 18,000 seat venue due to overwhelming responses to his initial announcement.
Also McCain and Obama released their fundraising totals for June. McCain raised $21 million in June, his best month yet, while Obama raised close to $52 million. Hillary Clinton, with $25 million plus in campaign debt raised about two and a half million, retiring 10% of her debt. She used that money to pay small vendors that she still owed rather than the big ticket items like herself, or her campaign strategist Mark Penn who she owes upwards of a million dollars.
McCain has been spending through the roof lately on ad buys while Obama's spending, while decent, isn't really up there. It might seem countintuitive given that Obama has more than twice as much cash on hand as McCain, but the reason lies in public financing. McCain needs to drain his campaign coffers before the end of August when he'll get the 80 some odd million dollars for the general election campaign. Obama however needs to keep the war chest intact and puff it up as big as he can going into the real election cycle, which starts as soon as the conventions are over. McCain will likely continue to outspend Obama for the next month before Obama releases a floodtide of ads all over the country.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:How can the republicans respond? If McCain supports the time-table the Iraqi's have requested, he is forfeiting the major card he's been playing against Obama. (Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.) Despite that, its a change in position that won't play well with the hard core republican base and that could be a big problem financially for the campaign.
If McCain tries to go the other way and continue opposing a time-line for withdrawal, it will be hard to keep arguing that the surge has worked, that real power has been turned over to the Iraqi government, and that our efforts there have been "successful".
It sure looks like a lose, lose situation for McCain.
Give the Republicans more credit than that, they're masters at this. The average American isn't well informed on the inner workings and hold ups of the long term force agreement between Iraq and the US. I'd be surprised if the average American even knew we were in current negotiations for such an agreement.
Republicans get by this one just by not talking about it. McCain can continue to hammer away at Obama, and the White House's recent forwarding of an email praising Obama's plan and Maliki's comment will get buried and trampled over in the press for a couple days. And I have little doubt that the Democrats will let the matter drop because they just aren't good at this kind of politics (the winning kind I mean). The Iraqi government has sinced backed off of Maliki's comment, though since then Maliki has said that he thinks Obama will win the election (the guy certainly speaks his mind).
I personally think you're right Rabbit, in that this is a lose/lose for McCain. Either he has to reverse his position, or he has to side against the Iraqi government's demand for self-determination, despite the fact that he and Bush have said all along that they leave if the Iraqis asked us to leave. Somewhere along the line he's going to have to break a promise to someone. I think this is really going to come to center stage in the coming months as Bush pressures Maliki to make a deal before his term is up. If Bush really pushes and Maliki balks, or worse, plainly sets a date for withdrawel, that's going to be a dagger in McCain's campaign.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Okay. Whoa. Obama in Iraq was an extraordinary win for him because of the Iraqi PM's comments. McCain is rightfully confused. He's been boned. What do you guys think.
I think Obama is cashing on the plans of General Patreus (which Obama vehemently opposed). The surge has worked well enough for Iraq to start taking over their own security so we are not too far away from a troop drawdown. If we had done this the Obama way, we would have pulled the rug out from underneath Iraq years ago and plunged them into chaos. Now that Obama sees we are winning he wants to attach his name to Bush's success. Then again, this is Obama and whatever direction the wind is currently blowing is the direction he will change to.
If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
DK is trying to make policy and politics into the same thing, which is a clever way of trying to make Obama look like he'll do whatever is popular at any given moment. He was against the war when it started five and a half years ago, and it was incredibly popular then. He's been against it ever since, though though popular opinion has only just recently really come down on the other side of it, and all along his policy towards withdrawel has been pretty much exactly the same.
The politics of the issue however can change on a daily basis depending on what's going on. You're talking more about how they frame the issue rather than the issue itself, DK.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If we had done this "the Obama way" we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place. What Sentor Obama opposed was starting this war in the first place. Ever since we invaded, though, he has proposed pretty much the same thing he is proposing now.
We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program. Iraq would be able to continue defying the world and UN demands. Obama voted against the surge. The surge was the proper strategy and it worked. Senator Says He Still Doesn't Support Surge
quote: So far this month, five U.S. troops have been killed in combat, compared with 78 U.S. deaths last July. Attacks across the country are down more than 80 percent. Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no.
"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."
quote: DK is trying to make policy and politics into the same thing, which is a clever way of trying to make Obama look like he'll do whatever is popular at any given moment. He was against the war when it started five and a half years ago, and it was incredibly popular then. He's been against it ever since, though though popular opinion has only just recently really come down on the other side of it, and all along his policy towards withdrawel has been pretty much exactly the same.
The politics of the issue however can change on a daily basis depending on what's going on. You're talking more about how they frame the issue rather than the issue itself, DK.
Obama is the one trying to downplay the surge, and make it seem like Iraq did it with just a slight bit of help from us. He is the one cashing in on the politics of the moment. Obama does this on almost every issue. He is for using public money only until he sees how much money he has. No policy change there. FISA Bill filibuster? Probably just a policy tweak. Standing by Reverend Wright? Not anymore. I suppose Obama's stuttering, stammering, constant 'uh's, and nonsense statements (Israel is a friend of Israel) when not speaking off of the teleprompter shows he is a feeble minded simpleton?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program. Iraq would be able to continue defying the world and UN demands. Obama voted against the surge. The surge was the proper strategy and it worked.
Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?
Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.
quote:Obama is the one trying to downplay the surge, and make it seem like Iraq did it with just a slight bit of help from us. He is the one cashing in on the politics of the moment. Obama does this on almost every issue. He is for using public money only until he sees how much money he has. No policy change there. FISA Bill filibuster? Probably just a policy tweak. Standing by Reverend Wright? Not anymore. I suppose Obama's stuttering, stammering, constant 'uh's, and nonsense statements (Israel is a friend of Israel) when not speaking off of the teleprompter shows he is a feeble minded simpleton?
I don't think you seem to realize that if Iraq turns out OK it will be mostly because Iraqis stepped up to the plate not Americans,(I say this with the utmost respect for the hard work our troops do.) But a new Iraq will have to exist because Iraqis stand up, not because we shuffle in more soldiers.
As for the Rev. Wright, Wright was acting like a rabid dog who in spirit left Obama long before Obama left him. Who cares if Obama stutters? I have seen him give plenty of speeches without a problem. Stuttering has nothing to do with one's mental faculties.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?
I'm not.
quote: Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Why are you suggesting that if one opposes the war as it was carried out, that therefore you must also oppose any other action in regards to Saddam Hussein save ignoring him?
I'm not.
quote: Obama said that he opposed the surge because of the general relationship between the executive branch and the congress, which today is in a sense nonexistent.
quote:In October 2006 -- three months before the president's new strategy was unveiled -- Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."
quote: On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly."
In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked." Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.
quote: I don't think you seem to realize that if Iraq turns out OK it will be mostly because Iraqis stepped up to the plate not Americans,(I say this with the utmost respect for the hard work our troops do.) But a new Iraq will have to exist because Iraqis stand up, not because we shuffle in more soldiers.
I don't think you seem to realize that Iraq would not be able to have Iraqis step up to the plate without Americans shuffling in and stabilizing the country first. Unless you think that the new Iraq would have arisen anway?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Funny but I see no evidence of the surge fixing anything either.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
President Bush spent 4 years in charge of war strategy that was flawed and failed.
Suddenly he proposes a surge of even more troops.
Is it surprising that opponents were against the idea? Is it surprising that they had and have real concerns about the surge's dilatory effects on troop strength, morale, and ability to recover?
Then things seem to be getting better, and everyone who was for the Surge starts yelling--See, it worked.
But most of what I've discovered that worked was General Patreus's (sp--sorry) changing some of the Neo-Cons basic premises. He returned to protecting the people, not the assets. He returned to negotiation with the people in power (Sunni Clan leaders, Sheiks, Etc), not the people we wanted in power (Malaki and others). He got tough with the powers that were corrupting the Iraq government--drug dealers, Shiah fanatics, Sectarianists.
Did he use the extra troops the Surge gave him?
Of course he did.
Did he need too? That is not clear to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It depends on the end goal. If our goal is to pacify and occupy Iraq and keep a military presence there forever then the surge is working. For the administration, this was always the goal.
For most of the American and Iraqi people, this is not the goal. So the surge hasn't "worked" until it allows us to leave.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Did he use the extra troops the Surge gave him?
Of course he did.
Did he need too? That is not clear to me.
He's repeatedly said he needed to. Sunni leaders have not only said the extra troops have worked, they've gone on record asking that they not be removed prematurely.
quote:Of course, I've always thought that card would fall the other way anyway since most American support withdrawal.
"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama's 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain's position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home."
quote:Either he has to reverse his position, or he has to side against the Iraqi government's demand for self-determination
The Iraqi position is not incompatible with McCain's. Both are based on more than just time and contain clear links between readiness of Iraqi forces and withdrawal.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It depends on the end goal. If our goal is to pacify and occupy Iraq and keep a military presence there forever then the surge is working. For the administration, this was always the goal.
I don't understand why having a military base in Iraq is so terrible. Was it terrible for Japan? Germany?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not the same thing. In the case of Germany and Japan, _they_ initiated the war and we conquered them. It may have been terrible for them, but they had lost a war they started. And we were assisting in rebuilding. In the case of Iraq, our occupation was unprovoked. And it isn't 1945.
Also bear in mind that one of the major sources of anger towards us from the Muslim world is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For most of the American and Iraqi people, this is not the goal. So the surge hasn't "worked" until it allows us to leave.
And having created a significant milestone toward the manner of leaving that most Americans support, the surge has worked so far.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Not the same thing. In the case of Germany and Japan, _they_ initiated the war and we conquered them. It may have been terrible for them, but they had lost a war they started. And we were assisting in rebuilding. In the case of Iraq, our occupation was unprovoked. And it isn't 1945.
It is only unprovoked if you ignore over a decade of UN sanctions and resolutions. Hussein agreed to terms and failed to live up to them...for over a decade...and there were clear consequences to his actions. It was not unprovoked.
quote: Also bear in mind that one of the major sources of anger towards us from the Muslim world is that we have bases in Saudi Arabia.
Really? One of the major sources of anger in the Muslim world is our bases in Saudi Arabia? I think that is a vast oversimplification if not a complete misstatement. I believe the radical Muslims' source of anger is our way of life rather than a military base.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: I don't understand why having a military base in Iraq is so terrible. Was it terrible for Japan? Germany?
So you wouldn't mind if, say, Canada put a military base down the road from your house? How about Egypt putting a base in Northern Virginia, near DC? China has a lot of defense considerations in the Pacific, so a base on the outskirts of LA wouldn't be too bad.
Of course there are some monetary advantages to having a big military base in your area. (So maybe promise a new Indian Air-Force Base to Cleveland will win some Ohio votes?)but there are criminal and legitimate problems as well. When a US Soldier was found raping a young Okanawan girl many Japanese say our bases there as terrible.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Really? One of the major sources of anger in the Muslim world is our bases in Saudi Arabia? I think that is a vast oversimplification if not a complete misstatement. I believe the radical Muslims' source of anger is our way of life rather than a military base.
Big fan of the kool-aid eh?
No seriously, the American presense in KKMC and other Saudi military bases was a primary recruitment tool for terrorist organizations in the 90's. They didn't put up recruitment posters talking about how evil Americans were for driving cars and eating McDonalds, they put up posters saying that heathens were desecrating the holiest sites in the Muslim religion by having troops in the same sand where Mecca and Medina are. That and our support of Israel were the two biggest recruitment tools then had until Iraq. Most American forces have pulled out of KKMC since then, there are only a handful left. But that's really a moot point now since they have Iraq to use for propaganda fodder.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The post also ran this response to the Maliki withdrawl flap, written by a McCain adviser. Essentially it boils down to: Maliki is a politician, doing what politicians do. Ask the top Iraqi military commander and defense minister and they project an ideal withdrawl date between 2013 and 2020. With the caveat that it should be tied to conditions on the ground. Essentially the Petraeus/McCain line. So Obama agrees with the politician and McCain agrees with the people actually responsible for keeping the peace (both US and Iraqi).
For balance, there's also this rapturous analysis of Obama's ability to think geo-strategically, based on his assertion that we need to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
When I read Obama's Iraq strategy, I always got the impression that the 16 month time frame was best case scenario. Kinda like how when I say, I'm going to do x and y and get my thesis in May, I know that if z goes horribly wrong (as it has) I am going to modify that plan.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: When I read Obama's Iraq strategy, I always got the impression that the 16 month time frame was best case scenario. Kinda like how when I say, I'm going to do x and y and get my thesis in May, I know that if z goes horribly wrong (as it has) I am going to modify that plan.
I believe your impression is wrong. The main critique of Obama's rhetoric is that he has (thus far) refused to tie his withdrawl deadline to conditions on the ground.
That said, he has moderated significantly over the past few months, and now includes the presence of a long term "residual force" of unspecified size as part of his plan. It may be that he'll add further nuance to his plan in order to demonstrate that 16 months is a best case scenario (indeed, better than the best case the perennially sunny al-Maliki can envision).
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Senoj, that's not true. Since I've been paying attention (before the primaries), Barack's position has never been "16 months, come hell or high water".
Have the media only been reporting the "16 month" line? Yeah, probably. But on the web articles EDIT: I mean sites like cnn.com, I realize that Obama's site has modified the language recently, there has always been some equivocation, as far as actual time, and how many forces would be left.
It's fashionable that this is some new revelation, but IMO it is just revisionist history based on the sound bite media.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sustaining current, or near current troop levels in Iraq until 2020, or even 2013 is ridiculous. Regardless of policy, it's not financially or physically sustainable. Key positions are understaffed in the army, though the new benefits package that Congress may pass in the new GI Bill might help with that in the future, but that's a guess. Regardless, we don't have the money, not with the massive domestic spending that will be required in the next decade to begin work on a number of things from education to necessary infrastructure improvements. That's to say nothing of the huge costs that are going to be paid over the coming years from veteran's benefits and care, and to the rebuilding of our military machinery.
Five years has cost us upwards of a trillion dollars, with perhaps another trillion in legacy costs. Another 5 is stupid. Another 12 is madness.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Senoj, that's not true. Since I've been paying attention (before the primaries), Barack's position has never been "16 months, come hell or high water".
Looking back at his 2007 Act, it seems you're right. He explicitly states that the deadline is a goal, not an actual deadline.
<edit>However, remembering the rhetoric during the primary (which I understand can be...overheated) I think there was a definite "iron will" aspect to his withdrawal plan.</edit>
If that's what he means, why isn't he saying that? The plan on his website reinforces the wrong interpretation, IMO.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, it it all depends on the clause "responsible and phased", doesn't it? I don't know why the site isn't clearer. Probably because he doesn't personally oversee it's updating. I agree it is much more ambiguous than previous and current statements elsewhere.
I agree that the rhetoric was strong, I also think he put it such to contrast him as opposed to the then hand-waving of the administration about any thought of an end.
-Bok
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The UN sanctions on Iraq were immoral and flawed and certainly doesn't equate to "regime change" as a viable consequence. And how do you know he failed to live up to them? Many documentaries I have read have shown very much that Iraq for the most part have lived up to them, they ceased their chemical and nuclear weapons programs and no evidence of a continuation of such programs have ever been found.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He who defends everything, defends nothing.
Frederick the Great.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I didn't want to start a whole new thread for this, but I wanted to share that a friend of mine is throwing a big birthday party/fundraiser for Obama(her birthday...fundraiser for Obama. ) because, "the best birthday present i can have is an intelligent man as the president of this country."
edit: I'm seeing the oddest ad at the bottom of the screen right now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bobby Jindal said today that he won't be Vice President at a press conference after he met with McCain.
The VP game gets more interesting every week.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program.
Yes, that would be a much bigger mess.
Assuming, of course, that lives of american servicemen and iraqi civilians matter less than those few billions, and discounting entirely the loss of billions from our own end.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We would be in the much bigger mess of Hussein getting millions, if not billions, of dollars funneled to him through the corrupt Oil for Food program.
Since the US occupation began, $16 billion for the Iraq Oil for Food Program (money that was in the program before the war began), disappeared unaccounted for. In addition, at least $15 billion of US tax payer funds are unaccounted for. That is 3 times what people accuse Hussein of embezzling from the Oil for Food fund over 10 year period.
But then even though we can't account for that $31 billion dollars, we can be pretty confident its not in Hussein's hands so Alles Gut!!
I hate it when people claim that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. It implies that somehow, "Saddam Hussein" is a variable that was or could have been eliminated in isolation of all other things. To really evaluate that question, you have to look all the other things that changed in order to eliminate Saddam Hussein. You have to look at what has replaced him. If you look at all the data, then you have to conclude that Iraq and the world are not better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein. So No, the world is not a better place without Saddam Hussein in it.
Perhaps there is some hypothetical world where Hussein was deposed without killing thousands and harming millions. Perhaps there is some hypothetical world, where following the deposal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq quickly became a bastion of freedom and prosperity. But that isn't our reality.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Assuming, of course, that lives of american servicemen and iraqi civilians matter less than those few billions, and discounting entirely the loss of billions from our own end.
How much harm would Iraq have done with the billions? They had already shown a willingness to use WMDs...although I am sure you believe Iraq was a peaceful paradise before mean old evil America invaded for no reason whatsoever.
quote: The UN sanctions on Iraq were immoral and flawed and certainly doesn't equate to "regime change" as a viable consequence.
The UN certainly did not believe their resolutions were immoral, neither did the rest of the world.
quote: Many documentaries I have read have shown very much that Iraq for the most part have lived up to them, they ceased their chemical and nuclear weapons programs and no evidence of a continuation of such programs have ever been found.
Iraq had clear goals they were supposed to meet and did not. Go back and do some reading on the decade after the first gulf war for more information. History did not start the day President Bush was elected.
quote: I hate it when people claim that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. It implies that somehow, "Saddam Hussein" is a variable that was or could have been eliminated in isolation of all other things. To really evaluate that question, you have to look all the other things that changed in order to eliminate Saddam Hussein. You have to look at what has replaced him. If you look at all the data, then you have to conclude that Iraq and the world are not better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein. So No, the world is not a better place without Saddam Hussein in it.
Perhaps there is some hypothetical world where Hussein was deposed without killing thousands and harming millions. Perhaps there is some hypothetical world, where following the deposal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq quickly became a bastion of freedom and prosperity. But that isn't our reality.
Unless of course you or one of your family was killed by Saddam, raped by his sons, worked in the child slave labor camps, and so on. After the first gulf war, Iraq stood up to the world and said we will not comply. The world backed down and said let's make a deal. The UN made some great 'deals', along with Russia, France, Germany, Jordan, and Turkey. Iraq had money to pay to the families of suicide bombers. Iraq had money to fund terrorist training. Your 'world at peace' with Saddam is a total hypothetical situation and was not reality. Saddam defied the world at will with little to no consequences. Iraq has a chance to become a better country, to become a friend of the US, none of that was possible under Saddam.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: How much harm would Iraq have done with the billions? They had already shown a willingness to use WMDs...although
Saddam's use of WMDs happened two decades before we invaded and we didn't have any problem with it at the time. In fact, we sold him the weapons.
quote:I am sure you believe Iraq was a peaceful paradise before mean old evil America invaded for no reason whatsoever.
While Iraq had plenty of serious problems before we invaded, the invasion has made it far worse. It's not a question of Iraq was bad before the invasion and is better now. Or Iraq was great before our invasion and worse now. The reality is that although Iraq had be problems before we invaded, it has had much bigger problems since.
Oh, and I quite confident that the Bush administration didn't invade for no reason at all. Just that those reasons were immoral and illegal.
quote:Iraq had clear goals they were supposed to meet and did not.
Not true! Iraq had destroyed all their WMDs as required by the UN treaties before the invasion.
quote:Unless of course you or one of your family was killed by Saddam, raped by his sons, worked in the child slave labor camps, and so on.
Unless you or one of your family was murdered by Blackwater, raped by US soldiers, or tortured in US prison run prisons.
You are missing the point when you continue to repeat how bad things were under Saddam Hussein. The point is, they aren't any better, in fact in many measurable ways they are worse, now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While Iraq made some token payments to the families of suicide bombers, no evidence has been found that it was a significant supporter of terrorism in money or other assistance. In fact, quite a lot of evidence has been found otherwise.
I was for toppling Saddam's regime, but quite quickly in the planning for this invasion I realized I was not for the way we were going to do it. We needed to meet the obligation we entered into when we invaded the country by leaving it better than we found it.
As for the surge, I was calling for a massively increased troop presence on a scale beyond what happened at the peak of the surge over a year before we started hearing about a planned 'surge'. I think the surge was too little, too late, but that it was better than nothing. It is working, but only in a limited sense. It has not yet brought us particularly near an acceptable state of affairs in Iraq.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Your 'world at peace' with Saddam is a total hypothetical situation and was not reality. Saddam defied the world at will with little to no consequences.
Saddam lost a war, was required by the UN to disarm and complied, he was subject to very severe sanctions the adverse impacts of which have been well documented and his country was bombed nearly continously for 10 years,
I have never claimed there was a world at Peace with Saddam. There was a world in which the CIA and UN judged that Saddam was contained by sanctions. Now there is a world in which Saddam's regime has been deposed by a violent and illegal invasion.
By all measures, things are worse now than they were before. Your claims that things would be worse if we hadn't invaded because Saddam would likely have continued the same behavior pattern he'd established during the previous 10 years of sanctions don't hold water because things were measurably better during those 10 years than they have been since.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I hate it when people claim that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. It implies that somehow, "Saddam Hussein" is a variable that was or could have been eliminated in isolation of all other things. To really evaluate that question, you have to look all the other things that changed in order to eliminate Saddam Hussein. You have to look at what has replaced him.
I'm with you up to this point...
quote:If you look at all the data, then you have to conclude that Iraq and the world are not better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein. So No, the world is not a better place without Saddam Hussein in it.
...but I think telling me what I have to conclude, implicitly assuming you have accurately understood all the ramifications of the war while I haven't, is arrogant. For instance, I think democracy in Iraq is of high value. I think the intimidation that lead to Libya abandoning its terrorist support and nuclear ambitions is a positive. I think having US stabilizing forces on the ground at the time of the Iraqi civil war to keep the nation from falling into a failed state (which is what I think would have happened had Saddam Hussein departed through more organic means) is a huge positive.
I think the death and destruction are tragic; I think war is evil; I think the mismanagement was criminal. None of that means that I must think the world is worse off as a consequence, because no one can see all the ends from the beginnings. Making absolute declarations of what must be concluded is arrogant in the extreme. Come back in 50 years and I think we can perhaps decide what must be concluded about the Iraq war. Maybe.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Libya had abandoned its terrorist support before 2001.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't know we had good evidence of when they had abandoned terrorist support. I do know they didn't take significant measures to normalize relations (including dismantling WMD programs) until 2003.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think having US stabilizing forces on the ground at the time of the Iraqi civil war to keep the nation from falling into a failed state (which is what I think would have happened had Saddam Hussein departed through more organic means) is a huge positive.
I think US forces on the ground were a destabilizing influence in the sectarian civil war which did ensue because of our invasion. Iraq has been a failed state that is s a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory since the invasions. In fact, that is the grounds on which we continue to justify our occupation of the country.
quote:None of that means that I must think the world is worse off as a consequence, because no one can see all the ends from the beginnings.
I do not claim to see the end from the beginning. I claim to see the current situation. We may indeed have a different assessment of this war in 20 or 50 years, but that assessment could be either far better or far worse. So all I can do is assess on the present, on the harms and benefits to date.
Right now the overall human rights situation in Iraq (democracy added in) is worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. Living conditions are worse, safety is worse, health care and sanitation are worse, crime is worse, economic conditions are worse.
Yeah, voting is great -- but would you be willing to give up your job, your electricity, your running water, your health care, and your personal safety for it? If your children were among the hundreds killed by US bombs, would you be saying that voting was worth the sacrifice?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Yeah, voting is great -- but would you be willing to give up your job, your electricity, your running water, your health care, and your personal safety for it? If your children were among the hundreds killed by US bombs, would you be saying that voting was worth the sacrifice?
You are under the incorrect assumption that all Iraqis had running water, health care, and personal safety with Saddam. What if you, your family, your children were killed by Saddam, or raped by his sons? Here is a link you should really check out about your assumptions. A Better Life
quote: On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them — a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year.
quote: Locally, unhappiness is highest by far with the availability of jobs (69 percent say it's bad) and the supply of electricity (64 percent negative). Local schools are rated positively (by 72 percent), and smaller majorities give positive ratings to the availability of basic household goods and the adequacy of local crime protection. About half give positive ratings to the availability of medical care, clean water and household goods beyond the basics, and to local government.
Iraqis divide in their rating of the local security situation now, but strikingly, 54 percent say security where they live is better now than it was before the war. However, for some, local security clearly is a great concern; 22 percent call it the single biggest problem in their lives, more than any other mention ("no job" is second, 12 percent). Local security concerns peak in greater Baghdad, where they're cited by 36 percent as the top problem, compared to a low of 8 percent in Kurdistan.
Notably, across the country, no more than 26 percent say any of these conditions are worse now than a year ago; in each about four in 10 or more say things are better; and in each sizable majorities — mostly three-quarters — expect things to improve over the next 12 months.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You are under the incorrect assumption that all Iraqis had running water, health care, and personal safety with Saddam.
They were more reliable than they have been since the invasion.
quote: What if you, your family, your children were killed by Saddam, or raped by his sons?
I already answered that one. I would feel just about the same as if my family or my children were killed or raped or tortured by US soldiers or mercenaries. To me it doesn't matter who does the killing and raping, its an issue of how much of it is going. From what I can tell, conditions have not improved in this regard.
I just don't see that its an improvement to have foreign NGO's embezzling the aid money for your country rather than having your own leader doing the embezzling. I just don't see that its a big improvement to be raped by US soldiers rather than Saddam's sons. To me, it just doesn't seem an improvement to be tortured by US occupies rather than your own corrupt government.
That's my point. Things were bad under Hussein but they are worse in most regards now. You can keep repeating how bad things were under Hussein until you get blisters on your typing fingers and it won't mean a thing unless you can show me that things are better now.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iraq had clear goals they were supposed to meet and did not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true! Iraq had destroyed all their WMDs as required by the UN treaties before the invasion.
"Material breach" seems to refer to Saddam's obstructions of weapons inspections, not possession of actual WMD material.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
BTW, DK, The poll referenced in the link you gave was from March of 2004, one year after the invasion. Here is a link to a more recent (2007) poll. link
It found that in 2007, Iraqi's were far more pessimistic.
According to the 2007 poll when Iraqi's were asked to compare their current situation to the situation under Saddam Hussein, that 54 percent of Iraqi's thought the security situation was very bad or quite bad, 79% thought the availability of jobs was very bad or quite bad, 51% percent thought the electricity supply was very bad and 37% rated it as quite bad. 69% rated the water supply as very bad or quite bad. 57% thought their local governments were either very bad or quite bad. 77 % rated their freedom to live where they choose as either very bad or quite bad.
Less than 45% of Iraqi's felt that democracy was the best political system for Iraq now and only a little over 50% felt that democracy would be the best political system for Iraq in 5 years. Both those numbers fell sharply between 2005 and 2007.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: That's my point. Things were bad under Hussein but they are worse in most regards now. You can keep repeating how bad things were under Hussein until you get blisters on your typing fingers and it won't mean a thing unless you can show me that things are better now.
I' assuming you have not seen my post above...not that I will expect you to believe any of it
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think I responded to your post above by first noting that the poll referenced in your post is now 4 years out of date. I then updated it with the more recent data.
Not that I expect you will believe any of it either.
Posted by memeyou (Member # 11696) on :
Mr Rabbit:
Between 2004 and 2007 there has been a sharp rise and recently, fall, in outside terror-style attacks in Iraq.
The poll immediately after the war, before the intense rise in terrorist attacks, reflects the assumption everyone had that the fighting was over, and the rebuilding had begun.
The more recent poll (March 2007) reflects the sentiment of the population near the height of the attacks. I find it suprising how optimistic a lot of the people still are, tbh, considering this was at the low point in the new 'war' after the war that ousted Saddam.
Since this poll (March 2007 - July 2008) there has been a sharp decline in these outside terror-style attacks. I believe it would be interesting to see what opinion polls on these subjects are like today.
__________________________
www.foodbared.com - food good enough to blog about
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In any number of polls, at least two-thirds of Iraqis want us out.
memeyou, Using a signature to advertise an outside site, no matter how well meaning, is considered bad taste around these parts.
You don't have to stop, but I figured I'd give you a heads-up, since you are new.
-Bok
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: What if you, your family, your children were killed by Saddam, or raped by his sons?
It's too bad that the Bush administration didn't make this case to the American people. Instead, we were told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (which we have never found), ties to Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda hated Saddam), and ties to 9/11 (which was completely false). The case for the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with what was happening to the Iraqi people, and though it was not sold as a human rights mission, it was sold as an invasion to augment the war on terror. It is clear to me that this was not a humanitarian mission by the Bush Administration, this was the Bush Administration placing the Iraqi's themselves on the front lines so that Iraqis and not Americans would have to die in this new war.
The world may be a better place without Saddam, but that is surely not the reason we took him out in the first place. And to me, that matters.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Mr Rabbit
I usually go with Rabbit, Ms. Rabbit, or Doc Rabbit. The Rabbit is a she.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Hundreds of thousands (and possibly millions) of Iraqis have fled Iraq, and most show no intention of returning in the near future. This includes a great number of professionals (doctors, lawyers, news and entertainment media people, architects...) who are generally viewed as being highly necessary to re-creating a stable and forward-moving state.
Much of the U.S. progress in Iraq has come from creating alliances with Sunni militia groups, groups whose loyalties and actions when not under the eye of American forces are reasonably up for question. On the other side, the Prime Minister of Iraq apparently hasties to Shia Iran... And despite promises of reform, reports of rape and torture by Iraqi police forces continue.
And meanwhile, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, which is once more the world's opium dealer.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
If the polls say that many Iraqis think things are better than they were under Saddam, but they want U.S. forces out of Iraq, one really must consider a) what those absent refugees might say if they were present to participate in such a poll, and b) that the long-repressed Shia majority in Iraq is now in ascendancy, which to some minds eclipses lack of electricity and health care.
This Iraq is not... Stable. And it doesn't look like it's going the right way, frankly.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I'm not sure what to make of this really. I suppose it's the conservatives who are using MTV to strike down Obama's popularity with youth. I don't think it will be effective at all really.
Honestly though... the only thing political thing that MTV should do is well- nothing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a great place to advertise if you're going after Obama.
However I agree with Shawshank that it probably won't really sway them. Most of the young people who are for Obama aren't going to be swayed away by a 30 second spot.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
If the polls say that many Iraqis think things are better than they were under Saddam, but they want U.S. forces out of Iraq, one really must consider a) what those absent refugees might say if they were present to participate in such a poll, and b) that the long-repressed Shia majority in Iraq is now in ascendancy, which to some minds eclipses lack of electricity and health care.
Also, c) the ones who aren't present to pardticipate in polls because they are dead.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I'd just like to pause and thank you guys for your invaluable analysis of all the flood of various news articles and everything so that
1. I can understand the current political weather and 2. it makes me more aware of the issues that I need to be aware of when making my political decisions.
Specifically it's useful because this is the first presidential election I've been able to vote in.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Also, c) the ones who aren't present to participate in polls because they are dead.
Indeed.
EDIT to ADD: Although I must make a parallel point. While I don't in any way mean to dismiss or minimize the grim death toll among Iraqi citizenry, many of the civilians killed in Iraq seem to have been the targets of random or quasi-random violence; while bombers may target areas particular to the Shia or Sunni (or Turkamen... Or Kurd...), those struck down by the violence seem to be a more or less random sampling of their populations. Part of what makes the fleeing refugees so frightening, by comparison, is that they're largely people who, having the wherewithal to leave their country, choose to do so.
Or to put it another way: all you need to do to be a victim of violence in Iraq is to be looking to buy food in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you're fleeing the country, you're probably taking material resources and valuable skills with you.
[ July 25, 2008, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sterling, we might also include in that death toll people who died because proper food, water, and medical care are less available now. Especially since many of the refugees with valuable skills are doctors.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sterling, we might also include in that death toll people who died because proper food, water, and medical care are less available now. Especially since many of the refugees with valuable skills are doctors.
I think the toll has been tragic; I'm not sure that the picture in Iraq would be better after the inevitable civil war after Saddam Hussein died. In fact I think it would be much worse.
So making emotional statements about the Iraq war dead, while valid, ignores a lot of other important factors.
If we're going to engage in hypotheticals about how people without a voice may or may not feel, ideally, you'd like to go back to the days before the war began, give Iraqis a clear and accurate view of what the world would be like under the two possible scenarios (invade/not invade) and ask what they'd prefer. Perhaps someone would choose invasion, even if it meant their own death, if it also meant that their children wouldn't perish in the Iraqi Civil War of 2020.
Sidenote: If we want to talk about this further, I think we should start (or resurrect) and Iraq War thread, rather than clogging up the General Election thread.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Agreed (with regard to both the death toll and moving on to other subjects.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
100 days to the election.
Obama seems to be spending a lot of time lately talking about Afghanistan. It's interesting to see how this will play out with people. People are split down the middle on Iraq, but Afghanistan is very much the forgotten war. I supported going into Afghanistan back in 2001, and I still think that, with international support, that it's a battle worth fighting, so long as we have European, local, and especially Pakistani support. Without those things I'm much more hesitant.
But how will this play out? Obama is saying get out of Iraq, get out of Iraq, but he wants to shift troops and dollars to Afghanistan. On the one hand, I think it'll serve to bolster his tough guy cred. He's worried about McCain's attacks that he wants us to lose and wants to abandon the war on terror, but he's changing the argument by saying Afghanistan is the REAL war on terror and that he wants to reinvest new resources there from Iraq. On the other hand, he really risks criticism from his anti-war base.
He's walking a careful line, but McCain I think isn't being as artful in his attacks as he could be. He's wielding a club instead of a scalpal.
Obama is on CNN right now on the "Unity" presidential forum. His speaking style has evolved a bit I think over the last year. He stuttered and fumbled a bit more six or seven months ago than he does now. He still stutters a bit, but I think now it's less of a stutter than it is taking a pause to gather his thoughts before he gets going, because once he really starts talking, he goes on a roll. I just think he's much more obvious in his choosing of words than most people.
Some of the glow has worn off of Obama for me recently, mostly because of his vote on the FISA bill, but because of a few other "move to the center" things he's done lately too. But some of what I've heard on his trip and what I've heard in this forum and other snippets of interviews I think have reminded me of what I liked about him in the first place.
I do feel a bit sorry for McCain lately. The press coverage of Obama has been glowing lately. They've been treating him I guess like a bit of a rock star. Of course there's been plenty of hand wringing about the trip he made and they've been critiquing his every move, but mostly I think it was positive press, and regardless, it was free media. McCain on the other hand has barely been heard from, and when we have heard from him, he's been rambling about a grocery store or giving angry diatribes about how Obama wants to lose the war to win the election (yipes! usually you have your staff say stuff like that). He's getting angry I think, and it's only going to make it harder for him to regain control of the conversation.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The press coverage of Obama has been glowing lately. They've been treating him I guess like a bit of a rock star. Of course there's been plenty of hand wringing about the trip he made and they've been critiquing his every move, but mostly I think it was positive press, and regardless, it was free media.
"And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
"Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center." -LA Times Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: But how will this play out? Obama is saying get out of Iraq, get out of Iraq, but he wants to shift troops and dollars to Afghanistan. On the one hand, I think it'll serve to bolster his tough guy cred. He's worried about McCain's attacks that he wants us to lose and wants to abandon the war on terror, but he's changing the argument by saying Afghanistan is the REAL war on terror and that he wants to reinvest new resources there from Iraq. On the other hand, he really risks criticism from his anti-war base.
I'm not sure about that last part. How much of Obama's "anti-war base" is actually anti-any war and how much is anti-Iraq war? I, for one, was completely in favor of invading Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban there, but opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning - with Afghanistan being one of the really big reasons.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
LSM -
Huh, I've seen polling data recently that somewhat refutes that, but I'll have to find it. The last poll on the media I found asked if there was a media bias for Obama and something like three quarters of the people said yes, and maybe 10% said there was one for McCain. But I guess technically that's a different question since one is about press coverage and one is about the quality of the coverage. Personally from what I've seen, there's been a lot of talk from the pundits about the potential failures of Obama's actions in recent weeks. They're microanalyzing his every move, which could be potentially disastrous, except I don't think most people, except hyperpolitical ones, really watch the 24 news networks enough for the cumulative effects of all that coverage to mean anything. The fact that they cover every speech, every movement, every event I think regardless of their commentary ends up being more of a good thing. It's free media. I really do wish they'd cut out the "If Obama can win this tiny percentage of people in this one state with this many electoral college votes, he'll win it all!" hypotheticals crap. We're still 100 days out and they have polling data on top of polling data that refutes itself.
The media's attempt to make themselves seem important is infringing on the election itself.
Enigmatic -
That's a good question, and I've yet to see anything resembling a poll that attempts to answer it. I was in favor of Afghanistan too, and was totally opposed to Iraq from the beginning, but it's five years after the invasion of Iraq, and I think a lot of people want to just wash their hands of the whole region. I'd be curious to see numbers on who thinks we should ditch Iraq and bolster Afghanistan and who says let's just dump the whole thing.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Reminds me of a phrase I recently heard:
There is no liberal news bias, there is no conservative news bias. There is a sensationalist bias.
The MSM does not want a Democrat to win, the MSM does not want a Republican to win. It wants its story to win.
Edit: Except maybe Fox, which apparently is a White House mouth piece.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That sounds about right to me, much of the time.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lord Solar Macharius: Reminds me of a phrase I recently heard:
There is no liberal news bias, there is no conservative news bias. There is a sensationalist bias.
If by "recently" you mean "stated by Enigmatic nearly every time media bias comes up"...
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Well then... why don't we have a face-palm smiley?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Has anyone else heard that perhaps Caroline Kennedy could be picked as a running mate for Obama? (I know she's on the "search" committee, supposedly helping him find a running mate, but yesterday for the first time I heard someone say she could be it.)
That would be a very hard ticket to beat. Caroline is considered a sort of "princess" of sorts - the daughter of the late great JFK who is revered by many.
If this was already in this thread, I apologize. I didn't see it. Just wondered if anyone else had heard that. I don't know where the person who mentioned it to me heard the idea.
(Edit: found a linky)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Not a big fan of at least two of the types of reactions this story could generate, but in spirit of full disclosure this is a story of potential interest:
quote: ... stories have surfaced about Democrat Barack Obama’s own, more personal, connections to China. Obama’s estranged half-brother, Mark Ndesandjo, is an entrepreneur who has been living in Shenzhen with a Chinese girlfriend for several years. Neither man seems particularly eager to talk to the press about the others’ existence, but reports indicate Ndesandjo has been promoting cheap exports with his consulting business, Worldnexus. The tie is a potential political bombshell for Obama in a country deeply fearful of what China’s inexpensive goods mean for jobs at home.
Is Kennedy really still revered by many people? Who?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kennedy might be good on the "do no harm" part of what a VP has to do for a ticket, but she brings absolutely nothing to the ticket. Obama at least needs to take a stab at shoring up his shortcomings, and Kennedy doesn't accomplish that at all.
There're increased rumors circling around Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia, which is a little surprising since I swear he said last year that he didn't want the job at all, he wanted to spend more time with his family, but maybe it was naive to think that'd last. Kaine is young, very popular, has a good record, has never been in Washington and thus fits into Obama's new outsider way of doing things. But he's only been governor for three years, which means limited executive experience, and it does nothing for his military cred.
I'm not bothered by that though. No one candidate is going to do ALL those things for him. Even Richardson, arguably the most well rounded of potential running mates, doesn't have the military experience. Kaine I think sets Virginia solidly in the Obama column, and that in itself is a major coup. Win every state Gore won in 2000 and flip Virginia and that's the ball game. Plus I think Kaine is a great choice to run for office on his own in eight years.
Mucus -
I don't see that being all that big of a deal. A half brother that Obama doesn't even talk to? What are they going to pull out of the closet next, a fourth cousin twice removed that had an abortion? It's a non-issue. I don't think that means it won't come up, but I think MOST people who were already thinking about voting for Obama won't be swayed by something like that.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Not a big fan of at least two of the types of reactions this story could generate, but in spirit of full disclosure this is a story of potential interest:
quote: ... stories have surfaced about Democrat Barack Obama’s own, more personal, connections to China. Obama’s estranged half-brother, Mark Ndesandjo, is an entrepreneur who has been living in Shenzhen with a Chinese girlfriend for several years. Neither man seems particularly eager to talk to the press about the others’ existence, but reports indicate Ndesandjo has been promoting cheap exports with his consulting business, Worldnexus. The tie is a potential political bombshell for Obama in a country deeply fearful of what China’s inexpensive goods mean for jobs at home.
link
Doesn't estranged generally mean that Obama's pissed off at him? And it sounds like with good reason...
This really shouldn't hurt him. We all have relatives who do things that we wouldn't, that we're not happy about. Most of us don't even really hold it against said relatives too much, we sorta shrug our shoulders and say "well, that's just cousin Bob for you." But from the sound of this, Obama does hold it against his half-brother. So what can people possibly say? That he has a relative somewhere making an arse of himself, that he's already pretty much denounced and rejected?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What, by the way, happened to Senator McCain running a campaign on the issues? What is that garbage ad he is running about Senator Obama going to the gym but not bothering to visit the troops? How is that about the issues?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Is Kennedy really still revered by many people? Who?
Heck, I don't know. I don't revere him. He is often held up (in public speeches, etc.) in a fond manner, and people are always quoting him. The whole Camelot thing. (I'm not a Democrat, so I have no idea why people liked him)
Caroline Kennedy would have more name recognition than, say, Tim Kaine -- who I had never heard of until they started considering him.
How much experience does it really take to be Veep? I mean, they go to official funerals and do a lot of political social things (which I suppose she would probably be comfortable with).
Unless, of course, something happens to the president. Then experience would be very important.
I could see this choice as appeasing to those who wanted Hillary just to have a woman in the higher office. And Caroline would be more likable.
But like Lyrhawn said, it probably won't be her. Because everyone's saying Tim Kaine. It was just a rumor anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lyrhawn: I never said it was a "big" deal. I did say that it was of potential interest. It may be just another small tidbit that right-wing pundits might attempt to make trouble with in the same vein as other small tricks such as "Barack *Hussein* Obama." It may not mean much to the informed that are ready to vote for Obama and the optimist in me hopes that you're right. However, the pessimist in me doesn't want to underestimate the potential of the dangerously partially-informed "do not want prayer mats in the White House" crowd.
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Doesn't estranged generally mean that Obama's pissed off at him? And it sounds like with good reason... he has a relative somewhere making an arse of himself, that he's already pretty much denounced and rejected?
Thats precisely one reaction I'm not a fan of. I do not see any reason that Obama's half-brother should be considered an "arse" and a couple reasons that he should be proud of what he's accomplished.
Anyways, I'm just passing along the news and giving everyone a heads-up. No need to shoot the messenger.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:...as a professor...Obama was in the business of complication, showing that even the best-reasoned rules have unintended consequences, that competing legal interests cannot always be resolved, that a rule that promotes justice in one case can be unfair in the next. "When you hear him talking about issues, it’s at a level so much simpler than the one he’s capable of," Mr. Rodriguez said. "He was a lot more fun to listen to back then."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If anything that makes me happier. I honestly wonder if a candidate can have that kind of campaign and succeed anymore when the opposition so willingly pounces on people for trying nuance in a nation that prides itself on short, quick, blunt answers. Anyone who tries a multipronged response will be dubbed wishy washy or a flipflopper and they'll hit back with their own 10 word answer and they'll likely succeed.
Certainly any pretext of this being a civil high minded campaign has totally evaporated recently. But knowing that Obama DOES have that kind of mind, and that behind the scenes he is considering issues that way makes me hopeful about what kind of president he'll be.
I'm wondering what McCain is trying to do recently with the Iraq war thing. Obama has always said that he supports a 16 month withdrawel, but that it'll still be kind of dependent on what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground. A year ago even he was saying "we'll be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." McCain is turning that into "Obama totally agrees with me," and then the other day said that he'd support a timetable so long as the conditions were right.
Why is he trying to make his position identical to Obama's, and in doing so, make it look like Obama just changed his mind? I'm not sure I get the angle. Is he trying to make Obama look late to the game while making himself look prescient? I can't see what he stands to gain out of neutralizing the issue entirely.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
As there are already pending court cases on the extent of executive privilege, this action probably won't have any significant consequences for a while.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Agreed. For it to proceed any further, I think Pelosi would have to give the okay, and I'm not sure if she will or not. I tend to lean towards her not giving the okay, for the potential backlash it'd have against her. There are lower profile people that are already on the books for contempt that have been voted on by that panel that could approve and avoid part of the media firestorm. If those cases go well, then she could go after Rove with a much freer hand.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Obama has always said that he supports a 16 month withdrawel, but that it'll still be kind of dependent on what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground.
and he also said that he would be CIC and do what he felt was best despite what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Obama has always said that he supports a 16 month withdrawel, but that it'll still be kind of dependent on what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground.
and he also said that he would be CIC and do what he felt was best despite what commanders tell him about the situation on the ground.
If you actually come at assessing Obama (or whoever) with good faith, these aren't contradictory.
-Bok
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
_7/31/2008_ "Despite continued statements from the White House that former aides are protected by 'executive privilege' and cannot be subpoenaed, a federal judge ruled Thursday that former White House aides are, in fact, subject to subpoena. The ruling takes on special meaning in the wake of the Karl Rove incident, where the former White House deputy chief of staff ignored a subpoena and refused to testify before a Congressional committee, citing the very protection the Federal Judge overruled. Others facing subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 include Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers. President Bush has maintained that they cannot be forced to testify. However, U.S. District Judge John Bates sided with Congress Thursday, ruling that aides can be subpoenaed."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If you actually come at assessing Obama (or whoever) with good faith, these aren't contradictory.
This is becoming a bigger and bigger issue with me. I'm having a harder time assuming Obama's good faith.
[ July 31, 2008, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I thought it was an issue with you for a while now.
-Bok
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Now that he has the nomination in the bag, this isn't exactly a courageous stand for democracy.
__________________
quote:I thought it was an issue with you for a while now.
-Bok
I've found him appalling since he got rid of Wright.
[ August 04, 2008, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, but it also isn't at all a surprise. We knew six months ago that whoever the nominee was, he or she would insist that the full delegations be sat.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Watching a speech live on CNN by Obama outlining his energy policy. He says he's going to end foreign oil imports from Middle East and Venezuela wtihin 10 years. He wants to give 150 billion dollars over 10 years towards that goal.
He's in Michigan today, and he's talking more about the economic benefits of getting rid of our addiction to foreign oil- which is a much better track than talking about Global Warming. The time has come that people are starting to feel the economic crunch of oil.
In addition he says 10% the nation's power supply will come from renewable resources by the end of his first term.
[ August 04, 2008, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Shawshank ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I've always had the vague idea, and I could be wrong, that Middle East and Venezuela oil was more important to stabilizing the world economy than US power, and the only effective way to curb the power of those regions was to develop technology that does not depend upon oil, then export that technology.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Well in a very short time, we will not be the biggest user of oil in the world- China is very quickly taking that role.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm watching too.
I'm liking some of it and not liking others. I think he's pandering far too much with the windfall profits tax to give money back to people in the form of a rebate. I think it's a bad idea that won't have any real impact, but I also doubt it will actually get past Republicans, so I'm not really worried.
Pretty much everything else he is saying is like it came right out of my head. New T&D infrastructure all over the country for efficiency and to connect renewables to the market, new sustainable biofuels, plug in hybrids, renewable energy, efficiency standards, regulations and upgrades. etc etc.
And for Michigan, he's certainly talking to the right crowd, and I don't really call it pandering in the way I call that oil tax crap pandering. That's classic Robin Hood pandering where you take directly from the rich and give directly to the poor. Here he has a national plan for energy independence and he's talking the upside for Michigan workers, which is a national version of what Governor Granholm has been saying for at least four years now. And really it makes perfect sense since Michigan's manufacturing base and alternative energy potential is just perfect for this new energy plan. The only pandering I really heard was offering government loans to auto companies to help them retool, which I don't think is necessary (yet) for GM or Ford, but meh, they're loans not giveaways.
On the whole I like the speech. It's precisely tailored to be the best speech on the environment he could give Michigan. It's not about hugging trees, though we in Michigan love our wilderness, it's about jobs and the economy. He's tying the energy crisis directly to the economy and giving a "two birds with one stone" solution that makes sense. I like it.
I'll also say that I actually like his stance on OCS drilling now. My main opposition to OCS drilling was that Republicans have been treating it like some silver bullet. I know that isn't the only thing they want, but it's the only thing they are harping on when frankly, it just isn't that important. I'm okay with OCS drilling, a limited amount, so long as it is part of a much larger energy strategy. Also, I like that he's willing to compromise in order to get legislation passed rather than just sink the whole plan over a single issue. Willingness to compromise has been sorely lacking over the last few years, on BOTH sides. So call it a flip flop if you want, but I like it.
Shawshank -
I'm not sure if it'll be a "very short time." The US stills uses 1/5th of the world's daily production, and while China AND India are both growing their usage in leaps and bounds, I still think it will be a couple years before they reach our level of waste, even though I think they already have more cars on the road than we do. So maybe I could be wrong on that. Either way, China is actually spending tons of cash on renewables right now. Not as much as they need to, since their problem will only exponentially grow larger than ours, but they're on track to have a lot more installed renewable power than us in a few years.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I guess I should have specified what I meant by a "very short time" I meant a couple of years. That seems to me to be a very short time in terms of something as important as becoming the world's biggest user of oil.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The US stills uses 1/5th of the world's daily production, and while China AND India are both growing their usage in leaps and bounds, I still think it will be a couple years before they reach our level of waste
As a point of principle, although the US consumes more oil (for the time being), China produces more "waste" (if by waste you mean greenhouse gases, particularly C02).
As for Obama's energy policy, it's one of the areas I disagree with him most strongly. I think ethanol corn subsidies he pushes are a bad investment. They're expensive, they're not energy efficient, they require dramatic infrastructure change. They make mid-Western farmers happy, but they should make every energy consumer shudder (IMO).
Politically, I think focusing on electric (which is "safe" in the sense that the US can supply our own energy needs electrically) rather than fuel-based is much smarter. This does nothing environmentally (in fact it hurts more than it helps), but it does address the significant security/economic concerns.
Until a candidate has the guts to tell us that each American personally needs to to halve his/her energy consumption, rather than touting "alternative energy sources" I won't believe they have a real plan for environmental energy policy. Pitch it as a point of American pride, like the victory gardens and nylon drives during WWII. Convincing people to leave their thermostats five degrees lower in the winter and five degrees higher in the summer will have a bigger impact on fossil fuel consumption that any "alternative energy plan."
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
I'm pretty sure Obama's already talking up the conservation aspect--hence the McCain campaign making fun of him for telling people to keep their tires properly inflated so they could have better gas mileage.
I'm not too worried about Obama's tie to the corn ethanol people. I feel like he'll happily use their money to get elected and then point out to them how much more power they'd be able to produce in Iowa by building windmills rather than growing cord.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: As a point of principle, although the US consumes more oil (for the time being), China produces more "waste" (if by waste you mean greenhouse gases, particularly C02).
On the other hand, the US consumes roughly ten times as much oil and produces roughly ten times as much waste as Canada. Whats up with that, eh?
(If it was unclear, I'm just noting that these kinds of statistics would be much more useful if you take into account the differing populations)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:As a point of principle, although the US consumes more oil (for the time being), China produces more "waste" (if by waste you mean greenhouse gases, particularly C02).
I wasn't talking about that kind of waste, but you're right.
quote:As for Obama's energy policy, it's one of the areas I disagree with him most strongly. I think ethanol corn subsidies he pushes are a bad investment. They're expensive, they're not energy efficient, they require dramatic infrastructure change. They make mid-Western farmers happy, but they should make every energy consumer shudder (IMO).
Both McCain and Obama support ethanol, but I don't think either of them wants corn to be the main source of it. Obama just today was talking about a cellulosic ethanol plant opening in Michigan that uses wood scraps as a fuel source. Corn based ethanol is an awful idea, but it's just a stopgap measure to get us to the better stuff like wood scraps, miscanthus, algae, and maybe even trash someday. We're almost there, but not large scale operations yet.
quote:Politically, I think focusing on electric (which is "safe" in the sense that the US can supply our own energy needs electrically) rather than fuel-based is much smarter. This does nothing environmentally (in fact it hurts more than it helps), but it does address the significant security/economic concerns.
I strongly disagree that electric hurts more than it helps. But electric plug in hybrids was a major point of Obama's address today.
quote:Until a candidate has the guts to tell us that each American personally needs to to halve his/her energy consumption, rather than touting "alternative energy sources" I won't believe they have a real plan for environmental energy policy. Pitch it as a point of American pride, like the victory gardens and nylon drives during WWII. Convincing people to leave their thermostats five degrees lower in the winter and five degrees higher in the summer will have a bigger impact on fossil fuel consumption that any "alternative energy plan."
Obama did exactly this today as well. He even used the victory garden type example and spoke about reducing our total usage via efficiency upgrades.
I think talsmitde is right. First off he is pushing efficiency and being made fun of for it by McCain. Second I expect a similar reaction for ethanol as well. I think he'll start to call for a cut to corn subsidies in favor of second generation subsidies, and soon the technology and feasibility will make that politically possible.
Noemon -
That's interesting, and I think there's more than a little pandering there, but it might just be a two birds with one stone sort of thing. A lot of people like the idea of increased or even stable funding for NASA, and I'm one of them.
aspectre -
Are you sure that's the same change that's being discussed now? That link is to a two year old paper.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Both McCain and Obama support ethanol, but I don't think either of them wants corn to be the main source of it. Obama just today was talking about a cellulosic ethanol plant opening in Michigan that uses wood scraps as a fuel source. Corn based ethanol is an awful idea, but it's just a stopgap measure to get us to the better stuff like wood scraps, miscanthus, algae, and maybe even trash someday. We're almost there, but not large scale operations yet.
I still think it's a red herring. Although his rhetoric is about next generation biofuels, he has endorsed and voted for significant benefits to corn-based ethanol producers. McCain hasn't, to my knowledge.
quote:I strongly disagree that electric hurts more than it helps. But electric plug in hybrids was a major point of Obama's address today.
True, but McCain was talking about them first. Obama's insistence only on "clean coal" technology would blunt the ecologic impact of going electric, but it also makes the sort of gains he's proposing economically infeasible (since clean coal technology is a long way away). Essentially, Obama's moratorium on new coal plants would price the plug-in electric hybrids he spoke of out of the market until gas reached a couple times what it costs today.
quote:
quote:Until a candidate has the guts to tell us that each American personally needs to to halve his/her energy consumption, rather than touting "alternative energy sources" I won't believe they have a real plan for environmental energy policy.
Obama did exactly this today as well. He even used the victory garden type example and spoke about reducing our total usage via efficiency upgrades.
Can you point me to where that is in the transcript?
To be more clear about what I meant; both McCain and Obama claim we can reduce our footprint through innovation, by making cars/appliances/houses/industrials more efficient. I think that's wrong. Making things more efficient just means we will consume more. It's the traffic/bandwidth principle. When traffic gets congested, the immediate solution is always to add another lane to the highway (or more bandwidth to the internet connection). But traffic always expands to fill the new capacity. The same is true with increasing efficiency. For instance, car engines are 25% more efficient today than they were 15 years ago. Yet each car pollutes more, because we've made our cars bigger, heavier, with stronger engines and more electonics, meaning the efficiency is swallowed up by added consumption.
So until someone says "you will have to start doing without some of the comforts you've enjoyed up until now" I won't believe they have a real plan for cutting carbon emissions.
quote:I think talsmitde is right. First off he is pushing efficiency and being made fun of for it by McCain. Second I expect a similar reaction for ethanol as well. I think he'll start to call for a cut to corn subsidies in favor of second generation subsidies, and soon the technology and feasibility will make that politically possible.
The tire inflation thing -- totally classless on McCain's part. And stupid, too.
As for an Illinois senator who wants to win Iowa and Indiana calling for a cut in corn subsidies -- I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe after the election when subsidies are less politically expedient.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I still think it's a red herring. Although his rhetoric is about next generation biofuels, he has endorsed and voted for significant benefits to corn-based ethanol producers. McCain hasn't, to my knowledge.
That's because McCain finds a way to be out of the room whenever the vote is being taken. But after years of opposition to corn based ethanol he switched positions on it when he started running for president. I don't have a problem with flip flops so long as you have a good reason for it.
quote:True, but McCain was talking about them first. Obama's insistence only on "clean coal" technology would blunt the ecologic impact of going electric, but it also makes the sort of gains he's proposing economically infeasible (since clean coal technology is a long way away). Essentially, Obama's moratorium on new coal plants would price the plug-in electric hybrids he spoke of out of the market until gas reached a couple times what it costs today.
I disagree. There's already enough energy to power two thirds of the US LDV fleet currently available during the night. 70% of the people in the LDV fleet switched over to PHEVs, they could charge up at night and drive 40 miles the next day on electric only and we'd need no additional electrical generating capacity. That's why we need a two tiered pricing system. Using his (and others') proposed $7K tax credit for PHEVs, that brings the price down to what an average person can probably afford, and with the savings from increased fuel efficiency and the nature of a PHEV, they'll end up coming out ahead.
I'll cover the last point and such later, my laptop is out of power.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll look for the transcript later. But I think you overestimate the value of a president asking for certain kinds of sacrifices in today's day and age. He can only do so much.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
According to TopGear, 80% of C02 emmisions come from nature.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There's already enough energy to power two thirds of the US LDV fleet currently available during the night. 70% of the people in the LDV fleet switched over to PHEVs, they could charge up at night and drive 40 miles the next day on electric only and we'd need no additional electrical generating capacity. That's why we need a two tiered pricing system. Using his (and others') proposed $7K tax credit for PHEVs, that brings the price down to what an average person can probably afford, and with the savings from increased fuel efficiency and the nature of a PHEV, they'll end up coming out ahead.
If we use the current electric grid to power our PHEVs we will release about twice as much CO2 as we did previously using fuel-based vehicles. Until clean coal is viable, or until we go significantly more nuclear, PHEVs represent a near doubling of carbon emissions.
Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Hydroelectric? All these have non-negligble environmental impact, suffer from "not in my backyard" syndrome, and are tied to a limited set of specific geographic locations. Furthermore, getting anything like the amount of power necessary to supply a modest transition to PHEVs with those sorts of renewables will be hugely expensive.
I don't see congress, or a President worried about re-election, doing anything to increase the net portion of our electricity derived from these sources. The same is probably true of nuclear (although it is a more versatile and economic option). Which is why I think going electric will result in a net increase in CO2 emissions.
Tell people to drive less, buy smaller houses (less expensive to heat/cool), turn off the A/C, warm less in the winter, turn off their computers and lights, use canvas bags to transport groceries. And properly inflate their tires. If we want to decrease our national carbon footprint, this is what citizens can realistically do (IMO). I think Obama could generate a lot of enthusiasm for this sort of self-sacrifice; he should do it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: According to TopGear, 80% of C02 emmisions come from nature.
Its closer to 90%, but still irrelevant.
Nature both emits CO2 into the atmosphere and sequesters it from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and absorption in the oceans. Industrial emission of CO2 throws that cycle out of balance resulting in a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I've been checking 538 pretty frequently over the past few weeks, and decided to crunch a few numbers.
Based on current model estimates, I categorized the electoral votes into certains (> 10% spread), likelies (10 > x > 5% spread), leans (5 > x > 2%), and toss-ups (< 2% spread).
If we say all but the toss-ups go to whomever is leading currently, we have 16 scenarios. Of those 16 scenarios, we get Obama victories in all but 2. If McCain sweeps the toss-ups, he wins.
If McCain wins VA, OH, CO and loses NV it's a tie which then goes to the House for resolution, where each state delegation gets a single vote. By my count, state delegations by party lines have a 27-21 advantage for Dems (with two states evenly split), which means a victory for Obama.
If we consider both the leans and the toss-ups as in play and the rest as constant, there are 328/8192 winning scenarios for McCain. The largest group consists of:
Hold VA, FL, IN, MO, NC and capture OH, MI (64/328)
<edit> And in the case of both toss-ups and leans being in contention, there are 36/8192 scenarios that lead to a tie which would then be decided in Obama's favor by the House</edit>
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If current trends continue, it's hard to imagine Obama losing. That said, the candidates haven't even picked VPs yet.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, McCain has been gaining in the polls lately. Obama's victory still seems likely to me, but it isn't an absolutely foregone conclusion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Senoj -
quote:If we use the current electric grid to power our PHEVs we will release about twice as much CO2 as we did previously using fuel-based vehicles. Until clean coal is viable, or until we go significantly more nuclear, PHEVs represent a near doubling of carbon emissions.
Again, not true. Well, possible untrue, it depends entirely on what structure you are using to power the cars. I imagining that in your hypothetical version of powering a PHEV LDV fleet, we're all charging our cars at 4 in the afternoon. But you seem to have totally ignored what I said about charging at night. We have most of the power we need so long as those PHEV owners charge their cars at night. A great many power plants stay on through the night because it just doesn't make sense to turn them off for a few hours and then back on again, so massive amounts of energy races around the electrical grid and then just fizzles out. Harnessing that energy would be a freebie.
quote:Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Hydroelectric? All these have non-negligble environmental impact, suffer from "not in my backyard" syndrome, and are tied to a limited set of specific geographic locations. Furthermore, getting anything like the amount of power necessary to supply a modest transition to PHEVs with those sorts of renewables will be hugely expensive.
Eh, solar wind and geothermal are arguable on their impact on the environment. And if you compare them to the scale of coal and oil plants, then I don't think it's much of a contest at all. Also I don't think they all suffer from NIMBY at all (well, I think hydroelectric does), considering the large number of homes putting up solar power on their roofs. Besides, most largescale solar power plants being planned are in the desert, most wind power are out in the plains where population density is at its lowest, and geothermal looks like a smaller version of any other power plant.
And even if all that weren't true, it's a lot easier to control emissions from one power plant than from a million little ones all driving around on the road. This is why Obama is pushing next generation technologies for a modern T&D network to get power from the renewables to people, upping efficiency standards and working on smartgrid technology.
Sterling -
I don't know, if current trends continue, that is, McCain gaining in the poll in fits and starts and his insanely negative ad blitz continuing then I think it'll be a much tougher Fall than most of us imagined. But things are going to turn on their heads after the conventions. First off, Obama is going to spend a LOT more money than he is now, and McCain's spending will start to fall off in some areas. McCain has to more or less empty his coffers now in preperation for the big infusion of money he'll be getting from public financing. Obama has to build up a bit of a war chest and then pump out the money in the Fall. Plus people will really start paying attention.
I think things will heat up a lot in the Fall and it could still go either way, though I do think things currently favor Obama.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wind doesn't suffer from NIMBY? There have been numerous cases all over the news about communities being against windfarms, even when those windfarms would only be disrupting their skyline out on the ocean.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And yet it's still the fastest growing energy source in America, with a four year waiting period at GE for new turbines and so many more waiting in the wings that GE had to stop taking orders. The news doesn't cover the farms that get made, they cover the ones that don't.
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
Solar in the southwest, wind in the midwest and the great plains, tidal and wind along the coasts, hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear to cover what's not covered by that . . . and I have a feeling that federal and state zoning laws for power plants are going to be rewritten in such a way to sidestep NIMBYism.
And Lyrhawn's right about wind farms being built--my home state of Delaware is getting a massive wind farm off its Atlantic coast.
As for trends in the polling, etc., I'm still of the opinion that McCain going negative in such a massive way does significant damage to his brand and the more he continues to use the typical Republican machinery (Schmidt, et. al.), the more backlash he'll suffer.
And it's really amazing to see how we still perceive the MSM as favoring Obama when McCain's gotten a free ride from CBS on the surge interview and lots of pundits on the grind of every daily news cycle.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, there are definitely wind farms being built. But there are also prime locations where wind farms are having hard times being built. The Cape Cod wind farm was projected to be able to start generating electricity by the end of 2007. Due to holdups from Ted Kennedy and lots of other people with land in the area, they won't even be ready to contemplate building until the end of 2008, at least.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
At current levels of technology, there is simply no way that green energy can make a significant dent (say, above 20%) in the US's power needs without sending the cost of energy skyrocketing. I've only been working in the power markets for two months now, but I have learned that much.
Wind farms aren't reliable enough, especially during peak hours; solar power has the same problem too. Both tend to be most effective located away from the population centers - which means transmission costs & losses are going to kill you - or have the NIMBY problem that fugu points out. The big hydroelectric sources have been tapped, or can't be tapped because of environmental concerns (salmon, etc). Geothermal isn't located where we need it. Tidal isn't a player at all, given current technology levels.
I'm all for green power, but there are some major, major technological and logistical problems that need to be solved for it to be a workable solution for our energy needs. It's really frustrating to hear the candidates debating and putting forward ideas that I know (from just two months study, mind) aren't realistic by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. If a candidate wants to be serious on green power, here's the package to be unveiling:
Remove subsidies for the use of green power (such as corn ethanol). They don't work very well, result in the preservation of inefficient ways when better ones come along, and create entire industries around maximizing how much subsidy is received for minimum cost (often implying minimum environmental benefit).
Step up scientific R&D. Less the practical stuff; once that's within reach, companies are plenty interested. More the raw research that will be the practical stuff in ten years or more.
And, most important in the short term, put a lot of effort into clearing unnecessary regulatory hurdles and preventing unreasonable red tape from other sources; perhaps some funding to be used in carrying out necessary evaluations, because many of these installations do require significant evaluation for environmental and other reasons.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Jhai & fugu-
Have you seen anything from Steve Koonin? He's a former Cal Tech physics professor who's now chief scientist for BP.
Here's a lecture he gave at UC Berkley. He spoke here at MIT not long ago and I found it very interesting.
He makes much the same point, that renewables aren't ready (particularly solar). He starts out talking geopolitically, and looks at energy from economic, political, security and ecological standpoints. Highly recommended viewing.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Two of my favorite quotes from today's news cycle:
"It will be interesting to watch this debate between John McCain and John McCain" (Obama on McCain's reversal regarding proper tire inflation)
“Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan,” (McCain rep Tucker Bounds on Paris Hilton's mocking commercial)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Senoj, I haven't seen that lecture by Steve Koonin, although I do recognize the name. I check it out when I get a chance - thanks for the link!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
This article rings as totally bogus to me as most all farmers I know are extremely unhappy with the Farm Bill - in fact our own Kansas reps voted against it. The current Farm Bill is totally geared toward Big Corn; Big Ethanol and Food Stamps -- very little in it at all about regular smaller and medium sized farming operations.
I don't think it will hurt McCain (as the articles tries to say it will) because most voters around here agree with him when it comes to this current policy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is one of the few things that I agree with McCain on over Obama. The Farm Bill was a giant waste of money, again.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I got the email mentioned in this snopes article today. I sent back the snopes article so they could make up their own minds with all of the facts. I really hate biased emails like that, no matter what side they're on.
I saw a video on a friend's picture blog about why Obama is so scary. It was so full of misinformation and vaguely concealed racist remarks it wasn't funny. Really, it wasn't funny. I couldn't believe such a good friend would post something so inflammatory without fact-checking.
Disagree with Obama's or McCain's policies--FINE, but these emails and accusations involving missing flag pins, etc. are offensive.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I got the email mentioned in this snopes article today. I sent back the snopes article so they could make up their own minds with all of the facts. I really hate biased emails like that, no matter what side they're on.
Guess he's not going to be VP.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
that's the first thing i thought as well.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Never saw any possibility of selection as VicePresident. FAR too weak a showing during the campaign for the Nomination. Mine was "He ain't gonna be a major speaker at the Convention." And the second was, "His lying killed the highly possible appointments to USAttorneyGeneral then to SCotUS*."
* SupremeCourt of the UnitedStates.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
This happened in 2006 and he still decided to pursue the nomination?
--j_k
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Big ups to him on his timing, though. The man's been denying it for nearly a year now, and look what day he decides to `fess up!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: This happened in 2006 and he still decided to pursue the nomination?
There's certainly been precedent of philandering Southern politicians successfully gaining the nomination despite previous affairs.
I feel sorry for their family; I hope they (particularly Elizabeth Edwards) can deal with the trauma inflicted.
On the heartless, political side: For a few years after Clinton and Condit I wondered what had happened to the good old-fashioned Democratic sex scandal. Everything was Mark Foley and Larry Craig. But now we've had, in quick succession, Newsom, Vallaigarosa, Kilpatrick, Spitzer and now Edwards. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Please oh please oh please let Obama have stayed faithful to his wife.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Please oh please oh please let Obama have stayed faithful to his wife.
Yeah, him not doing so and being exposed would be a double-tap to the head for sure. It'd suck in a lot of ways. I say that as a fence-sitter, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you mean by double-tap to the head? I can't quite parse your sentence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sorry. That's nerdy gamer/action movie fan lingo. 'Double-tap' meaning two shots fired one right after the other, and hitting very close together.
A deadly blow, in other words.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think if he had done so, he would've gotten it out when he got everything else out in his autobiography. He shed a lot of demons there, and I think if he had anymore, it would've been best to get rid of them then.
But say it did come out next week that years ago he had an affair...doesn't the fact that McCain had an affair, a divorce, and a remarriage give him some leeway? McCain's past infidelities haven't gotten the tiniest bit of sunlight during this campaign, which is actually something I'm happy about, because I'd rather this be about policy, but I can't help but wonder what would happen with McCain's own past if something about Obama were to come out.
This Edwards thing is a bit shocking. I always liked him, and I still do despite this admittal. It's just strange when it comes at you from left field. I really don't think Edwards was a VP contender, but I DO think he had a serious shot at AG or SecLabor. I don't know if those chances are shot now, but they certainly took a big hit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But say it did come out next week that years ago he had an affair...doesn't the fact that McCain had an affair, a divorce, and a remarriage give him some leeway? McCain's past infidelities haven't gotten the tiniest bit of sunlight during this campaign, which is actually something I'm happy about, because I'd rather this be about policy, but I can't help but wonder what would happen with McCain's own past if something about Obama were to come out.
I don't know, Lyrhawn. A lot of Senator Obama's oomph is about image, integrity, a new sort of politics, a new sort of politician in fact. The good guy.
If a lot of shine comes off of that chrome, well...then he starts to look a lot more like business as usual. In this layman's opinion, the Obama campaign dies on the vine if that happens. In particular, because he disclosed some things and not that. And even more so if such a thing happened after his autobiography.
Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing it further personally. It started out with me just agreeing with katharina. I don't suspect it of him.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
In a very shallow confession, I must admit something. I mean seriously, you have a shot at the president and probably some pretty influential positions, you're decent looking, and much of the country is watching you ... so the stakes are pretty high. Then you go and have an affair with well, a pretty average looking woman.
I mean, what gives? If you *must* do something like this why not make it worth your while? Why risk it all on something so mediocre? Goes for Clinton with Lewinsky too.
Is it just the 'forbidden' nature of the affair and the high stakes in getting caught acting like a psychological "beer goggles"? Weird.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
For some people, it may just be the first instance of "Wow, there's someone who's drawn to my power, this is really heady..." Possibly combined with the timing of "I've been going through some really rough times, I deserve a break."
And then, some men just find it much harder than they should to say "no".
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Attractiveness cannot be measured by a photograph.
I find the idea that somehow it would be more "worth it" if the women in question were superficially better looking to be ridiculous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mucus,
Politicians are people too, and people are prone to weakness. I don't say that in that he's weaker because she's 'average looking' (frankly a part of me wonders if that picture wasn't selected for its average-lookingness).
And despite how incredibly lazy politicians seem sometimes (hey big recesses!), on the campaign trail life is extremely stressful. Especially that particular campaign trail.
Into this situation comes the woman making documentaries on his campaign. Surely they at the very least respected one another already, or they wouldn't have that kind of business relationship. To make such films a good deal of time must have been spent in close proximity, conducting interviews and just being there to observe.
Who can say what the connection between them was? And I reject the silly notion that because she appears mediocre in a couple of photographs we've seen, she must be a mediocre woman, or that physical attractiveness is the only lure for affairs. Honestly, that idea you're suggesting is possibly even rude and insulting.
Sterling,
quote:And then, some men just find it much harder than they should to say "no".
Some women too, unless she was an especially crapphy documentary filmmaker and didn't realize he was married.
------------
The most irritating thing about this situation, for me personally (never having been a fan of Edwards, and thus having no 'personal' stake in his disgrace) is that he is probably going to 'get away' with timing his 'admission' like he has.
Olypmics, war in Georgia, falling oil prices, talk of troop withdrawls in Iraq, bizarre and dramatic missing-baby headlines in the news...really, Edwards has hit the jackpot when it comes to fortuitous timing to make this sort of statement.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sterling,
quote:And then, some men just find it much harder than they should to say "no".
Some women too, unless she was an especially crapphy documentary filmmaker and didn't realize he was married.
In as much as she shouldn't have had a fling with Edwards, yes. But there's something of a difference between "this is stupid, this is immoral, this is unprofessional, I shouldn't do this" and "if I do this, I could destroy almost everything I've worked for for the last twenty years."
There are rare exceptions, but sex scandals are usually the province of male politicians. And the women involved with said politicians usually find it much easier to fade from the spotlight.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There are rare exceptions, but sex scandals are usually the province of male politicians. And the women involved with said politicians usually find it much easier to fade from the spotlight.
This might have something to do with the fact that presently, politics is usually the province of male politicians.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This might have something to do with the fact that presently, politics is usually the province of male politicians.
That's undoubtedly part of it, but I would be lying if I said I thought it was the only, or even the biggest, part of it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's undoubtedly part of it, but I would be lying if I said I thought it was the only, or even the biggest, part of it.
Why? Because men are more prone to cheating?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
They probably are, a little, but no, that's not why.
I think men who have worked hard to achieve power are more likely to feel that they "deserve" perks outside the strictest definitions of their job benefits. It's been observed, for example, that men are more likely than women to believe they're entitled to "free time" to cope with the stresses of their jobs.
I also think men with power are more likely to use it as an inducement to sex. That's partly just the state of sexual relations in our time. Powerful men are considered attractive; powerful women are considered intimidating. I wouldn't be the first to observe that many women who have risen to high positions in corporations have felt a need to downplay their sexuality as part of their persona. Power + female still creates a cognitive dissonance in a lot of people.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Power + female still creates a cognitive dissonance in a lot of people.
And of course, if a man is a domineering and commanding boss, he is looked at differently than a woman in the same position. For instance, one is called a bitch and the other is not.
I'll say the same thing about John Edwards that I did about John McCain--who gives a crap? If we expect perfection out of our politicians, then clearly we aim too high, and this means nothing to the issues and problems we face or that Edwards promoted. In some sense, I think this is where this nihilism and cynicism about our country and politicians come from, we expect perfection from those who could never actually provide it, and when we are disappointed, we look at the world as if it is to blame.
People aren't perfect, politicians aren't perfect, and humanity is flawed. Sounds like a reason for theme music and a big red banner to me...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'll say the same thing about John Edwards that I did about John McCain--who gives a crap? If we expect perfection out of our politicians, then clearly we aim too high, and this means nothing to the issues and problems we face or that Edwards promoted.
I give a crap. It's not an instant deal-breaker for me in a politician, but it does erode my respect for them substantially. As it does with an ordinary person actually, while remembering that of course I cannot know all the circumstances and thus my opinion is to some extent uninformed.
Call me crazy, I just don't quite trust someone to keep their word when I learn they can't honor their marriage oaths. Or at least, can't trust them as much. That doesn't mean that the person (italicized for the sexism on display in this thread lately) who does honor their vows isn't a liar in other, more serious ways, or that the one who doesn't honor those vows isn't the one I should vote for.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It would be sort of an interesting exercise to make a list of faults that, if found in our candidates, we really wouldn't care about.
"After his Saturday Night Live appearance, John McCain didn't go to the wrap party."
"Despite spending much of his youth in Hawaii, Barack Obama still frequently mispronounces Hawaiian words."
(not real examples.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: (frankly a part of me wonders if that picture wasn't selected for its average-lookingness).
Good point. It is possible.
quote: Honestly, that idea you're suggesting is possibly even rude and insulting.
I did specifically point out that it was a very shallow observation. Of course its rude and insulting.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, this new revelation will certainly change some things.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh. Nice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Well, this new revelation will certainly change some things.
I think it is every American's patriotic duty NOT to link this video and to do anything they can within reason to kill it's very existence.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I thought it was pretty funny.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Some of the knockoffs I'm seeing now are pretty dumb, but I thought the original was funny, clever and pretty tasteful.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
My initial reaction was a chuckle at the thought of the guy who's supposed to be stronger on foreign policy experience cribbing notes from Wikipedia like a kid writing a book report. But honestly, I'm not so sure this is a big deal even if true.
I mean, pretty much all politicans have speech writers to start with, so for the most part we're not expecting their speeches to be entirely their own words. And they have to research facts somewhere. Before the internet would anyone have cared if some lines in a speech were similar to those in a history book or encyclopedia?
The only thing that does seem wrong about this is the editablity of wikipedia and the potential for inaccuracy or vandalism. I hope McCain or his writers weren't using wiki as a sole source, because it's just too easy to get misinformation on there (at least temporarily).
--Enigmatic
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I'm not sure I agree with the analysis, but since so much of last spring was spent discussing whether or not Obama's proposed policy toward Iran was "appeasement," I think this article is worth mentioning.
--j_k
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
McCain says that in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations
I didn't see what came after it, did he qualify that statement with something afterwards?
If he didn't, that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard him say, and beyond that, shows a striking amount of naivete that I didn't think someone with his experience would be capable of.
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
I too would like to see more context on the above clip.
otoh this clip has plenty of context. according to Hannity while there is a double standard for sex scandals that favor democrats John McCain's affair is off limits because he spent five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp. (it starts to get explosive around the 2:45 range):
Is it just me, or would Nathan Lane make a GREAT Hannity in a movie?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
: laugh : he really would.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would certainly watch Nathan Lane as Hannity a helluva lot more than Hannity as Hannity.
Any medium, for that matter. Print, radio, television, smoke signal...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What about semaphore? Nathan Lane has always been a poor semaphore performer. It's widely viewed as his Achilles' heel.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: otoh this clip has plenty of context. according to Hannity while there is a double standard for sex scandals that favor democrats John McCain's affair is off limits because he spent five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp. (it starts to get explosive around the 2:45 range):
Hannity's point was McCain had just come back from Vietnam and may have not been in the best state of mind to make rational decisions. A lot of returning Vietnam vets had many similar issues. The point wasn't that McCain's affair is off-limits but that there is more to the story than he simply cheated on his wife. We don't know what McCain's state of mind was 30 years ago as a returning Vietnam vet who was in a prison camp for 5 1/2 years. I think McCain might have been having a little more stress and pyschological trauma to deal with than Edwards did when Edwards was cheating.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's an excellent point, and I should have known a theater buff like yourself would pick up on that!
Still prefer Lane. Even on the telegraph!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Hannity's point was McCain had just come back from Vietnam and may have not been in the best state of mind to make rational decisions.
McCain was released in 1973. He didn't meet Cindy Hensley until 1979. It's hardly as though he stumbled off the plane and immediately launched into an affair with her.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:McCain was released in 1973. He didn't meet Cindy Hensley until 1979. It's hardly as though he stumbled off the plane and immediately launched into an affair with her.
From wikipedia...
quote: During their time in Jacksonville, the McCains' marriage began to falter.[178] McCain had extramarital affairs,[178] and he later said, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."[179] His wife Carol later stated that the failure was not due to her accident or Vietnam and that "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."[180] John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg, believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on."[180] According to John McCain, "I had changed, she had changed. People who have been apart that much change."[180]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:McCain was released in 1973. He didn't meet Cindy Hensley until 1979. It's hardly as though he stumbled off the plane and immediately launched into an affair with her.
From wikipedia...
quote: During their time in Jacksonville, the McCains' marriage began to falter.[178] McCain had extramarital affairs,[178] and he later said, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."[179] His wife Carol later stated that the failure was not due to her accident or Vietnam and that "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."[180] John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg, believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on."[180] According to John McCain, "I had changed, she had changed. People who have been apart that much change."[180]
I'm not sure what the juxtaposition of my quote with the quote from wikipedia is supposed to show. Ordinarily in a post structured in that way I'd expect the second quote to refute the assertion being made in the first, but since that's clearly not the case here I'm a little puzzled.
[Edited to include the post I was responding to, since I had the misfortune to make a TOPP.]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
During the time between John McCain being released and his affair with Cindy Hensley, he had his flight status reinstated, became a celebrated commanding officer of a training squadron, and then became the Navy's liason to the Senate. 3 years after the affair and 2 years after his divorce and then remarriage, he was elected to Congress, where he was then elected to lead the incoming freshman Republicans.
This was not a man noticably making very poor decisions through stress. edit: And even given that, he didn't just cheat on Carol McCain. He treated her horribly.
---
edit: I made my peace with it in 2000 because he owned up to it being his fault and admitting that he behaved very poorly. Given that it around 2 decades before and what I'd seen of him, I was willing to accept that he had grown a lot since then. But it was definitely a large black mark for me, as I think it should be for anyone who can seriously claim to be a character/values voter.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:In a recent interview, McCain said he did not want to revisit the breakup of his marriage. "I have a very good relationship with my first wife," he said. In his autobiography, he wrote: "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine."
He doesn't seem to put the blame on his POW horror.
In any event, why should we be comforted by the fact that one of the candidates may have had sufficient trauma (physically and psychologically) to cheat on his handicapped wife with a woman half his age? How do we know the trauma has been sufficiently healed, especially in light of rumors of another fling 10 years ago, plus his judgment in his dealings with Keating? Not to mention not knowing the borders of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, or confusing Sunni and Shiite Muslims repeatedly, despite being corrected at lest once on camera by Sen. Lieberman?
Oh, and just to be fair and balanced with the innuendo, I'll just repeat what I've read is making the circles of chain emails: Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.
-Bok
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.
So that's what he's up to....
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'm not sure what the juxtaposition of my quote with the quote from wikipedia is supposed to show. Ordinarily in a post structured in that way I'd expect the second quote to refute the assertion being made in the first, but since that's clearly not the case here I'm a little puzzled.
I made an assumption on my first post based upon the youtube clip that McCain would have taken the stance the Vietnam affected him more than he says it did but after I read your snarky post I did a wiki lookup I found more information than either of us had posted so I posted what I found. It was meant to clarify the discussion based upon wikipedia. Unlike this type of post:
quote: In any event, why should we be comforted by the fact that one of the candidates may have had sufficient trauma (physically and psychologically) to cheat on his handicapped wife with a woman half his age? How do we know the trauma has been sufficiently healed, especially in light of rumors of another fling 10 years ago, plus his judgment in his dealings with Keating? Not to mention not knowing the borders of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, or confusing Sunni and Shiite Muslims repeatedly, despite being corrected at lest once on camera by Sen. Lieberman?
which is clearly just meant to demean McCain with 'facts' and then followed by
quote: Oh, and just to be fair and balanced with the innuendo, I'll just repeat what I've read is making the circles of chain emails: Obama might be a secret black supremacist Christian Muslim Anti-Christ who hates the USA so much, he's running for the President of it on a platform of compromise and unity, only to bring on the apocalypse.
which was posted to make critiscm of Obama seem ludicrous.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
DK, Do you think that a candidate cheating on his wife is a big deal?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
DK, I am serious in one regard to the Obama stuff. It is making the rounds in email, and being referenced in some conservative circles... And it is being believed by some people.
Yes, these can all be rationalized away, and may be uncharitable, but compare them to the base speculation about Obama that I posted above. The gulf in viciousness, if both are taking seriously, is huge. One is saying that maybe McCain's judgment isn't all that good... The other is saying that Obama will literally bring the end times upon us all.
Note also, I said "with the innuendo", which means I'm well aware the McCain criticisms are arguable points, that can be used to smear the candidate. Then again, they are all documented by the press, whereas the Obama stuff is speculation.
There's plenty to criticize Obama on: his lack of national experience, particularly as this pertains to his foreign policy; his healthcare plan; even his tax plan. Yet it seems most would rather play to baser mistrust and call him the Anti-Christ. There's even a McCain internet ad that lifts heavily from the Left Behind series as far as terminology and imagery in attacking Obama.
-Bok
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: DK, Do you think that a candidate cheating on his wife is a big deal?
Yes, it is a big deal. It is a big deal to the wife (or husband) and to the family. Elected officials know they can be blackmailed if they are discovered. Cheating is a very devastating event usually for all involved. An affair many years ago is much different than an active affair today. People can learn from their mistakes. More to the point, I could vote for someone if they had an affair. There are a lot of 'depends' on whether or not I would though. We are all human with the same human weaknesses and at times those weaknesses can overcome our better judgement. A current affair would definitely lessen my opinion of them and may cause me to combine that with other critiscms and vote for the other candidate. I am not a fan of McCain but Obama's policies are even worse so I do feel like I am having to choose between awful and very bad.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Have any of you guys seen the Rick Warren moderated forum between McCain and Obama, I hope to see some youtube videos.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I'm not sure I agree with the analysis, but since so much of last spring was spent discussing whether or not Obama's proposed policy toward Iran was "appeasement," I think this article is worth mentioning.
Yeah, I saw that article, Lyr. I don't buy it. On that issue, the general populace just wants enough info to put you in column A or column B.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not so worried about a lot of people looking at his statement and saying "oh my, what a can of worms that opens!" People just don't think like that.
But I can already see the ads on TV saying McCain wants to do away with all birth control. If life does begin at conception, then any assault on even a zygote is the same thing as murder. So McCain either has to defend murder, or be against all birth control. Now I personally am not a big fan of black and white positions. But I think Obama, or his surrogates, or even just pissed off women's groups (who have a lot of money and power) perhaps in conjunction with pharmeceutical companies afraid of what this might mean for birth control pills and what not will have a very, very easy time pinning McCain into a corner and forcing him to choose, and I think given his weakness with social conservatives he'll have to side with them.
It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not sure I agree with the analysis, but since so much of last spring was spent discussing whether or not Obama's proposed policy toward Iran was "appeasement," I think this article is worth mentioning.
quote: It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
I don't think Obama wants any hay made out of this considering the hay that can be made out of his politics on abortion
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, I think they're trying to combat a couple of decades of Republicans saying they love baby killing. Even the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice monniker suggests that anyone who is for a right to choose is naturally against life, and therefore supports murder. It's part of the lexicon of the abortion debate. It's designed to make Pro-Lifers look like they actively support and like baby killing. At least that's how I frequently see the debate being framed.
When Democrats try and take a middle road, which frankly I don't see as a middle road, they get called flip floppers and wafflers who can't make a choice. Most Democrats are in favor of a ban on late-term abortions so long as there is an exception for the life of the mother. Does that make them Pro-Life? Is that an abandonment of Roe?
This is a tough discussion to have without really going into all the smaller parts that make it up. Any debate on abortion has to include a discussion on Sex Education, which is another topic Republicans and Democrats seem to widely diverge at. Democrats think comprehensive SexEd will reduce the overall number of unwanted pregnancies, and the numbers seem to bear them out on that. And they're okay with placing abortions into a strict set of circumstances, like no late-term abortions with some exceptions. The other side seems to take a "just say no" approach to SexEd, and then outlaws all abortion with no exceptions (though this does vary I think). To a Democrat, that looks ridiculous because it ups the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and puts women in a potentially life threatening situation, and results in hundreds, thousands, and some day millions of unwanted babies.
I think far too often the debate is stopped at, like Bok says, Column A or Column B, with no room for nuance. But often I think the best solutions are generally found somewhere in between. That's where my own position lies, but it's hard to find a candidate that supports exactly what I believe in because it seems like they are forced to take one side and defend it, and any ground the give is seen as a betrayal, and they are punished for it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: It's not about what he said in that interview, it's about the hay that pro-choicers will be able to make out of it.
I don't think Obama wants any hay made out of this considering the hay that can be made out of his politics on abortion
Like that'll be left alone anyway if he stays silent on the subject? Yeah right. McCain has taken a First Strike approach to campaigning thus far, I don't see why that'd stop in the Fall.
Besides, hardcore Social Conservatives are either going to stay home or vote McCain. Obama has way too many votes that he can pick up in the middle with Independents that he needs to wrest from McCain if he's going to win critical swing states. The question is whether it's a net gain or not, and I think it would be.
And either way, neither of them will have a choice once the PACs get into the mix.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think far too often the debate is stopped at, like Bok says, Column A or Column B, with no room for nuance. But often I think the best solutions are generally found somewhere in between. That's where my own position lies, but it's hard to find a candidate that supports exactly what I believe in because it seems like they are forced to take one side and defend it, and any ground the give is seen as a betrayal, and they are punished for it.
Heaven forbid that a complicated question has a complicated answer. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
McCain said he supported stem cell research, though he didn't specify embryonic vs. all other stem cell research, so that's a bit strange.
I don't think you can say human rights begin at conception and support embryonic stem cell research. Though him not thinking of test tube babies as conceived would not come as a surprise.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure how he could reconcile test tube babies as not being concieved with the whole idea of what conception is. Egg meets sperm = Baby. That's precisely what test tube babies are, they just aren't implanted, but his statement on when life begins has nothing to do with implantation, it starts at a point before that.
If I had to guess, I'd say he supports non-embryonic stem cell research, or at least, that's what he supports NOW. Given recent advances in medical research though, I don't know how much static he'll get for that.
I think these are questions that women's groups will MAKE him answer, that before this recent statement he could skate by with campaign one liners that they so often use. But now that he has taken a firm position, he's going to get asked a lot of follow ups. No matter how he answers them, he's going to upset someone. I think Obama gets by here because he gave the answer everyone pretty much expects from a Democrat, which boils down to "safe, legal and rare," or what I call S&S (Safe & Seldom).
None of this will matter if no one ever pushes this on him and makes him answer questions about it, but there's a lot of potential for it. It's a pinatta waiting to be whacked.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That conundrum is easy to finesse. You just say you were talking about the newer, less-proven, non-embryonic stem cell research. And then send some sort of attack toward Obama to distract the press from following up on any potential discrepency between the latest statement, and any past statements (if there are any).
For all the media that Obama gets, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt like McCain has gotten. I mean, McCain's even has the networks redacting verbal gaffes from interviews prior to airing... [EDIT: Note, I don't mean to say that McCain has been making the networks do it. I just mean that it has happened).
We'll see. If Obama and his surrogates, or the pro-choice establishment decide to make an issue out of his statements, I don't see him getting out of it without giving either some specifics, or a lot of room for Obama to fill in the blanks himself. McCain is the one who has pioneered that tactic in this campaign (though hardly the first to use it). If you don't define yourself, your opponent will. The longer McCain dodges, the more time Obama will have to run ads saying Mccain is anti-birth control, anti-fertility science (artificial insemination, etc), anti-reproductive rights, anti-choice, anti-women and whatever else he wants, until McCain either confirms or denies, and if he denies, he hurts himself with social conservatives after saying he's the pro-life candidate.
I'm not saying he won't have his own mud to sling, but he's going to throw it anyway.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Those attacks are full of false information. A little bit of research will show that any fetus with a reasonable chance of surviving an abortion were already protected under Illinois law.
The only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DK -
With articles like that, I'm not surprised.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Have any of you guys seen the Rick Warren moderated forum between McCain and Obama, I hope to see some youtube videos.
Yes. I thought it was very good. I didn't see it at the time it happened, but watched the videos here: Videos & Transcript
edit: (I know nothing about that site or its origins -- I only pulled it up because it had the videos when I was doing a Google search for videos of the forum to watch - so ignore anything else on the site)
[ August 19, 2008, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Obama's numbers have been in decline for a month now, and the electoral map at 538.com is pretty close to parity.
Most analysts seem to chalk up the swing to McCain's successful attacks, or (in the case of the Reuters article) to Obama's eroding his base with his pivot to the center. I think it's just Obama fatigue: there were so many stories about him that the population has just got tired, like a kid with a new toy once the shine has worn off.
I think that Obama's numbers will increase again in September when school's back in and he starts spending his gobs and gobs of un-campaign-finance-reform cash, while McCain will be forced to rein in his spending significantly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Those attacks are full of false information. A little bit of research will show that any fetus with a reasonable chance of surviving an abortion were already protected under Illinois law. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm The only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack.
Do you have any other pronouncements you'd like to make about the reasons people who disagree with you support enactment of particular statutes?
There's a significant difference between the new law as described and the existing statute - specifically the "reasonable chance" portion. The old law made a requirement that the doctor try to save the lives of SOME fetuses who were entirely separate from the mother and who breathed or had a heartbeat. The new law says, essentially, that when interpreting laws with the word "person", "human being", etc., a member of the species homo sapiens that has been fully extracted or expulsed from the human body.
The laws do different things. To be precise, the second law encompasses the first and much more.
You want to disagree with the law, fine. But, especially in the context of accusing others of dishonesty, don't make up claims about the only logical reason they might want to do something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't see anything about breathing or having a heartbeat in the statute or about being entirely separate in the existing law. I see "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support" and that this is to be determined even before an abortion is started in order to determine the method "most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus". Where are you seeing the entirely separate and breathing parts. Is there more of this statute somewhere that I am just not seeing? Or is this in how the law has been interpreted?
What would be done differently in practice under the new law?
The new law would indeed have done more. It would have identified the fetus as a person, which would undermine Roe v Wade. The existing law which specifically addressed that.
I do think that the attacks on Senator Obama have been dishonest. It is no secret that he is pro-choice, but painting a picture of live babies in waste bins because he wouldn't support this measure is just false.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see anything about breathing or having a heartbeat in the statute or about being entirely separate in the existing law. I see "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support" and that this is to be determined even before an abortion is started in order to determine the method "most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus". Where are you seeing the entirely separate and breathing parts. Is there more of this statute somewhere that I am just not seeing? Or is this in how the law has been interpreted?
They're not in the existing law,. They're in the new law. And that's the point - the new law does something different than the old law. So the existence of the old law does not mean that the "only logical reason that the proposal was introduced in Illinois was to undermine Roe v Wade and to make possible this kind of attack."
Anyone who desires the things the new law does has logical reasons other than undermining Roe for supporting this law.
quote: It would have identified the fetus as a person, which would undermine Roe v Wade. The existing law which specifically addressed that.
It (at least the second version in the Illinois Senate also opposed by Obama) would have defined a fetus that is outside the mother as a person. How does that undermine Roe v. Wade?
quote:I do think that the attacks on Senator Obama have been dishonest.
That's fairly irrelevant to whether your comments about the reasons of those who supported the law are truthful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How would the new law have been better? What would physicians be required to do differently?
What is the point of defining the fetus as a person if not to chip away at Roe v. Wade?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What is the point of defining the fetus as a person if not to chip away at Roe v. Wade?
How does defining an entity outside the mother's body as a person chip away at Roe?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If it doesn't, why is it important?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You made an accusation - that there was no logical reason to introduce this bill other than to undermine Roe and allow this kind of attack on Obama. I would think someone speaking for those she disagrees with in this way would be able to articulate how it undermines Roe.
I have already explained the differences between the old and new laws. If you have a specific question about those differences - like the one I already answered - I'm happy to answer them. Are you willing to back up your statement about other people's reasons for doing something you disagree with?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You're right. I can really have no idea what goes on in the minds of other people. The only reasons that seem logical to me for introducing a bill to protect fetuses that already were protected is to either establish the fetuses as persons or to provide ammunition for attacks.
The only reason that seems logical to me to establish that fetuses are persons is to undermine abortion rights.
What other reasons seem logical to you? How would this bill have changed what doctors were already required to do for viable fetuses?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only reasons that seem logical to me for introducing a bill to protect fetuses that already were protected is to either establish the fetuses as persons
Well of course it defines some fetuses as people - that's the express point of the bill. You still haven't explained how defining these fetuses - that are outside the mother - as persons chips away at Roe, which only addresses fetuses inside the mother.
quote:How would this bill have changed what doctors were already required to do for viable fetuses?
Why does anything have to change about how doctors treat them for this law to be supportable?
The section of the bill directly addressing this used backhanded language to define the entity as a person solely for the purposes of the criminal code. What's wrong with recognizing the backwardness of that language ("shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual") and correcting it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Why not" has never struck me as a good reason for legislation.
It is not a big leap from establishing fetuses as people outside the womb to establishing them as people inside the womb. You really couldn't see that?
And again, why? If not to establish that toehold, why?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He isn't saying "why not", he's saying there was a problem ("backwardness of that language") from his perspective (and presumably that of some legislators), and that this legislation corrects it.
That's not "why not".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would think that, from a legal standpoint, shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual" is different from "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
"X shall not be construed to mean not Y" is not the same as "X means Y".
And although I am not a lawyer, that language did not seem all that backward.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was under the impression that one of the major effects of that law would be the different treatment of non-viable fetuses. That is, doctors would be forced by law to attempt to keep alive infants after an unsuccessful abortion even if that infant had no chance at any life besides a very short one filled with agony, which, as I understood it (don't recall my source and it could have been heavily biased), were basically the only ones not covered by the existing law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is not a big leap from establishing fetuses as people outside the womb to establishing them as people inside the womb. You really couldn't see that?
So you don't consider a living member of the species homo sapiens entirely separated from its mother to be a person?
Whether or not the fetus is inside the womb is the absolute touchstone of Roe. It seems strange to see a law as undermining something when it, in fact, explicitly recognizes the limitations on the law's reach created by Roe and its progeny.
Moreover, the "not a big leap" assessment is highly inaccurate. The leap involved requires overturning Roe (more specifically, Casey). That's not just a big leap. It's a huge leap.
quote:And again, why? If not to establish that toehold, why?
Because the old law left it ambiguous whether a living member of the species homo sapiens entirely separated from the mother was a person. In fact, it created a pretty strong argument that, outside the criminal code, the fetus should not be considered a person. Correcting this seems to me to be beneficial in and of itself.
quote:I would think that, from a legal standpoint, shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual" is different from "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
Yep. And I don't like the former and do like the latter, for a variety of reasons, none of which include it undermining Roe - because it doesn't do that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know if I do or not, in every circumstance, from a legal standpoint. I don't know, from a legal standpoint, whether a "pulsation of the umbilical cord" is sufficient to grant a fetus the same rights as a person.
So it wasn't just a matter of correcting backward language; it was a change. What are your reasons for liking the change?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So it wasn't just a matter of correcting backward language; it was a change.
I'm having a real hard time seeing you as participating with a good motive here, Kate. You're presenting this as if I haven't said it's a change from the very beginning. The whole crux of my point has been that the new law is different from the old law, in direct refutation of your original point that this law did nothing. I've been consistent on this point from the beginning.
Moreover, you're continuing to quiz me on my beliefs here without answering the most relevant question on your own: How does making this change undermine Roe? All I've gotten on this point is a vague slippery-slope-like argument and a refusal to engage on the issue.
I've given reasons for liking the change already: removing the ambiguity from the old law and granting the protections of the law to all living homo sapiens who are outside the mother.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag,
quote:How does making this change undermine Roe? All I've gotten on this point is a vague slippery-slope-like argument and a refusal to engage on the issue.
I haven't really followed the debate on this failed law much, but even I've heard it described it as having a primary purpose of undermining Roe vs. Wade from several sources. Apparently you have not, but I'm willing to bet that boots has. I don't know if this description is her main reason for thinking that it would, but it seems to me that this would be a consistent and reasonable explanation of her comments.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's mostly what I've seen the bill described as too. I don't really get it though, how can a law undermine a Supreme Court decision? Unless the entire point of the law is to have someone break it and then take the whole thing to court to make up an excuse for the court to revisit Roe and perhaps overturn it? That's pretty elaborate, and there's no guarantee that the court will even hear the case, if it even gets that far.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My participation is trying to refute the attacks (see Darknight's post) on Senator Obama. The way his vote on this bill My original point was that viable fetuses already had legal protection even before the abortion procedure was started.
I get that you like a law that grants legal standing to all living homo sapiens who are outside the mother. I am asking why. What does that practically get them that they didn't already have? Is it a recognition of "soul" in some way? And I don't necessarily equate a pulsating umbilical cord or even having a heartbeat as "living".
Now, taken with the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act*, also sponsored by Senator Winkler, it would have made the doctors and hospitals liable civilly liable for damages including punitive damages. Is that the benefit? To make it easier to financially punish doctors who perform abortions?
"...credible source...", and based on research they're giving it a 50% chance.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Um, if the law Obama opposed doesn't affect Roe v. Wade (as alleged), then why should it be mentioned in regard to Obama's record on abortion?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*checks* Nope. No text message.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't really get it though, how can a law undermine a Supreme Court decision?
Well, if my first post on this is accurate, a potential affect would be to make abortion more horrifying to some by creating situations where some failed abortions lead to forcing the doctors and nurses to do preserve the doomed agony that the infants would be in.
Not all eroding would necesarily be legal, although there certainly could be legal angles as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I don't really get it though, how can a law undermine a Supreme Court decision?
It can't.
quote:My participation is trying to refute the attacks (see Darknight's post) on Senator Obama.
If that was all your participation was, I wouldn't have replied. But it went well beyond that, into an area that interests me and in which I have a view that you claimed could not be logical.
quote: My original point was that viable fetuses already had legal protection even before the abortion procedure was started.
Well, no. Your original point was that, because the legal protection already existed, there was no logical reason to support the new bill other than to undermine Roe. You have continued to assert that this undermines Roe. I'm still interested in an explanation of how it undermines Roe.
quote:I get that you like a law that grants legal standing to all living homo sapiens who are outside the mother. I am asking why.
Because I like the law to more closely reflect reality.
quote:Now, taken with the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act*, also sponsored by Senator Winkler, it would have made the doctors and hospitals liable civilly liable for damages including punitive damages. Is that the benefit? To make it easier to financially punish doctors who perform abortions?
The Birth Infant Liability Act does this whether the law we've been talking about exists or not - as you should know, since you've repeated many times that there's no difference in the care received under the old law and the new law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Um, if the law Obama opposed doesn't affect Roe v. Wade (as alleged), then why should it be mentioned in regard to Obama's record on abortion?
Because one of the aftereffects of some abortions is a living, damaged infant. And Roe v. Wade says NOTHING about the state's right to protect such people. So it's relevant to abortion, but does not undermine Roe v. Wade.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But, again, there was a law dealing with any infants that had a reasonable chance of surviving. By my understanding, the effect of this law wasn't going to be saving any infants, but rather prolonging the agony of ones that didn't have a chance at life.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Isn't an infant already protected under law, whether the new law came into effect or not? Or is it still not considered an infant because of its viability status?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Isn't an infant already protected under law, whether the new law came into affect or not? Or is it still not considered an infant because of its viability status?
It was not clear under existing non-criminal Illinois law whether it was considered a person or not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"...credible source...", and based on research they're giving it a 50% chance.
The convention starts in five days, but I think there's a decent chance that you'll actually hear who it is before the actual convention. I think it's possible he's waiting for Olympics mania to die down a bit, which makes me think he'll announce this weekend.
As for the buzz? Blah blah blah. CNN has a different story on their ticket every day about how so and so has the inside track at the moment. The same six or seven names keep floating around in some endless cycle. Most of what I've been hearing lately revolves around Biden, Bayh and Kaine. But who knows? It could still be someone out of the blue like Tom Dashle, though I really really hope not. Or heck it could be Clinton, though again, I really hope not.
I think we'll find out this weekend, but at the very least we'll know this time next week for sure. Kind of sucks that he has to pick first, allowing McCain to pick his in response, but, at the same time I'd be very, very surprised if Obama's choice had any effect on McCain's. McCain has totally different problems than Obama to address with his VP pick. And speculation isn't nearly so rampant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Isn't an infant already protected under law, whether the new law came into affect or not? Or is it still not considered an infant because of its viability status?
It was not clear under existing non-criminal Illinois law whether it was considered a person or not.
But it was under the Illinois Abortion Law. Specifically.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But it was under the Illinois Abortion Law. Specifically.
No it wasn't. You took me to task about that just a few posts ago.
Edit: here it is:
quote:I would think that, from a legal standpoint, shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual" is different from "Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. I was pointing out that there was a difference in the two statements. The Illinois Law (unless it has been changed which is possible) states:
quote: Without in any way restricting the right of privacy of a woman or the right of a woman to an abortion under those decisions, the General Assembly of the State of Illinois do solemnly declare and find in reaffirmation of the longstanding policy of this State, that the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws and Constitution of this State.
But, unlike the new proposal, the Illinois Abortion Law includes specific language regarding Roe v. Wade.
Should we move this to a different thread?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's not the same thing, Kate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sigh. Okay. I still don't understand what you think the purpose of the new proposal was. It still seems to me that viable fetuses would have gained nothing under the new proposal. I wish you could/would explain why you think a new bill was necessary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have explained it. My explanation has nothing to do with the viability of the fetus. Perhaps your insistence that an explanation have such a connection is blocking you from seeing my explanation.
Once more: Because I like the law to more closely reflect reality. To expand: I consider a human being to exist from the moment of conception. Roe prevents state legislatures from saying that. The new law pushes the operative, general legal definition to the
The old law did not have such a general legal, operative definition. It had an inoperative definition "for purposes of the unborn child's right to life" and an operative "unimplying" construct that applied only in the context of criminal laws.
I wish you would explain how this law undermines Roe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language. I suspect that, if that language was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been included in the existing Illinois law. Or that it would have been included in the new proposal - in which case, Senator Obama said he would have supported it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language.
How? A state law can't limit the scope of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
quote:I suspect that, if that language was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been included in the existing Illinois law.
The existing Illinois law spoke about the fetus from the time of conception. It was necessary to carve out the Roe exception because of that. And, even so, it wasn't an operational law.
quote:Or that it would have been included in the new proposal - in which case, Senator Obama said he would have supported it.
According to the NYSUN article, he voted against at least one version of the bill that had the limiting language in it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Does anyone have a link that has the language of the bills, his actual votes (yes, no or present) and his explanations (at the time and now) for why he voted the way he did?
All the articles I've seen thus far have been sorely lacking in the kind of information I would need to form an opinion on this matter.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
An opinion on the matter or an opinion on Obama's opinion on the matter?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
An opinion on Obama's opinion.
I haven't actually been following this thing all that closely, and I'm not 100% familiar with the issue at hand, but I can easily surmise where, if I were to become more informed, my opinion would likely lie.
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
at a town hall yesterday:
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disabled veterans, especially in this state, have horrible conditions [...] My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can't even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don't reenact the draft I don't think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.
JOHN MCCAIN: Ma'am let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.
quote:How? A state law can't limit the scope of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
And a moment of silence is not school prayer nor is teaching intelligent design necessarily bringing creationism back into schools, but they are both steps in christian activist groups' plans to accomplish these things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kate's justification for asserting that it undermined Roe was that it was "not a big leap from establishing fetuses as people outside the womb to establishing them as people inside the womb." She considers this such an obvious conclusion that she found it necessary to ask me, "You really couldn't see that?"
I have responded to that by pointing out that overcoming a supreme court interpretation is, in fact, a very big leap. I have responded to her theory that it somehow worked with the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act "make it easier to financially punish doctors who perform abortions" by pointing out that the IBILA has the exact same effect whether the new law exists or not.
Now we have the argument that not having explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language somehow undermines Roe. My response is that whether that language exists or not, the effect of the state law is exactly the same. Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe. This in and of itself makes your response off-point: the person I responded to doesn't seem to accept your premise that the effects of the bill with the language will undermine Roe. That is the context in which I posted my response.
Moreover, even if I accept your admittedly weakly-sourced theory that the intent is to force doctors to make infants live in agony to make abortion seem more horrifying, we still don't arrive at the conclusion that this undermines Roe. It might lessen the public's support for Roe. But there's zero chance it would allow for the passage of a constitutional amendment or the appointment of new SCOTUS justices who might overturn Roe/Casey/etc. Also, being a "step in ... plans" to accomplish legal change is not "undermining" a SCOTUS precedent.
Finally, whether some people see this as a step to having Roe overturned or not, it is patently clear that there are logical reasons for supporting the law other than undermining Roe or allowing attacks on those who vote against it.
For example, I see it as remedying a moral hole in the law to the greatest extent allowed by Roe and its progeny.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I find most of your conclusions there poorly founded. The things that you are claiming that Kate must believe don't seem to me to be either necessities nor actually likely to be true.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As I understand it, the bill in question would grant things to the infants in question beyond that of just personhood.
I'm not sure if I've got this right, but the law was saying that, no matter what the doctors or their legal guardians thought, these doomed to a short life full of pain infants must have every reasonable measure used to keep them alive. If my understanding is correct, this is not something that is shared with the general class of people, correct?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I find most of your conclusions there poorly founded. The things that you are claiming that Kate must believe don't seem to me to be either necessities nor actually likely to be true.
How? Kate said it undermined Roe because it didn't have the language in it. How does that not imply that she thinks the law with the language doesn't undermine Roe?
quote:I'm not sure if I've got this right, but the law was saying that, no matter what the doctors or their legal guardians thought, these doomed to a short life full of pain infants must have every reasonable measure used to keep them alive. If my understanding is correct, this is not something that is shared with the general class of people, correct?
Can you quote the part of the law you think says this? The federal one (not primary source) - which is by all accounts identical to the middle version of the law (not the one that passed in Illinois, but with the additional sentence we've been discussing) - does one thing and one thing only: create an interpretive canon stating that, "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ''person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
The second subsection defines born alive. The third says this has no effect on existing law about rights accruing before birth.
That's it. Unless it is required that a physician treat any person at any time who is in unbearable agony, it creates no such obligation. To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case, but I claim no expertise in that area.
All this, of course, is contingent on news reports that the law was essentially identical to the federal one. I've only found potentially biased sources on this matter, but here's one version of the text which seems to support that.
If anyone can link the primary source documents for those - I don't have time to delve into Illinois's online legislative system, assuming there is one - it would clear this up.
Ironically, the 1975 law could be construed as imposing that obligation, although I don't know if it has or not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How? Kate said it undermined Roe because it didn't have the language in it. How does that not imply that she thinks the law with the language doesn't undermine Roe?
I'm going to go out on an enormous limb here and suggest that boots doesn't think that any law that doesn't have language in it that says that it doesn't undermine Roe v. Wade undermines Roe v. Wade and that, perhaps, there is more to her objection than that.
---
edit:
I've tried to make it clear that I really don't know anything definite about the specifics of this law. I really know only second hand impressions of this issue that I may not even remember correctly. It is incredibly minor to me and is only an issue at all because it is dishonestly brought up by Republican attack dogs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm going to go out on an enormous limb here and suggest that boots doesn't think that any law that doesn't have language in it that says that it doesn't undermine Roe v. Wade undermines Roe v. Wade and that, perhaps, there is more to her objection than that.
And - not perhaps, but definitely - there's much more to my objection to her objection than that.
My response does not depend on the premise that Kate's position is that the lack of such language being a necessary and sufficient condition to undermines Roe v. Wade. I don't believe she thinks that and have nowhere said so.
Rather, it depends on her express statement that the lack of such of such language was enough to cause THIS law to undermine-Roe-ness.
She's already said that she doesn't think THIS law with the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language does not, in fact undermine Roe.
In short, you've badly misinterpreted me.
quote:I've tried to make it clear that I really don't know anything definite about the specifics of this law. I really know only second hand impressions of this issue that I may not even remember correctly. It is incredibly minor to me and is only an issue at all because it is dishonestly brought up by Republican attack dogs.
And the response to those "dogs" has also been measurably dishonest.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I'm not sure how I misinterpreted this:
quote:Now we have the argument that not having explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language somehow undermines Roe.
Could you explain?
--- edit: I'm also not sure how I misinterpreted this:
quote:Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because you seem to think that it's about a general case. It's patently not. It was a summary of something Kate said on this page:
quote:It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language.
Now, neither Kate nor I explicitly limited our statement to this law under discussion. But it's pretty clear that we both are discussing this law. It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm also not sure how I misinterpreted this:
quote:Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe.
I don't know how you misinterpreted that, either. But you did, to the extent you think I'm making a statement about "any law."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
Not to me it isn't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
After re-reading this part of the thread, I think it might be helpful to explain that by "undermine" I don't mean that one particular act or law will do this all by itself. I think that opponents of abortion "push" at the legal protections of choice - chip at it. It is the cumulative effect of many such acts that I believe is the threat to Roe v. Wade.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That was excedingly clear to me, boots.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not to me it isn't.
Her statement on the subject:
quote:It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language. I suspect that, if that language was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been included in the existing Illinois law. Or that it would have been included in the new proposal - in which case, Senator Obama said he would have supported it.
She posted the above in response to my request that she "explain how this law undermines Roe." The response given was that it lacked "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language.
It is perfectly logical to conclude that she thought that the lack of the language (in this law, not in any law at all) was what undermined Roe.
Moreover, tKate has earlier asserted that Obama didn't vote for it because it would undermine Roe. She stated in the above that he would vote for a law with the language. Therefore, it's clear (assuming Kate's account is true, which I do), that Obama thinks the language would cure the bill of undermining Roe.
As to whether this reflects Kate's position, I can't be sure. I have independent basis for reaching my conclusion. But this certainly strengthens the conclusion because she generally supports Obama's position on this law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:After re-reading this part of the thread, I think it might be helpful to explain that by "undermine" I don't mean that one particular act or law will do this all by itself. I think that opponents of abortion "push" at the legal protections of choice - chip at it. It is the cumulative effect of many such acts that I believe is the threat to Roe v. Wade.
Which brings me back to a slightly modified version of my original question: which legal protection of choice does this "chip at"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It is perfectly logical to conclude that she thought that the lack of the language (in this law, not in any law at all) was what undermined Roe.
I don't see it this way. In fact, I don't think that that is even a fair interpretation.
The way I read it, the language suggested, likely along with other things, that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights such that an explicit provision needed to be made for that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The way I read it, the language suggested, likely along with other things, that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights such that an explicit provision needed to be made for that.
Yes. The lack of language in THIS law. That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language. You're now agreeing with me.
Especially considering that you said this:
quote:
quote:It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
Not to me it isn't.
How on earth is it NOT clear to you that Kate thinks the language would cure the law, given that you've now said that an explicit provision is needed for the "parts of this law [that] could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights"?
I'll also note that I've asked repeatedly what those provisions that chip away at Roe might be. Still no answer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Does anyone have a link that has the language of the bills, his actual votes (yes, no or present) and his explanations (at the time and now) for why he voted the way he did?
All the articles I've seen thus far have been sorely lacking in the kind of information I would need to form an opinion on this matter.
Lyrhawn, I am assuming that you have checked the links on Senator Obama's web site which link to the bills themselves and cite contemporary news articles where he explains his vote. The links are helpful. For example, you can link the existing law which gives you the name of the bill and then you can look that up. Or the dates of the newspaper articles. The web site is a good place to start.
quote: REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born
Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]
Bolding mine. Honestly, if Senator Obama thinks that the clarifying language was necessary - and presumably it was in the Federal bill for some reason - I don't understand why it is so beyond comprehension that I would think so.
And I don't know that I agree with Senator Obama's position. Abortion is something about which I am fairly conflicted. I usually come down on the pro-choice side of the argument, but not always.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language.
No, it doesn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Bolding mine. Honestly, if Senator Obama thinks that the clarifying language was necessary - and presumably it was in the Federal bill for some reason - I don't understand why it is so beyond comprehension that I would think so.
It's not beyond comprehension. I've just yet to hear any plausible way by which the law without the language chips away at Roe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
Would you care to explain, or will you just make another statement that I'm wrong without bothering to explain?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The way I read it, the language suggested, likely along with other things, that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights such that an explicit provision needed to be made for that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, to quote myself again:
quote:Well, if my first post on this is accurate, a potential affect would be to make abortion more horrifying to some by creating situations where some failed abortions lead to forcing the doctors and nurses to do preserve the doomed agony that the infants would be in.
Not all eroding would necesarily be legal, although there certainly could be legal angles as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's now clear what I meant. Just to prevent any additional confusion, I am happy to qualify it: The meaning I had for what I said is the same as the meaning "that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights such that an explicit provision needed to be made for that."
Any continued insistence otherwise by you will be willfully ignoring what I mean.
The relevant part was whether the language cured any defects. The current squabble over what I meant doesn't affect that conclusion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, you now agree that this doesn't necessarily entail that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, you now agree that this doesn't necessarily entail that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language?
No.
Edit: more explicitly, it necessarily entails "that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights."
Edit 2: Of course I still await someone - anyone - pointing out which parts of the law could do that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:more explicitly, it necessarily entails "that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights."
Right, which is a fundamentally different statement from what you said and is also fundamentally different from the approach you've been taking up to this point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it's not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course it is. I already highlighted the differences for you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No "of course" about it.
You're wrong. It's really quite simple.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think me (and by my estimation, boots) meaning something different from what you want us to mean makes me automatically wrong.
You don't understand what we are saying. That's not really a problem. But when you're going to address what we've said when you don't understand it and respond to being informed that how your characterization of what we said is incorrect and having where this is incorrect pointed out to you with "You're wrong." that kind of is a problem.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think me (and by my estimation, boots) meaning something different from what you want us to mean makes me automatically wrong.
You don't understand what we are saying.
Wrong. The problem is you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of my objection, and from that misunderstanding reached the conclusion that I have misunderstood you.
Which is fine. I ignored you all of yesterday - which turned out to be wise since you didn't know what the hell you were talking about when you posted the bit about infants dying in agony being somehow relevant to this law - and wish I had continued to do so. But you're wrong about what I've said. None of the "explanations" you've posted in an attempt to clarify your meaning change my basic point or make it less applicable. If you think they do, it means you're wrong about what I've been saying.
That kind of is a problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I think I understand is that you think that if there isn't "fatal" element in one particular proposal, that that particular proposal is "harmless" to Roe v. Wade. And that none of the proposals Senator Obama voted against (or failed to vote for) has such a "fatal" element.
Is that right? Honestly, I'm finding some of what you are writing to be confusing. Probably since I am not a lawyer!
I do know that people other than Senator Obama have expressed the same concern about "undermining" regarding these bills.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No. I'm pretty sure I understand your objection. The problem, as I see it, is that you don't seem to see a difference between saying that there are things that suggest that there may be parts of this law that could undermine or could be used in some way to undermine abortion rights and saying that this must be the case.
The distinction between may and must, between what the law itself could do versus what it could be used to do, and between knowing that this is the case and things suggesting that this is the case are all important ones to me. If they are not to you, I think you are very wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem, as I see it, is that you don't seem to see a difference between saying that there are things that suggest that there may be parts of this law that could undermine or could be used in some way to undermine abortion rights and saying that this must be the case.
Nope. I see the difference just fine.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, those are the differences in what I said (and what I think boots was saying) versus what you said I said, as I've pointed out twice now, but you say that there aren't any differences between them.
Is there some interpretation of your statement that I'm missing that makes it so, for example, your use of the word must really means may?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First please point out where I said there "must" "be parts of this law that could undermine or could be used in some way to undermine abortion rights and saying that this must be the case."
I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and the only use of "must" by me I can find doesn't say that at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, my bad. I thought there was a must in the statement I've been quoting.
I should have been saying "necessarily entails that there is". As far as I can see, that's semantically equivilent to must.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I did a search to find the "must" quote because I wasn't sure. Unfortunately, my browser doesn't have a semantically equivalent search.
Please quote the specific statement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, I see. I've already clarified that I meant "more explicitly, it necessarily entails 'that parts of this law could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights.'" Call this one B. Call the one you quoted ("That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language") A.
You said that B "is a fundamentally different statement from [A]* and is also fundamentally different from the approach you've been taking up to this point."
I'm telling you that when I said A, I meant the same meaning as presented by B. To the extent you think that my point would be different if A and B meant (to me) different things, you have misinterpreted my point.
*This is how I interpreted your use of pronouns in that sentence - that is, I interpreted "what you said" as referring to A. Please clarify if you meant something different.
Edit to change a B to an A.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:To the extent you think that my point would be different if A and B meant (to me) different things, you have misinterpreted my point.
Yes, but the statements A and B have the three differences I pointed out. If they mean the same thing to you, then these differences are not meaningful to you, which, you've said is not the case.
Both can't be true. They are either not equivilent statements or you don't recognize a difference in those three things I pointed out. You can't have it both ways.
You've been addressing boots and myself as if we were saying there must be things in the law that challenge Roe v. Wade. This is the third time I've pointed out that this is not what we were saying and presented the three substantive differences between them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, but the statements A and B have the three differences I pointed out. If they mean the same thing to you, then these differences are not meaningful to you, which, you've said is not the case.
They have three differences to you AS YOU WERE USING THE WORDS. Not as I was using those words.
Forget I said A. Pretend I only said B. My point remains the exact same. If it's different to you, it means you misinterpreted it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
err...I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. I said B. You didn't, except when quoting me. You were using my words to characterize what I said as being the same as what you said. If the rather bizarre way you were using the words doesn't match up with how I meant them, well, that's my whole point. You are not addressing what people said, but instead what you wanted them to say.
In that case, your point is what? That what I meant when I wrote those words is not important because you want them to mean something else?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My point is that your wording made meaning that was unclear to you in my original wording more clear.
Forget I used A. Pretend I used B. Pretend I meant exactly what you meant. It doesn't change my point, at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm unclear of what point you think this doesn't change. Could you explain? I can't see any point that you've made in relation to this that isn't changed by this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Whether it's classified as "could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights" or "might chip away at Roe or abortion rights" or "will undermine Roe," I'd still like to see the parts of the law that can/might/will do so and an explanation of how. My point is utterly unrelated to the probability being assigned or the specific affect.
I'll make it even more general: I'd like to see identified the parts of the law that, absent corrective language, might affect Roe or abortion rights in any way and to see a brief explanation of how it might do that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not a point. That's a demand.
You made various points, but they were not valid absent your "must".
---
edit: Also, do you now admit that the statement that you made and the statement that I made are different? Because, you know, you were awful emphatic and insulting in saying that they weren't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We're done, Squick. None of my points relied on the differences that could be read into the statements. To the extent you think my points relied on such differences, you misinterpreted what I meant.
That's not debatable - it's simply a true statement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And my point was that, until my requests (not demands) are met, I don't see how this law has ANY affect on Roe or abortion rights, with or without the language. I might not see how it would affect Roe or abortion rights after having my request answer, either.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Points that were changed (they have a pretty good correspondence to points that I challenged you on):
quote:Now we have the argument that not having explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language somehow undermines Roe.
quote:Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe.
quote:It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
quote:It is perfectly logical to conclude that she thought that the lack of the language (in this law, not in any law at all) was what undermined Roe.
quote:That necessarily entails that there is some part of this law that would undermine Roe without that language.
And then there was the whole section where you emphatically and insultingly maintained that there was no difference between what I said and what you did.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And my point was that, until my requests (not demands) are met, I don't see how this law has ANY affect on Roe or abortion rights, with or without the language. I might not see how it would affect Roe or abortion rights after having my request answer, either.
Which is fine, but is not actually related very much to what boots was saying. You want an exact part of the law that clearly challenges it. Great, but boots certainly didn't through anything she said suggest that she had one and what she said can stand without fulfilling your demands.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now we have the argument that not having explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language somehow undermines Roe.
This point is not affected by the characterization of the effects of the bill on Roe or abortion rights and the probabilities of those effects occurring.
(Also, this is almost a direct quote to Kate's answer to my request that she "explain how this law undermines Roe." Again, her answer was, "It undermines Roe v Wade by enacting laws that do not have that "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language. I suspect that, if that language was unnecessary, it wouldn't have been included in the existing Illinois law. Or that it would have been included in the new proposal - in which case, Senator Obama said he would have supported it.")
quote:Since Kate pointed to that language as being determinative of whether the law undermines Roe, she must believe that the bill with the language does not undermine Roe.
Same.
quote:It's also pretty clear that she thinks the "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language would cure the law we have been discussing.
Same.
quote:It is perfectly logical to conclude that she thought that the lack of the language (in this law, not in any law at all) was what undermined Roe.
I have since clarified that this would only be true because THIS bill contained provisions that "could have the effect or be used for the effect of chipping away at abortion rights."
Again, if you think using B instead of A changes the meaning of those points, you have misunderstood them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If it doesn't make any difference, why would the federal legislature and the Illinois state legislature in the existing law have included such language? Most of them are lawyers; I would think that they had some idea what they were doing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If it doesn't make any difference, why would the federal legislature and the Illinois state legislature in the existing law have included such language? Most of them are lawyers; I would think that they had some idea what they were doing.
I'm a lawyer, too, and I can't see where a definition that someone outside the mother is a person at law could have an effect on the mother's rights to terminate the pregnancy before the triggering event in this law occurs.
If it was necessary, I'd think it'd be easy to say why.
Edit: And if it wasn't necessary, but just convinced some people to vote for it to overcome a fear they couldn't define, I'm fine with that. But it doesn't mean I agree that the original version could have chipped away at anything.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So you don't think that there was any reason for it to be included in the other laws?
---
edit: Ok, so you won't answer. Here's the thing. You don't think there was any reason. boots does. She may not know what that reason is, but, as I've now pointed out for the fourth time, she suspects that there could be a reason for this. Because you keep treating her differently from this (and resisting all attempts to get you to realize that you are wrong), you are not addressing what she said.
[ August 21, 2008, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Newspeople are speculating that Obama will announce his VP candidate before the weekend at a rally in Springfield, Illinois.
They're saying we're in the "final hours" before the announcement. Interesting to time it just as the Olympics are closing. I have to imagine a lot of people will be keeping an eye on the closing ceremonies tomorrow, though for me, all my favorite events and races are pretty much done, and I'm not a huge fan of the ceremonies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because you keep treating her differently from this (and resisting all attempts to get you to realize that you are wrong)
What the hell am I wrong about concerning her view? She thinks the law without the explicit "this does not overturn Roe v. Wade" language could undermine Roe (her words, not mine).
Based on that, I've asked for specifics about how it could do this. I've spent a page going back and forth with you about something else. But what I've asked of Kate is to explain how.
So how am I treating her "differently from this"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Going back to the A and B statements, you're treating her like she said A when what she really said was B. Go back and read what I wrote there. If you actually try to see where those three differences are and what they mean, I think you could get it.
Or you know, just keep insisting that she had to mean what you want her to mean.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The impression I get from those worried about this law is that it'll be used in concert with other possible future laws in an attempt to form a framework with which to unseat Roe. The laws themselves wouldn't be able to do much, if anything, since the SC decision itself overrules all of them, they could make a law saying the sky is green and it wouldn't much matter because of SC precedent.
But I think the fear is that a law like this could be appealed up to the SC level, and a ruling, with a more favorable court to Conservative issues than has been had in decades, could uphold all or part of the law, since only the SC can overturn what the previous court has done. Obviously a law saying abortion is against the law is unlikely to be passed by the Illinois state legislature, or for that matter the US Congress, so they try something small just to get their foot in the door. If the SC rules that babies in this situation are people, then they can push it one step further and ask how they aren't people seconds before when they are in the womb.
I think it might be that such a hypothetical, (which isn't really totally outside the bounds of possibility is it?) is really the endgame of proponents of such a bill, since the opponents state that this bill would do nothing that wasn't already covered by existing law.
That's my take on what the fears of the opponents of the bill are. I can't say how likely I think such a thing is, even down to the actual act of the SC taking up the case should it get that far, if such a case was even brought, but it's not utterly impossible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Going back to the A and B statements, you're treating her like she said A when what she really said was B. Go back and read what I wrote there.
I am not treating her like she said A. Whether she said A or B, I still want to know the specifics. And my reason for wanting to know the specifics is utterly unrelated to the differences between A and B.
Is that really so hard for you to grasp?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And my reason for wanting to know the specifics is utterly unrelated to the differences between A and B.
But it isn't.
I'll quote myself again:
quote:You don't think there was any reason. boots does. She may not know what that reason is, but, as I've now pointed out for the fourth time, she suspects that there could be a reason for this.
quote:Which is fine, but is not actually related very much to what boots was saying. You want an exact part of the law that clearly challenges it. Great, but boots certainly didn't through anything she said suggest that she had one and what she said can stand without fulfilling your demands.
You're as wrong here as when you incorrectly tried to claim that there was no difference between what I said and what you were cliaming it to be.
---
To get back to abstract letters. boots, if I read her right, believes what she does because of X. You keep saying, "Well, you must believe Y then. Now show me Y."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You can stop quoting yourself merely to repeat a point - it's as unconvincing the second (and third, fourth, and fifth) time as it is the first.
I would like to know specifics. Certainly she doesn't have to provide them. Certainly she can think that the language is needed without being able to provide them.
But she can't convince me that the language is needed without providing them. Nor - at least to date - can she make me understand why she thinks that way, even absent a desire to convince me.
Nor can she really support her original statement that there is no logical reason to support this law absent that language other than to undermine Roe or allow attacks like the ones on Obama without such specifics. Her later qualified statement limiting that lack of logical reason only to her doesn't require specifics, either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To get back to abstract letters. boots, if I read her right, believes what she does because of X. You keep saying, "Well, you must believe Y then. Now show me Y."
Nope. You're wrong. I'm not saying show me Y. First I said show me specifics about Y, relying on her own use of Y. When that became a problem for you, I changed that to show me specifics about X.
And you still. can't. let. it. go.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't anymore which is A and which is B. Lyrhawn is capturing a sense of why I think there is concern. If there are a lot of laws clamoring about the personhood of a fetus, that "pushes" against the Roe v Wade dam. The clarifying language mitigates that. At least that is the impression I get from the legislators who framed the laws. I think that many of them are smart and learned enough about the law that I would hesitate to dismiss their concerns as "vague fears".
And if it were just vague fears, why wouldn't the proposers include the meaningless language in order to allay those fears and get their proposal passed?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that many of them are smart and learned enough about the law that I would hesitate to dismiss their concerns as "vague fears".
Until they provide specifics, though, that's exactly what they are - vague.
Moreover, I didn't dismiss them. I remain unconvinced that the possibility for undermining Roe with this law exists, but I specifically said that I support adding the language to get the support of people who fear the use of the law to undermine Roe.
quote:And if it were just vague fears, why wouldn't the proposers include the meaningless language in order to allay those fears and get their proposal passed?
They did - the law with that language passed federally and in Illinois.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. And Senator Obama said that he would have supported those. He is being hammered for not supporting the Illinois proposal where the sponsors would not include that language.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes. And Senator Obama said that he would have supported those. He is being hammered for not supporting the Illinois proposal where the sponsors would not include that language.
There's some evidence that's been cited in the mainstream press that he actually voted against a version of the bill with that language.
I have no idea if it's true or not. I'm not particularly interested in how Obama voted on it with and without the language, but it's something that could be definitively answered with the proper legislative records.
It will have no effect on my vote either way.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
VP non-announcement. Obama has said he's decided on his running mate, but hasn't said who it is or when he'll announce who it is. I find that a little annoying.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I find it a little amusing. The press is RIDICULOUS when it comes to this VP thing. They're staking out potential VP's houses on a 24 basis trying to glean hints and clues from random statements. They look stupid, but they don't realize it, and I think it's a sign of A. Nothing better to talk about. And B. Being lazy. Because there IS better stuff to talk about, they just aren't going out to look for it.
The other day the Obama camp sent out an email to the press saying something like "VP announcement, and the winner is..." and on the inside of the email (that was the subject line) it said "just kidding!"
The press need to get over themselves and stop hyping up things that don't require or deserve hype. Besides, I'm willing to bet that by this time tomorrow, or shortly thereafter, you'll know who he picked. I'd be surprised if it didn't leak out sooner. Whoever it is will be getting on a plane tonight.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I agree with Lyrhawn. I think it's pretty amusing. Isn't he supposed to email/text his supporters with his pick before making a public announcement?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yep, and I'm signed up for the text. As I'm sure is every reporter covering the election, so it'll be on the news sites as soon as it's out.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: The laws themselves wouldn't be able to do much, if anything, since the SC decision itself overrules all of them, they could make a law saying the sky is green and it wouldn't much matter because of SC precedent.
The sky is not green only because of SC precedent?
Take your logic the other way, Lyrhawn. Because of Roe, a baby I've given birth to should be killable without guilt because only a few moments before it was?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I am very much having a problem with McCain not being able to remember how many houses he owns - exactly how many does he own that he doesn't remember offhand? It annoys me that here we are in the middle of a mortgate crisis with tons of families not being able to afford to stay in their homes; either McCain owns so many houses that the number is significantly above that of regular middle-class Americans, or he is getting to the age where he can't remember the most basic information a person should know off the top of their heads. Either way, I am more and more not being able to stand him.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Between that and his various slips about the Middle East (Sunni and Shia, Al Qaeda/Iran), it is a little troubling. More and more, it's just like, "I don't hate you, you just really, really shouldn't be president."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote: The laws themselves wouldn't be able to do much, if anything, since the SC decision itself overrules all of them, they could make a law saying the sky is green and it wouldn't much matter because of SC precedent.
The sky is not green only because of SC precedent?
Well I worded that wrong, or at the very least could have worded it better. My point was that Congress could pass all the laws they wanted declaring the sky to be green, but until a higher power (in this case the Supreme Court) changed their ruling, none of those laws would matter because they'd be struck down just like the initial one was when Roe was first established. Maybe not the best comparison to mix laws of science with laws of the land, but I think you get the drift.
quote:Take your logic the other way, Lyrhawn. Because of Roe, a baby I've given birth to should be killable without guilt because only a few moments before it was?
I'm not quite able to parse that pooka. I didn't actually say what my personal feelings were on the subject because I didn't want to get bogged down in a debate on it, at least not in this thread. I was just trying to help clear up what looked like some misunderstandings, and for that matter, trying to get a better sense of Obama's thought process. My own views of abortion are a mishmash of both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" sides.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In other news, Obama's VP will be announced tomorrow morning, and speculation is swelling around Biden.
I think Biden is a great choice. He only has two or three real drawbacks: 1. Obama is the change candidate, and Biden has been in Washington I think as long as McCain has. 2. He hasn't always been very careful about holding his tongue, which means there are a LOT of quotes for the media to prey on. 3. Same as number two, except I'm sure there is more to come in the future.
The real thing I see as a great opening for McCain is the change vs. experience argument. Obama will say that he chose Biden because he wanted someone who could do the job of president in case Obama dies for whatever reason, and that's why he chose him despite his time in Washington. The question there is: so wait, McCain is Washington through and through, and has the experience, but don't vote for him, while Biden is Washington through and through and you should vote for him BECAUSE he has the experience? Hard to bash McCain on one side while praising Biden on the other side of the same coin. I'm wondering though if that argument isn't a tad too complex for the American electorate though, so he might get away with it.
Biden has a lot of great experience, has NO problem telling truth to power, and should shore up ANY concerns about Obama and foreign policy experience, as Biden arguably knows more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Senate. He's also a great attack dog. He can rip someone to shreds, cut through the bull, and come across as a straight talker all while smiling and not looking like a douche doing it. He's smart, eloquent, and acutally pretty damned funny too. A nice unfortunate bonus also is that Biden, according to the tax returns and what not from the primaries, was the poorest of the candidates. I think his net worth is well under $100,000. He's a regular guy, and unlike a lot of people in the Senate, hasn't amassed wealth from his position. I think he might actually have quite a bit of debt. In other words, I think he'll come across (as he well may be) as a perfectly regular guy. I like him personally, I was sort of rooting for him or Chris Dodd as underdog candidates back in the primaries, and was secretly hoping one of them would make it as VP.
Electorally? Tim Kaine would be better, giving Obama a much bigger leg up on Virginia, but he might not even need him. Or Evan Bayh, for Indiana. It's not like Deleware is in any trouble of flipping, and even if it was, so what? But actually the scuttlebutt is that Biden is very, very popular in Pennsylvania, and Obama could use the extra push there to make sure they stay Blue. Between that and governor Rendell, that should be a nice one-two punch.
If it's Biden, I'll be satisfied, but I won't be at all surprised if the media have it wrong and it ends up coming out of left field. It DOES match up with what the rumors have been saying about Obama struggling with choosing between change vs. experience, and some of the qualities he's listed as wanting.
Edit to add: Word is, the Secret Service has been dispatched to Biden's house.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: I am very much having a problem with McCain not being able to remember how many houses he owns - exactly how many does he own that he doesn't remember offhand? It annoys me that here we are in the middle of a mortgate crisis with tons of families not being able to afford to stay in their homes; either McCain owns so many houses that the number is significantly above that of regular middle-class Americans, or he is getting to the age where he can't remember the most basic information a person should know off the top of their heads. Either way, I am more and more not being able to stand him.
My brother may not know the number of houses he owns. His wife is a real estate agent and he flips houses, as well as renting them out. Since McCain's wife handles their investments, it is possible that he is not aware of what exactly she has invested in at any given moment. He might have done better by saying, well, my wife has numerous investments.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think that would've been much, much better. No matter how he answers that question he looks like a rich muckety muck, but at least he could have foisted that off on his wife instead of either looking like a non-chalant elitist or a forgetful old man.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I can't quite place why, but I have a negative opinion of Biden. Does it go back to the Clarence Thomas hearings? Well, anyway, I guess you want to pick someone that is like nails on the chalkboard to the other side.
As far as birth and choice go, I have to say - though I understand it is the law of the land - that I am mystified by the right to abort as an inalienable right we were endowed with by our creator, and that we must steer well clear around it. Of course, someone will point out that the creator is never mentioned in the constitution, but that is the declaration of independence. Whatever.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
CNN is calling Biden a confirmed choice for VP citing two deeply entrenched Democratic (but unnamed) sources. Looks like Biden is it.
quote:As far as birth and choice go, I have to say - though I understand it is the law of the land - that I am mystified by the right to abort as an inalienable right we were endowed with by our creator, and that we must steer well clear around it. Of course, someone will point out that the creator is never mentioned in the constitution, but that is the declaration of independence. Whatever.
Part of why I almost never take abortion into account when I vote is that, while my own feelings on the subject are fixed, I have a hard time forcing those feelings on other people. I don't like abortion; I think using abortion as a means of birth control is a wretched practice that destoys life as a result of irresponsible decisions. I have no problem however with birth control methods, or with abortion if the life of the mother is in question. So while I don't like it, in a specific set of circumstances, I have a hard time saying that my point of view should be the law of the land. So I would rarely if ever vote for a candidate based on their position, but, I would take into consideration their REASONING for their positions or changes in positions when making my choice.
I doubt I'll ever get elected with a position like that. I'd probably piss EVERYONE off.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Eh, Biden's wiki article says he has supported federalizing Iraq, which is something I proposed a couple of years ago. By proposed, I mean I posted about it on Ornery and then consulted my atlas of the middle east and realized Iraq doesn't break into 3 states so easily. But maybe it could work as 10 or something.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yuck.
Don't get me wrong, before Great Britain played Cartographer over there, Iraq WAS three different countries, but it'd never work like that now. Most of the oil is in the north and south, and all the Sunnis in the middle would cry bloody murder and blow the crap out of their neighbors if that happened. The only other thing that'd make sense to me would be to try and merge southern Iraq with Kuwait, as it used to be before Iraq was formed, give Saudi Arabia the middle of Iraq, and let the north form a free Kurdistan. That let's the middle and bottom into countries with established governments, let's the middle benefit from Saudi oil wealth and benefits the Saudis by giving them very, VERY much needed labor to work those fields, and lets the north have what they've always wanted, which is more than tacit, but real independence.
I doubt that'd work either, but 3 or even 10 independent states would be even less likely to work either. It's just too messed up over there.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
I still think this is all a massive head-fake, and Biden is not the guy. I think it's Brian Schweitzer of Montana.
But we'll know in a few hours.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've heard his name seriously thrown out there, and I've heard it might be a possible head fake, but if it is, it's the best in political history.
I mean, setting aside the easy stuff like feeding false information via surrogates, they got the Secret Service to go to his house. Besides...why bother? Just for fun?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Ok. I was wrong. It's Biden. Confirmed on the website.
Yesterday the New York Times ran an opinion piece on why Biden would make the best VP. I don't know much about the man, but alot of the reasoning made sense.
Now to remedy some of my ignorance concerning Biden.
*goes off to sail the endless seas of teh intarwebs.*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I like Joe Biden. He isn't going to lead the reform I want to see, but whereas I think Obama is weaselly; Biden is too proud for that nonsense.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I kinda like that Biden is vocally critical of Obama. It seems like Republicans are viewing that as a weak point, but I think it emphasizes that Obama is willing to listen to criticism and see beyond personal loyalty. Of course, based on how often I vote for the loser, most of America does not agree with me.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
man, I'm watching Obama introduce Biden, and he's really hammering home his working class origins. If he says "that scrappy kid from Scranton" one more time I'll be upset.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I think, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we can all come together during this Biden speech to play a drinking game using the word "literally."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Biden is a baffling choice, from where I'm standing. I don't see how he's an asset. He's mainly known for speaking frankly, which is something that Obama already clearly decided was getting him into too much trouble. Is it Obama's intent to use Biden to say all the potentially offensive things?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Isn't that what VP candidates are for? To be attack dogs so the presidential candidate can stay above the fray?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
As someone who hadn't seriously considered Biden until the past few weeks, I actually think he's a surprisingly savvy pick. Biden brings to the ticket some of the most extensive foreign policy experience in the Senate, and serious working class cred (IIRC, he's something like the 99th wealthiest senator). He's also extremely popular among older Americans, and due to his temperament and oratory style, will make for a very good attack dog as well.
More importantly, he blunts the effectiveness of the McCain campaign's most successful attacks so far. The McCain criticisms that have gotten the most traction are the ones about Obama's "celebrity" status, and his relative lack of foreign policy experience. Regarding the former, Biden is about as blue-collar as you can get in national politics, and unlike other recent "politicians you could have a beer with" (*cough* Bush *cough*), he actually came from humble origins. Regarding the latter, he's spent decades at the forefront of Senate foreign policy, and despite an unfortunate vote in favor of authorizing the war in Iraq, has spent the past five years as one of the Bush administration's most outspoken critics.
I've read a lot of stuff today about how the selection of Biden amounts to an admission of weakness by Obama, much as Kerry's selection of Edwards was viewed as an admission that the candidate was an aging patrician who needed someone young and sexy to appeal to the youth. Much of the liberal blogosphere is disappointed that Obama didn't go with a "reinforcing" VP pick (i.e. someone who "reinforces" his dominant narratives of change and Washington outsiderdom), such as Tim Kaine.
However, I think comparing Kerry/Edwards with Obama/Biden is somewhat missing the point. Selecting a reinforcing VP versus a "filling in the gaps" VP isn't an ideological decision- it's not like a reinforcing VP will always be better, or vice versa. Rather, a given situation will play better one way or the other. Kerry selecting Edwards was boneheaded because it addressed a problem that wasn't really there. Yes, Kerry was viewed as an old Massachusetts patrician, but it's not like the Bush/Cheney ticket had anything more to offer to young voters. Therefore, the young vote (which tends to lean idealistic and liberal on the issues) was with Kerry whether he picked Edwards or not.
Obama's selection of Biden, on the other hand, very directly confronts the main problem facing his campaign right now. McCain has been moving up in the polls because his attacks on Obama for being a Hollywood elitist and too inexperienced to successfully fix the Iraq situation, justified or not, have been resonating with the American public. Having Joe Biden at his side allows Obama to neatly counter both arguments, much as Obama's own speech on race during the primaries effectively countered Hillary's and the media's growing obsession with Reverend Wright.
Of course, only time will tell if this move ends up working how I expect it to. McCain does have the advantage in that he now has a week to find the best Republican VP candidate to counteract the Biden effect- not to mention that his party convention now knows the identities of both of their targets, whereas the Democrats still only know the one.
It's going to be an interesting few months. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Go Barack America!
I've always liked Biden. I'm a little worried about how his next "gaffe" will be taken out of context, but not that much. I seriously doubt he'll have that significant of an impact on the outcome either way.
Edit: Oh my...McCain is actually using that clip from the Daily Show in one of his ads? Really, he's like a child. "But you said you were my friend first!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Really, he's like a child. "But you said you were my friend first!"
Actually, your comment sounds a lot more childlike than McCain's use of that clip.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Fox News edits daily show clips Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, Fox News excerpted a Daily Show clip.
This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Really, he's like a child. "But you said you were my friend first!"
Actually, your comment sounds a lot more childlike than McCain's use of that clip.
Does not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: I think, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we can all come together during this Biden speech to play a drinking game using the word "literally."
Seriously! I kept yelling "YOU MEAN FIGURATIVELY!" at the TV. I mean, to literally move the planet in the wrong direction would involve some sort of massive rocket strapped onto the planet.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, Fox News excerpted a Daily Show clip.
This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
If you're talking about the criticism of Fox news selectively excerpting, then you've got to be kidding. I'm sure there are MUCH more ridiculous criticisms of a news show out there
Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
The only thing ridiculous here is using the word "news" in relation to Fox News.
quote:Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
The line is exactly where you think it is: where bias begins. It's kind of like asking where the sky ends: it's easy, it's where the ground begins.
The problem with anything concerning the testimonial evidence of liberal or conservative blogs or news shows is that inherent bias plays a big role in what is presented as news. For instance, if a liberal says "I love America, but some people hate America", a conservative blog could excerpt the line and say "I...hate America". And thats the problem with what Fox News does, it's obvious bias toward the Republican party presents something that is neither entirely true nor accurately representative of what happens. Of course, it is the difference between politics and reality, something that the current administration and the one before it seemed to have difficulty grasping*, but more than that, it is how we use our paintbrush that creates the negative atmosphere and divisive sort of politics that turn so many off from cable news and politics.
That's why they say that "being President of this country is entirely about character." It is something that Obama needs to learn quickly too...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
FOX News excerpted a joke from a bit about comparative medical histories of the two candidates to only play what they considered to be the funny bit, that mocking Obama.
I'd be curious to know how often they play Daily Show excerpts, and whether they ever use any that mock Republicans. And was this played on FOX News, where a reasonable expectation exists for unbiased reporting, or on a FOX news show that allows commentary, which can be as biased as it wants to be?
I wouldn't know myself, because I've long ago stopped watching any of them. I stick with a variety of news sources, try to read the original documents when I can, and utterly ignore TV commentators and opinion shows because frankly I've gotten sick of them. Everything is spin, everything is scorn, and playing to the emotions over reason is what gets the ratings. The heck with all of them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ya but the Colbert Report and Daily Show Satirisize all that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I kinda like that Biden is vocally critical of Obama. It seems like Republicans are viewing that as a weak point, but I think it emphasizes that Obama is willing to listen to criticism and see beyond personal loyalty. Of course, based on how often I vote for the loser, most of America does not agree with me.
And it rings true to me. Given the republican mantra that reigned from about 2003-2006, where Bush administration spokespeople would shake their heads at public criticism and say: "we need to do a better job of explaining and convincing the public that Bush is right." Or there were those incredible little touches, like Michael Bolton saying on The daily Show: "President Bush has a duty to the people who voted for him." [Emphasis Mine]
It will make McCain look like a clown if he jumps on Biden's criticism of Obama, because it's obvious that Biden is meant to fill the gaps in Obama's campaign, with his critical eye included. Biden also seems like he's miles away from what the NY Times called "limousine democrats," like Al Gore, who can embarrass the party and give ammunition to republicans who want to call Obama an elitist.
He's also old enough so that he may be seen as a permanent adviser to Obama, rather than an absentee vice-president waiting to run for himself. And, in a strange way, he gives the mainstream media something to shoot at. They've been so careful with Obama on TV, attacking only people who were tangentially related to his campaign with repeated sound bites, it's contributed to the whole "messiah" aspect of Obama that could lead to a backlash. Biden has the potential of looking a little more human, as there are a few little quirky things for the press to trot out while they introduce him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
If they were using it as evidence about what Stewart thinks, the two scenarios would be analogous. But they're picking one joke out of several to excerpt.
Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.
Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.
If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, Fox News excerpted a Daily Show clip.
This has got to be the most ridiculous criticism of a news show I've ever seen.
I've seen worse.
The unfortunate part is that while this guy is being a watchdog and doing a thorough job of showing us what's going on with this clip, he misses the more basic underlying reason for its existence.
It just looks to me like ineptness on the part of the reporters, PAs, or whoever puts those "throw-to" segments together. The bit with one sheet of paper is easy to show, it's only a few seconds, and the fact that it isn't, out of context "funny," isn't something I'd expect a reporter to notice, considering what passes for humor with them.
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that this kind of thing might happen in the specific because there is an overarching culture at FOX news that favors McCain and looks for inconsistency and weakness among liberals. Stewart making fun of Obama, while McCain goes unmentioned, does make Obama look a little ridiculous, and the fact that the joke, out of context again, isn't funny does also make Stewart look dumb.
That being said, these very ernest after-the-fact youtube dissections of 8 seconds of FOX news coverage, designed to imply that FOX is involved in some very clearly stated plan to support John McCain in specific ways by misquoting Jon Stewart make liberals look stupid too.
It's perfectly plausible that the culture of Fox News encourages this kind of petty quibling with the truth, but if that's the case, then we should deal with that problem on its own terms, rather than insisting that this is FOX's specific plan. Seeing a pattern of behavior that clearly demonstrates a non-objective viewpoint, I could be convinced that this specific incident wasn't the product of sheer incompetence, rather than sinister design (which, by the way, would be way too obvious right?).
I tend to believe it was a mix of the two though. Your villains can't be both diabolical AND asinine. That's movie stuff.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.
Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.
If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.
I don't think the burden rests with Stewart to claim that he has a point beyond humor. The point in his segment was self-evident. He has a right to say what he wants on his show, and he has a right to claim that he has no responsibility to the public to be "fair and balanced." That doesn't mean that the news doesn't have a responsibility to him and to the public to report accurately what has been said. Fox is accountable, on principle, for how it portrays his statements whether or not he objects formally.
He may not really have much to object to in this case (it wouldn't be worth it), but look at the clip, and tell me if the version reported was an accurate representation of the facts. If you think it was, then you are willing to accept a lower standard of reporting than I am. I'm referring to the characterization of the joke, made by FOX news. It wasn't *untrue* but it was out of context, and I prefer not to be misled generally.
In this particular case I think your right, it isn't a big deal really, but I generally disagree with the above reasoning.
Edit: Actually what puts me off most about the thing in reflection is that they took a standard Jon Stewart double-take and acted like it was funny even though he's being doing the same joke for, what, 10 years? It's just like any news program to pick a tired horse, and then show the clip in such a way as to make it unfunny, and then to have some other PA write a description of the clip that is inaccurate. We should expect better. That and the news shouldn't try to be funny, because they suck at it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That doesn't mean that the news doesn't have a responsibility to him and to the public to report accurately what has been said. Fox is accountable, on principle, for how it portrays his statements whether or not he objects formally.
You absolutely missed my point here. Whether he objects or not is pretty much irrelevant, hence the subordination of that point with parentheses.
The point is that it's not a news show, and he's been aggressive in using that fact to defend his imbalance.
quote:but look at the clip, and tell me if the version reported was an accurate representation of the facts.
What facts? He made a series of jokes, based on some facts. Fox reported one of the jokes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The JOKES are the facts, in this case. They reported on a joke, and they reported inaccurately on that joke. Stewart himself is irrelevant to the situation, as is the style of his show- they just did a poor job of representing what was said- that's what I'm saying.
Edit: inaccurately is too strong a word. Poorly, misleadingly maybe. Ineptly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The JOKES are the facts, in this case. They reported on a joke, and they reported inaccurately on that joke.
No, they failed to report other jokes in the same bit.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dag, I've said very clearly that *I felt* that they misrepresented the joke they aired. The video explains this. The bit shown was the punchline of the larger joke- the news program concealed that fact.
I know you understand what I am saying, and it's ok to disagree with me. Just please don't tell me that you don't get the fact that what was aired was only part of the larger joke, and that airing the one part without the other, while framing it as "Stewart pokes fun at Obama," is different than picking one of two separate but equivalent jokes. Just please, grant me that small courtesy of recognizing that the greater joke might be seen, by some, as something that doesn't exactly stand up to editing very well. That is all that I now wish to express. That is all I now care about, that you recognize this possibility.
Second thoughts, I don't actually care what you think, I don't know why I said that. You remind me more and more of a Bushey talking about a "time horizon" instead of a "timeline," and why that makes all the difference in the world while people kill each other.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You remind me more and more of a Bushey talking about a "time horizon" instead of a "timeline," and why that makes all the difference in the world while people kill each other.
I see. I disagree about proper joke excerpting protocol, and I'm a "Bushey talking about a 'time horizon' instead of a 'timeline.'"
I don't know which possibility is scarier: That you actually think that - which means you are prone to making ridiculous extrapolations about what other people think - or that you're just saying that to score cheap points.
Either way, it's ridiculous.
quote:Dag, I've said very clearly that *I felt* that they misrepresented the joke they aired.
Really? Can you quote the part where you used the word "feel" or something equivalent? Because you said "they reported inaccurately on that joke" and later changed "inaccurate" to "poorly, misleading."
It's one thing to say that's what you meant. But you certainly didn't it "say very clearly," with or without the emphasis on "I felt."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, the fact that you disagree doesn't make you a Bushey, but the manner in which you choose to disagree reminds me of a Bushey- so what you think has nothing really to do with it. You should read my carefully.
I don't know which possibility is scarier, that you actually thought I said that, which means you are prone to making ridiculous extrapolations about what other people are saying, or that you are just saying that because you love to argue with people over nothing really at all.
Either way. Ridiculous.
As for the other thing, it's all over my previous posts, that in my opinion the reporting sucked. That's very very clear. That was my point. That was my only really salient point, that in all of this, there is a reporter with talent somewhere, out of a job, and that's too bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: You know what, never mind. This is just the usual crap. You want to know why Fox News is popular? Because lots of people like to categorize people who disagree with them in the same way you did.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, I think Fox news is popular because a lot of people are idiots. Now, I am categorizing them, that's true, but it's such a broad demographic.
One thing I didn't really try to do was associate you with that demographic, which you're trying to do with me. So that's nice. Also weird, because I'm the one criticizing them, and you were the one defending them for their awful reporting. Now I fit right in with them, sure.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm sorry, thinking that this was not-bad-reporting on the part of Fox is... idiotic. Or partisan. Its not objective in any way, since the tagline was Stewart Makes Fun of Obama. The only possible way to interpret stewart's joke as making fun of obama is to lie.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, not the only way *possible.* They could just be kind of inept, which is what I am thinking. Maybe the sinister kind of inept, like the lesser henchmen of a true mastermind?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sorry,
See, I think this more likely to be a lie than what Fox did.
quote: thinking that this was not-bad-reporting on the part of Fox is... idiotic. Or partisan. Its not objective in any way, since the tagline was Stewart Makes Fun of Obama. The only possible way to interpret stewart's joke as making fun of obama is to lie.
Oh, please. For the cheap seats:
STEWART WAS MAKING A JOKE! Obama's medical record is not one page. He was poking fun at both candidates. Fox picked one.
So I'm being idiotic or partisan, Paul? Seems there's as much evidence as partisanship going the other way, given how this is breaking down.
I am sick to hell of this cheap construct of an "argument" on this board: that the only possible way someone can believe X is Y. It's been happening a lot lately.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I think it's perfectly acceptable, depending on the argument, to hold the position that the only acceptable or justified way to believe X is Y. Does it really bother you when people do this? I mean, you do it, too. We all do.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So I'm being idiotic or partisan, Paul? Seems there's as much evidence as partisanship going the other way, given how this is breaking down."
No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
They didn't lie. I'm not defending a lie. What, are you so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see that?* Or are you just so blazingly stupid that you don't think that holding a up a one-page medical report can be considered "having some fun with Barak Obama?"*
See, it doesn't take any actual effort to do that.
*Unlike Paul, I don't actually think that these are the only two possibilities. See, I can actually imagine that someone can think that something not actually critical of Obama is not "poking fun at" or "having fun with" Obama. I don't agree, and I've argued that case, but I can imagine it, and therefore see why someone who thinks that isn't being either partisan or idiotic. I wonder why Paul can't.
Check out classic SNL skits about how much Carter knows on a call in show for a good example of this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
FOX (as well as other media) don't lie so much as "select" what truth they tell. If Candidate X has done 4 good things and 7 bad things and Candidate Y has done 12 good things and 2 bad things is it a lie to report specifically on the 4 good things about Candidate X and the two bad things about Candidate Y?
The facts they are reporting are true - as far as they go. The impression they give is not.
If some comedian pokes fun at both candidate, it is accurate to report that the comedian made fun of Candidate X and to repeat and amplify only that side of the story.
It is accurate, but it isn't honest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, there's not. Fox lied. You're defending there lie as acceptable. You want to not be seen as partisan, or idiotic? Don't defend lies as acceptable.
Hey, much more brazen than usual. Classy, Paul!
------
If it is accurate, then it is honest, by many standards of that word. When dishonesty comes in is when they say or imply that that's all there is to that candidate or figure or whoever they're covering.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'm sorry,
See, I think this more likely to be a lie than what Fox did.
At least you were able to capture the spirit of the out of context quote so nicely.
quote: I am sick to hell of this cheap construct of an "argument" on this board: that the only possible way someone can believe X is Y. It's been happening a lot lately.
or HAS IT???
Dag reports, nobody gets to decide.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:or HAS IT???
Yes, it has.
quote:Dag reports, nobody gets to decide.
No, Dag observes and announces his observations. No one has even tried to state that this hasn't happened here. One person has said there's nothing wrong with it. You've made some strange comment about me reporting and you not being allowed to decide.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is accurate, but it isn't honest.
Well, is it accurate though? Drew Pinsky rails against things similar to what you mentioned. For instance, he'll point out on his talk show that a mainstream news article will be researched, say on a medical topic, and 9 doctors will give the same opinion, while one doctor, or more likely an advocacy group or an author will give a dissenting opinion, which is, to the medical community, WAY out of line, and the news story will feature the "two viewpoints" as if they share equal footing in the real world. He complains of this kind of thing happening in many news situations, where he'll be put up as side A of discussion against a side B that is essentially in outer space on the topic, and the news will treat them as if they're equals, making it "fair and balanced."
He also rails mightily against inaccurate news reporting, regarding perscription medication studies. A single study will demonstrate a single possible danger of a widespread, lifesaving medication, and fail to have any perspective either on the meaning of said study, or on the fact that their inaccurate reporting of it will potentially endanger the thousands of people who take the drug. For instance, a recent study showed that Statin was unpromising as a treatment for, I think, intracardial valve disease, and so the news reported that the study showed it had no effect on coronary heart disease, which is the drugs MAIN application, its effect having been proven in many studies. The news services didn't understand the difference, and so some of Drew's patients called his office to ask if they should stop taking the drug, which was helping to save their lives.
And in all that, the media has no real responsibility to the people it hurts with its casual dissemination of inaccuracies.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You've made some strange comment about me reporting and you not being allowed to decide.
Well, I know who to go to if I need to know if something's funny, from now on. Thank you Dag. You do this board a service. I don't know what it is, but hey.
Edit:
quote: Dag observes and announces his observations.
OH thaaaaattttsss what you do here. Well then. Ok.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"They didn't lie. I'm not defending a lie."
They absolutely did, and you absolutely are.* There is no honest way to view the joke Stewart was making as "Jon Stewart Pokes fun at Obama's Medical Record." It is a factually inaccurate assessment of what was happening, and I don't give media outlets the benefit of the doubt for lying vs not when they make factual inaccuracies of this sort, because they have a responsibility for factual accuracy.
There might be alternatives other then idiocy, or partisanship... but they aren't any prettier.
*Of course, I'm not surprised. One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives. I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is no honest way to view the joke Stewart was making as "Jon Stewart Pokes fun at Obama's Medical Record."
You're wrong. I note that you've simply restated your position, ignoring the arguments I've presented to the contrary.
Stewart most certainly had some fun with Obama in that segment. He also had some fun with McCain.
quote:Of course, I'm not surprised. One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives.
This is quite patently untrue.
quote:I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?
I wonder why you post something so untrue.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
You guys realize that you are just arguing at each other at this point right? Nothing is actually going to get done because the argument isn't even about the facts anymore anyway, it's about the people and how bad they are.
Kinda indicative of all of our politics these days, don't you guys think? Two sides yelling at each other, not about the issues, not about how to best help people or about how to do the right thing, but about how much the other side sucks.
It's too bad too because it is people like us that will be the only people who can really make a difference in this world. That is if we can ever get out of our damn way...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives.
I wish you'd said something so silly and obviously untrue earlier, Paul. It would've cued the 'stop listening' switch.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Where is that switch?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's in my brain, the part that listens for ridiculous rants and then ignores them.
It's easy to pretend Dagonee is some apologist partisan hack. It's not remotely true, though. It's certainly easier than pointing out specifically when it happens why he is supposedly such a person.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and by the way: what do you do here, Orincoro? Since you've started asserting Dagonee doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the community, I'm interested in your own value.
Shall we take a poll, perhaps?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
If they were using it as evidence about what Stewart thinks, the two scenarios would be analogous. But they're picking one joke out of several to excerpt.
Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.
Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.
If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.
Dammit, I just lost a whole post. Here are the highlights:
I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.
As for the joke, I think the Obama part of it was just the punchline, but the joke was on McCain. It might have been a tiny dig at Obama for only releasing a one page summary of his medical records, but the joke is the contrast, and it's not so strange for a relatively young healthy guy to not have that much in the way of health records, whereas 8 years of McCain's life has more than a thousand pages. The joke is on McCain. Your defense of Fox seems to hinge on Stewart's self professed lack of interest or lack of seriousness in the grand scheme of things, and that sounds like a pretty dicey place to put the crux of your argument. I think Stewart, as an iconoclast, will make fun of anyone, but I never think they are just jokes. He's making a point, even if he claims he isn't when he's in character.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I wish you'd said something so silly and obviously untrue earlier, Paul. It would've cued the 'stop listening' switch."
You mean my parody of what dagonee was saying? Yeah. I wouldn't really expect you to have noticed that. I also wouldn't have expected you to notice that he's defending the indefensible here. Its not the only time he's done it, either. Another thing I wouldn't expect you to notice.
I mean, seriously? Thinking this is responsible reporting? I guess Fox has won...
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'd hope so. I heard that if you don't watch Fox the terrorists win!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'd hope so. I heard that if you don't watch Fox the terrorists win!
The fun part of this conversation is that you're joking when you say something like that. Paul isn't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
fox sucks, stewart is funny, y'all crazier than me, peace out \m/
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As for the joke, I think the Obama part of it was just the punchline, but the joke was on McCain. It might have been a tiny dig at Obama for only releasing a one page summary of his medical records, but the joke is the contrast, and it's not so strange for a relatively young healthy guy to not have that much in the way of health records, whereas 8 years of McCain's life has more than a thousand pages. The joke is on McCain.
I think it's more than that, really. The excerpting changes the apparent point. It doesn't "take one of Stewart's jokes"; it takes a clip of Stewart and uses it to make a different joke.
In context, Stewart is saying "McCain's ailments are a tome, whereas Obama's ailments from a period two-and-a-half times as long can be fit on one page." Without that context, it appears as "Obama released his medical history as one page, clearly he's hiding something."
This is somewhat similar to when the ad campaign for "The Last Boyscout" turned Ebert's "...so panders to its chosen audience that it will probably be a tremendous hit" into "a tremendous hit."
The criticism of Fox here is entirely valid.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Shall we take a poll, perhaps?
Are we voting people off the island now? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and by the way: what do you do here, Orincoro? Since you've started asserting Dagonee doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the community, I'm interested in your own value.
Shall we take a poll, perhaps?
I don't have any specific value. I guess I was mocking Dag because I felt that he does think he has a job here, and I find that kind of silly. As I find 6th grade "everyone's coming to my birthday party except you because you stink" antics. I mean, it just reeks of desperation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sterling,
Of course not. I only made that statement in light of Orincoro's nonsense.
--------
quote:I don't have any specific value. I guess I was mocking Dag because I felt that he does think he has a job here, and I find that kind of silly. As I find 6th grade "everyone's coming to my birthday party except you because you stink" antics. I mean, it just reeks of desperation.
Because if there's one thing that characterizes Dagonee's arguments on Hatrack, it's desperation. *rolleyes*
It didn't reek of desperation, and even if Dagonee did feel like he 'has a job' here, Paul clearly does as well. And I don't see you taking shots on him. So obviously what you find amusing isn't that someone thinks they 'have a job'.
You know what reeks of desperation? "You're a liar! You're a liar!" followed by off-topic mockery.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are we voting people off the island now? [Roll Eyes]
That's the one you decide to roll your eyes at? Not the two people who took a dispute about news coverage and turned it into an attack on what I do here?
Since it seems that on this board, it's not the unfounded accusations of bad behavior but the defense against such accusations that generally draws the criticism (Rakeesh excepted), I suppose I must now answer the libel Paul has decided to post against me.
Recall the crux of his accusation: "I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?"
I am repeatedly on record as endorsing the most "liberal" dissent in Hamdi (the one written by Scalia and joined by Stevens) which was far, far harsher on the Bush administration than even the more traditional liberal justices' opinion on the subject.
Let's see, of the Dagonee-hating triumvirate of Ornery (that would be Paul, KnightEnder, and Pete at Home), one third of that is because of my defense of the idea of civil gay marriage rights. And I KNOW you know about that one Paul.
My opinion of Libby's pardon (1) it wasn't despicable; (2) but I opposed it and think it "sucks"; and (3) that Bush's stated reasons for the commutation didn't add up.
I can't find them now,* but I've condemned enough boneheaded statements by conservatives on this board that I have been accused by them of being liberal - always good for a laugh, and pretty much the flip side of what Paul has done in this thread (blame partisanship for disagreement).
*possibly because of these individuals' penchant for thread-deleting.
Of course, I've done the same thing at Ornery with respect to cherrypoptart, for example.
This, of course, shouldn't have been necessary. Paul should have done the research to back up such a statement. Of course, I seldom use words such as "indefensible" or "idiotic" in those posts, so maybe I haven't been vehement enough to qualify by Paul's standards.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because if there's one thing that characterizes Dagonee's arguments on Hatrack, it's desperation. *rolleyes*
I'm sorry for being unclear, it was your comment I was referring to. Dag doesn't seem particularly desperate.
I don't know that I've called anyone here a liar, that I can remember. Have I? I've mocked people, sure, but I don't think I've called a lot of people liars. I could be wrong, I suppose, it just doesn't sound like something I'd say. Are you conflating my mockery with someone else's accusations?
quote: the libel Paul has decided to post against me.
Is libel the appropriate term if the person posting something false about you doesn't know your entire posting history on every topic? Also, what part of what Paul wrote wasn't opinion, but stated fact?
I just want to know your reasons for such strong language. It would be unfair to bully people with claims of libel if that isn't what it is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm sorry for being unclear, it was your comment I was referring to. Dag doesn't seem particularly desperate.
I...that's...*sputter*
------
No, wait, actually: you're still an ass! At least in this thread, lately. Whew, that was close! You almost zinged me good there, Orincoro!
quote:You do this board a service. I don't know what it is, but hey.
OH thaaaaattttsss what you do here. Well then. Ok.
Talk to me more about sixth-grade stuff, Orincoro. It's really savvy and sophisticated when you do! Jackass.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well there's a drinking fountain RIGHT IN the room! And you get to read "The Giver," which is a good book about a boy who has to share the memories of the whole village because they live in "sameness." I won't ruin it for you.
And then at 10:15 you get a WHOLE HOUR of PE. We play Pinball, which is like dodge ball, but with pins! I get to work on the yearbook this year. I usually eat in the courtyard and play basketball. I have about a million friends, and everybody likes me. The only thing I don't like is math. Math sucks! We have to do 30 problems a day. That's like a million problems almost!
What do you have to read at your school?
Pen Pals for Life Ori
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
And finally Kristol pushes Lieberman as McCain VP - I'm not so sure about this one. I think McCain has had enough trouble winning over social conservatives, and picking a pro-choice independent would douse the ticket just as they're warming up to him.
--j_k
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think McCain actually is going to have a hard time picking his vp. Social conservatives seem barely on his side, high probability of them just sitting the election out. So, he really needs someone to appeal to them. BUT, then he risks alienating the independents, who are getting a bit more iffy about him as he has been hitting party lines more frequently.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Are we voting people off the island now? [Roll Eyes]
That's the one you decide to roll your eyes at? Not the two people who took a dispute about news coverage and turned it into an attack on what I do here?
Yes, Dag, it is, but let me explain why.
When someone implies something like "if it came down to a vote, the board would choose to get rid of you," that's bullying and threatening, and it essentially puts words into the mouth of a lot of people. Some of those people might agree, some of them would probably disagree, but I suspect a lot of them would just as soon stay out of it, finding the whole thing kind of petty and childish. Very little here ever actually "comes down to a poll" here on Hatrack, but when anyone presumes to have the weight of public opinion behind them, it grinds my teeth.
Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary. If we could occasionally go without these three-page shoving matches where everyone insists on getting the last word, there would probably be more discussion and less "This subject is up to how many pages since I last checked? Oh, great. I think I'm going to go elsewhere while those four people hash things out." Far from disputing the point being made, it just keeps it in the forefront for longer and lends it an air of worthiness for discussion when it might have just been dismissed as ridiculous.
How do I put this...
Your rhetorical skills are such that those who back you often come across as bravely putting up their slingshots in defense of a tank from slightly behind said tank. I do not feel that you need my opinion for validation. For what it's worth, though we often disagree politically, I would never describe your opinion as nothing more than political partisanship, or suggest it is without value, or that your presence at Hatrack isn't worthwhile. It's not, it is of value, and it is worthwhile.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:McCain ad: Obama "snubbed" Clinton
now if that doesn't reek of desperation, I don't know what does.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I think McCain has had enough trouble winning over social conservatives, and picking a pro-choice independent would douse the ticket just as they're warming up to him.
Well, my political hopes were pretty doused when Obama picked Biden; it's only fair that Republicans suffer the same way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.
I don't think the point was that he doesn't care and doesn't have to because he runs a comedy show. To me, I thought it was that The Daily Show and shows like Crossfire are pretty much in the same business. The Daily Show is primarily for entertainment and, what he said at the time was right. They come on right after a bunch of puppets making crank calls.
When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.
Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I get my news for the Daily Show. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll admit, I was confusing Sen Biden with Sen Dodd. I wasn't sure why people were so down on him. Now, I sort of get it.
I changed my registration to Democrat in order to vote for Sen Obama in the primaries. He's been disappointing me ever since.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary. If we could occasionally go without these three-page shoving matches where everyone insists on getting the last word, there would probably be more discussion and less "This subject is up to how many pages since I last checked? Oh, great. I think I'm going to go elsewhere while those four people hash things out."
I completely agree.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I get my news for the Daily Show.
... me too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
The Daily show and Colbert Report are in a position where they maintain viewership through conscientious attention to what is really motivating people. They, unlike the mainstream news, are capable of challenging dishonesty and falsehood in the face of its own obvious ridiculousness. And unlike other opinion shows, say the O'Reilly Factor, they don't fall victim that often to their own kind of barb, because they, imo, are doing it all for the sake of their viewers, and not themselves. In a word, they are honest.
That's not something you'd have an easy time saying about Michael Moore, or Bil O'Reilly.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I find it interesting that so many Conservative and Republican spokesmen are predicting and promoting an Anti-Obama Hillary Loyal backlash while I've yet to hear of an Anti-McCain Huckabee Loyal backlash, or Mitt Romney, or Paul-ists from the Democrat/Liberal end of the field.
Is this A)because they know something we don't? I've seen no sign of it other than their Casandra impersonations. B) because the Democrats don't want to stoop that low? I've seem them stoop low on other things. C) because the Democrats aren't smart enough to play this card? Unless it doesn't pan out. D) the Republicans are more desparate and will try for anything? E) The Democrats are know to be less loyal and more self destructive. F) Something I don't know and haven't guessed yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
McCain's VP pick is going to be easy and hard at the same time. He has a much smaller pool of potential picks, and I think their negatives and positives are far more well known. I think he has to have it narrowed down to two or three choices, with Romney being on top, with maybe Pawlenty and Kay Bailey Hutchinson somewhere in the wings.
quote:When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.
Maybe they shouldn't be, but they're just as, if not better, informed as people who watch CNN, MSNBC and other "news" channels. And by the way, I think CNN and the others are just there for entertainment purposes as well, not just shows like Crossfire or the O'Reilley Factor, I mean in general.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Daily Show viewers have to be better informed or they won't get all the jokes. It's self-selecting.
Whereas to really appreciate most of the other news shows, it's better if you don't know as much. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.
I don't think the point was that he doesn't care and doesn't have to because he runs a comedy show. To me, I thought it was that The Daily Show and shows like Crossfire are pretty much in the same business. The Daily Show is primarily for entertainment and, what he said at the time was right. They come on right after a bunch of puppets making crank calls.
When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.
Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
Colbert and Jon Stewart are funnier?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone watch the first night of the Convention? I caught most of Michelle's speech and liked what I heard. I think her job was promoting the Obama values and repackaging the Obama brand as an everyman. They can save the attack dog stuff for Biden, and the Clintons. I think she did a great job. I missed most of the rest, but I'll probably go back and read what Kennedy had to say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Turns out that Barack is not the best public speaker in the Obama family.
Posted by flyonwall (Member # 11733) on :
Oh man, she knocked it out of the park. she was genuine, funny, honest, refreshingly real...i'd like to see the beer heiress top that Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Turns out that Barack is not the best public speaker in the Obama family.
We'll see how he does but, I tend to agree. I think his pauses during off the cuff responses are a little jarring because it breaks up the flow of his answers. On the other hand, his soaring rhetorical style is full of ups and downs when he gives prerehearsed speeches. It's a great tactic when you're trying to whip up the energy level of a crowd or appear transcendent.
Michelle on the other hand is more like a fast flowing stream. It's a constant, steady stream of powerful but smooth sentences that flow out of her. She's a powerful speaker who is clear and easy to understand without looking like she's above the fray. She sounds like she could be someone you know. I think she'll be pretty tremendous in this upcoming General Election and I think she'd make a fantastic first lady. I found her to be surprisingly compelling.
I don't know how good a speaker Cindy McCain is, because she's taken more of a Laura Bush role, but I'll be surprised if she's nearly as good.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
I'm inclined to say that, because they don't have to aspire to journalistic integrity (whatever that means, nowadays), they can actually put two and two together. Rather than saying "New bombings in Iraq, diplomatic strife with Iran, Taliban back on the rise in Afghanistan", they can say "As demonstrated by xyz, America has a history of interventions in the Middle East with grotesque, unintended consequences (only, of course, they say it in a much funnier way.)
Arguably, O'Reilly (and many of the Fox team) connect the dots as well, but they tend to do it in a "do you see the truth of what we're saying, or is there something wrong with you" fashion, while Colbert and Stewart are more of a "You do realize that, by laughing, you're recognizing some validity in what we're saying?..."
Which may well be why Fox would like to filch a little of Stewart's mojo.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: McCain's VP pick is going to be easy and hard at the same time. He has a much smaller pool of potential picks, and I think their negatives and positives are far more well known. I think he has to have it narrowed down to two or three choices, with Romney being on top, with maybe Pawlenty and Kay Bailey Hutchinson somewhere in the wings.
Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by flyonwall: Oh man, she knocked it out of the park. she was genuine, funny, honest, refreshingly real...i'd like to see the beer heiress top that
Enter the low level campaign volunteer?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
Or the actual president, if health concerns for McCain turn out to be valid. I think his medical condition will be a much larger concern for a lot of people, and the thought of his VP taking over will be a lot more on their minds (and Obama's ad campaigns) than the other way around. He'll have to be careful. He can't risk the balancing act that Obama is doing. He needs a young, capable conservative for his VP running mate, which I think narrows the field a bit more.
Orincoro -
Shame on you, that's not how we welcome newcomers. Besides, maybe it's really Michelle Obama in disguise!
Welcome fly, what brings you to Hatrack?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sterling,
quote:
When someone implies something like "if it came down to a vote, the board would choose to get rid of you," that's bullying and threatening, and it essentially puts words into the mouth of a lot of people.
That's one way to put it. As for me, the guy who actually said it, I say it was neither bullying nor threatening, it was responding in kind to a very similar stance taken by Orincoro, one which amounted to saying, "What're you good for around here, anyway?"
quote:...but when anyone presumes to have the weight of public opinion behind them, it grinds my teeth.
Me too.
quote: Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary.
*shrug* It's far from transparently obvious to everyone, or even always for that matter. It's a claim that's been made several times by several people over a long period.
quote:
Your rhetorical skills are such that those who back you often come across as bravely putting up their slingshots in defense of a tank from slightly behind said tank. I do not feel that you need my opinion for validation.
*shrug* As for me, I don't think I lend any rhetorical or logical defense when I posted recently in this thread. I just think Dagonee's a pretty spiffy guy who doesn't deserve the bile spewed at him by some, and when I get especially tired of it, and notice it, I say so. Look at my post count in this thread. I'm clearly not interested in scoring points for myself as far as these discussions go, otherwise I'd be more active.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We'll see how he does but, I tend to agree. I think his pauses during off the cuff responses are a little jarring because it breaks up the flow of his answers. On the other hand, his soaring rhetorical style is full of ups and downs when he gives prerehearsed speeches. It's a great tactic when you're trying to whip up the energy level of a crowd or appear transcendent.
I read somewhere, but can't for the life of me remember where, that Senator Obama overcame a severe stuttering problem as a child.
edit to add: I remember this from back when he was running for Senate so I don't think I am getting him confused with Senator Biden who, I think stuttered as well.
[ August 26, 2008, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't like the "One Nation" theme, especially in a campaign that's not known for tolerance and diversity, and where the unifying principle is "Obama for President" or the vaguely loaded concept of Change.
What kind of change? Change for the better, of course.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Obama isn't hiding his policy positions Irami.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The answers provided here have a way of begging more questions.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
Or the actual president, if health concerns for McCain turn out to be valid. I think his medical condition will be a much larger concern for a lot of people, and the thought of his VP taking over will be a lot more on their minds (and Obama's ad campaigns) than the other way around...
Biden may be thought of along these lines if stories like this start breaking... As sad as it is, I think they might continue.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
From Michelle Obama, I wanted her to get this ethic:
quote:The child of Marian and Fraser Robinson, a stay-at-home mother and a city pump operator, Michelle was raised in a close-knit family that ate every meal together, played Monopoly and read together. "Nobody emphasized public service. What was emphasized was doing what you love to do and you'll be good at whatever you do," says Craig Robinson, Michelle's brother, who left his banking job after a decade to coach college basketball.
Here you have a family that's held up as an exemplary model of the noble American working class ethic where nobody emphasized public service. There is a complicated situation. This is the America we need to understand and address because I believe there are deeply compelling and problematic issues at play.
[ August 26, 2008, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Some thoughts on tonight:
I thought Kucinich's speech was simply fantastic. Incredibly rousing...I didn't know he could do that.
I also though Brian Schweitzer's speech was really powerful. I think I missed the beginning of it, but I liked that he focused so much on energy independence.
I missed Warner's so I'll have to go find that now and listen.
I thought Hilary did a good job of getting the point across. I think she could've been a bit more forceful though. She definitely made the case against McCain, and that's good. But I would've like to see her express real frustration and disappointment with supporters of hers who say they'll vote for McCain. Really drive home the point that that would be an extremely counterproductive move. Which she did to a certain degree. I guess as an Obama supporter I can't really speak for how her speech affected the Hilary supporters, but I'd love to find out.
I think in all the night went really well. Some quality speeches, some good anti McCain rhetoric, and some nice pro Obama rallying. I'm very curious to see what kind of bounce Obama gets after this week.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I only heard part of one speech (Ohio governor, I think), but it was very off-putting. I'm not interested in hearing school-boy taunts of The Other Guy in the place of an actual plan of action.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
hmmm...I take back some of what i said. i was watching online and my feed cut out for a minute during the time when she said this:
quote:were you in this just for me or were you in this for the larger causes? Isn't that the right question for Democrats?
That's sort of the thing I was hoping she would say. But stronger still.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, I agree with you, but after Monday night all the commentary was on how the Democrats "wasted" the first night by being too soft on McCain/the GOP, and that that's why they've lost in the past, that they give reasoned and balanced speeches and then the Republicans go out and attack. I don't know how much I believe that is really the reason people vote the way they do, but it is certainly the conventional wisdom, that you can't win by taking about your actual plans.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I thought Clinton's speech was strong, and said what needed to be said, but it didn't move me the way Michelle Obama's speech of the previous day had.
I did find the "she didn't say he's ready to lead!" response from the McCain camp incredibly weak. What, you think she said he "must be president" [despite not being ready to lead]?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No kidding. But they have to criticize something, or else it's a tacit agreement that the speech was correct in it's assertions.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, she didn't say that. She didn't talk about Obama's ability at all, really. Just that he had to be president (presumably so McCain wouldn't be). That's not pro-Obama, that's pro-Democrats.
Obama supporters were hoping for more of a "He's our best person for the job" speech, and they weren't going to get it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I don't get these disgruntled HIlary supporters. The PUMAs. Their biggest complaint seems to be that the process was corrupted. That the party leadership screwed Hilary over and pushed Obama on the people. What world are they living in?
The party leadership was all about Hilary. She was their shoo in. Obama was completely ignored until the movement became too large to ignore. Hilary lost. There was no corruption involved. Is it just a mass case of denial?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dems have to be wondering, though, why Sen. Hillary is not on the ticket, when she looked and sounded so good in her speech. Just wait, when Sen. Biden gets up to speak, and everyone sees him as an old political hack (only six years younger than McCain), totally lackluster, they're going to be asking even louder why this guy is on the ticket and Hillary is not.
Frankly, I am amazed at how many things the Dems have have done wrong in the past year. Just watch--Obama will not get any bounce in the polls after the Dem convention. The day after, McCain will announce his veep pick, and completely knock Obama and the Dems out of the news cycle.
Already, the Gop is running ads consisting of outtakes from speeches by Hillary talking about Obama's lack of experience, and how even McCain has more experience, so would appeal to voters over Obama on that issue. I think the GOP has a library full of Hillary outtakes they are ready to run.
If Obama loses, then Hillary can run again in 2012, with the slogan, "I told you so."
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Would the GOP be running different ads if Hilary was the VP pick? They ran ads of Biden criticizing Obama when Biden was announced. They'd be running the same ads with Hilary criticizing Obama regardless of her position in his candidacy.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I don't get why Dems have to be wondering...I think it's pretty clear why she's not on the ticket; you even listed some reasons yourself that make her teaming with Obama look stupid and contradictory to voters on both sides.
She may have given a decent speech, but it's not like she could afford not to. I very much get the impression she's a Democrat through and through, and would love to take back those sound bites of her criticizing Obama if she could; but deep down, she wishes it were her, and perhaps for that reason, did not "knock it out of the ballpark" as everyone thought/hoped she would. I don't think we need so much of an Us vs. Them speech, as we do a "Obama's your man" one.
Of course, maybe she'd feel she'd be lying if she were to claim that he's the president we all need, but when has a politician ever been afraid to lie for the good of the party? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Dems have to be wondering, though, why Sen. Hillary is not on the ticket, when she looked and sounded so good in her speech.
Not really. I'm a registered Democrat, and I'm not wondering that at all. Clinton is a divisive figure, and her presence on the ticket would likely galvanize the right. She would also be likely to maintain the broader role that the office of VP has taken on under Bush/Cheney, which would likely be something that Obama wouldn't want. Taking Clinton as VP could have been spun to look like weakness, with Obama caving to the demands of the Clintons. There is little love lost between Obama and the Clintons; all other things aside, mutual dislike is a good reason for Obama to choose someone other than her as his VP. I could go on and on; there are myriad reasons why Obama would opt not to include Clinton on the ticket.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I like living in an America with PUMAs. I hope Obama's people don't try to put Biden on a leash. He is running for VP. The position lets you take greater chances and make more gaffes. Let Biden be Biden. With Biden as the VP, I'm probably going to vote for Obama, but I do hope that Obama shows some courage, and talks tough to America.
[ August 27, 2008, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ron, in your eyes, the Dems can do no right. You'd have been criticizing them if Obama had picked Clinton just as much. I'm surprised that you're "amazed" at how many things the Dems have done wrong.
-Bok
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bokonon, it's just that few political parties in modern history have made so many major mistakes and miscalculations that alienate massive numbers of people as this year's Dems. They've shot themselves in the foot so often, they have to dance on their knees now. Half their budget must go for spin-doctors, and the other half for orthopedic doctors.
Frankly, if the Dems had used better judgment, they could have won this election in a landslide. But it no longer appears so likely to me that will happen.
Sure, Sen. Hillary was no one I would vote for, but Obama is much further to the left, has no experience, and I have zero confidence in him. Of the two, I would prefer her to be president, if the GOP loses. Though I do shudder to think of Bill Clinton in the White House again--with nothing to do. (Hide the interns!)
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
If the Democratic party were half as inept as you say, it would've burst into flames years ago.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
notice ron has been slowly lowering and lowering the bar since the beginning?
2007: The dems are really going to shoot themselves, Hillary is going to win Obama can't possibly win the primaries!
Later: Obama may have won 11 states in a row but he still won't win the nomination he doesn't stand a chance!
Later: Okay Maybe Obama has more super delegates and normal delegates but the Party will still shoot themselves and choose Hillary!
Now: Obama will not win the Presidency!
Probably Later: Obama Won't win a second term!
After that: The constitutional admendment for letting him have a third term won't possibly pass!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, I'd agree with him on the last one. I'd vote against an amendment like that, no matter how well Obama had carried out the duties of the presidency.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think Dems have made that many mistakes, I just think Republicans are THAT good at politics. Obama hasn't been losing ground lately because he has bad ideas, he's been losing ground because the McCain attack machine is working overtime to smear him all across the board. Factcheck.org must be paying its employees overtime trying to correct all the crap he's slinging at Obama, and if you listen to Republican talking points and read polling data, the most oft stated lies are the ones that are sticking the best and reducing Obama's lead. To be fair, Obama is throwing out a share of untruths as well, but they aren't sticking nearly as well.
This hasn't been a campaign about policy or substance so far. And for the Republicans, it can't be. I think if this election becomes about substantive debate, the Republicans lose hands down, which is why I think Obama is going to cream McCain in the debates and pick up 5 or 6 points.
With the coverage of the major news networks, I might add, It's going to be nearly impossible for Dems to get a bounce off this thing. Maybe if you're watching on C-SPAN, which I've switched to, you get unfilitered content, but watching it on CNN or MSNBC or Fox is like watching the Convention through media goggles. They're constantly harping on the speakers, saying they aren't doing well enough, saying what they should be doing, and leaving out whole speeches, often when those speeches do the things that they say aren't being done. I almost wish they hadn't covered it at all and just let us watch the keynote speeches like 4 years ago. I expect the same awful coverage when the Republicans have their next week.
I'm still not worried though. I really think the debates are going to decide this election. I think the polls are off, especially when they say that 55% of people in Florida want a Democrat to win the White House but only 46% choose Obama to win. There's a disconnect. I don't take any of it seriously until after the first debate. That's when most people start to tune in and really pay attention. The rest of this spectacle is for the hardcore enthusiasts of politics (like anyone in this thread). If Obama is tied or behind heading into October, I'll be a little worried.
But I don't think the Democrats have run a particularly awful campaign. I do think that they'd be doing a lot better if Clinton or Obama had dropped out a long time ago. Other than that, maybe they should have gone a lot more negative a lot sooner. Obama's gravy train ended when McCain started throwing thunderbolts at him, and he tried to reason his way out of it instead of hitting back. I also think that anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama but was pining for Clinton is an idiot to vote for McCain. They're diametrically opposed on so many issues that it makes no logical sense to me. But hey, that's the American electorate!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
One Obama supporter's take on Hillary's speech. His commentary is significantly more critical than anything I've heard from McCain's camp. I wonder if McCain et al aren't commenting because as far as they're concerned the speech spoke for itself.
In full disclosure, I didn't watch the speech. It was pretty late on the Eastern seaboard, but I toughed it out through Chelsea's poorly-narrated and poorly-themed montage. I got right up through the introduction. And then the image of Bill Clinton, biting his lip and tearing up in faux sincerity, mouthing repeatedly "I Love You." Turned the t.v. off and went bed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the montage was pretty decent. I mean I wouldn't buy the DVD or anything, but it wasn't awful. But the constant camera pans over to Bill mouthing "I love you," looked either staged or that he knew the camera would pan over at some point and was just guessing. I feel horrible for saying that, because I hate being so cynical over people's actions in that type of situation, but considering which two people it was, it's hard not be. Still, I like to think that it was sincere, even if there's a nagging doubt in the back of my head that it's all staged.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I'm actually a little surprised more hasn't been made over the dissonance in the GOP refrain of "things are going great!" while pointedly trying to avoid being seen anywhere near the gentleman in charge while things were going "great".
No one has a crystal ball, and I would advise against confusing one's hopes with accurate predictions. McCain hasn't even picked his VP yet. It seems common sense (or at least conventional wisdom) that, if nothing else comes of the convention, Hillary's speech will mean that some of her people who were on the line will go to Obama, and some who were thinking of going to McCain will just sit out. That alone is probably enough to put Obama back in the lead by at least a few percentage points. That lead may or may not be eliminated by the subsequent McCain VP pick and GOP convention.
I would note that McCain has hardly been without missteps of his own that have alienated portions of the "core" party. Obama has made significant inroads with the evangelicals, and there are a number of states that are considered to be "in play" this year that would have been shoe-ins in previous years. Also, McCain is having difficulty escaping rumors that he tends left on some issues, and his closeness to Lieberman seems to put some GOP voters off.
Time will tell.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There was a poll I read recently that was talking about common misconceptions over candidates, and one of them is that a lot of people think McCain is pro-choice because of his "independent maverick" image. This actually helps him with independents but hurts him with Evangelicals wary of him. So McCain might actually have to spend some money defending his position on abortion.
I think a neat, and funny, ad from Obama against McCain would be to try and pick apart this maverick thing. Bring up all of his positions and then show his position and ask the question: So how is he a Maverick? Abortion? Against it. Alternative Energy? Nice idea but keeps voting against it. Iraq? Votes with Bush 100% of the time. And so on and so on. He keeps calling himself a maverick with seemingly no proof behind it. Obama has just started recently to use the "votes with Bush 95% of the time" thing, which is good, but I think they need to break it down by subject to really pull people in. Bush can't win the election for the Democrats, they have to win it themselves.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Bill Clinton sure knows how to give a speech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whew. The entertaining part is going to be watching Republicans try and spin that as anything but a whole hearted effort. I saw a couple points they could try and nail him on. Clinton didn't necessarily say that Obama had the experience, he said that with Biden on the team they had what was needed together, but if you listen to the WHOLE of the speech, he painted a picture of a presidential candidate with great judgement and a keen mind, and implied that those things were far more important than experience. He also drew parallels to his own presidency and said they tried to use all these same arguments against him, and that they were wrong. Die hard Republicans won't buy that, but they aren't the ones he's talking to anyway.
As for "Do the Clintons support Obama?" I think he put that to rest. As for "Did he give a ringing endorsement of Obama?" He did. It was far less self-serving than Hillary's, which I think almost had to be to placate her supporters. I think he laid out his case for Obama and did it well. If Biden can light it up, this'll be a great night.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kerry is giving one hell of a speech too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Kerry is giving one hell of a speech too.
What at least three people have yet to fall asleep?
I'm kinda mad I missed Mr. Clinton's speech, now I have to rely on transcripts until I can catch it on youtube.
I think for those supporters of Hillary who are still incensed, their major complaints are that women have been struggling for years to break through this barrier, and Hillary seemed like the logical conclusion of that effort. She was displaced by a newcomer, who they feel should have waited out of courtesy. The media decided that Obama was their darling, and since all major media outlets are run from the top by men, it's easy to believe that women were being told to stay in their place and keep quiet.
Hillary is probably their greatest,(currently) champion, and nobody will likely have as good a chance of winning the presidency now, or in the foreseeable future.
In the NYTs they asked a Hillary supporter if she would vote for Obama in November, and her response, referring to Clinton was, "Of course I will, she just told us to."
On the one hand, it's good that greater unity is likely being achieved, on the other, I'm not sure I like sharing a vote with people that malleable. What is even more stupid are the Hillary supporters who in spite of her endorsement, still hate Obama. It's as if their support of her is so deep even she can't refuse it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Joe Biden did his job. Nice work Biden. Nice work, DNC.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Did you see Kerry's speech? It was good. For Kerry, it was pretty high energy, but content wise it was a perfect thread in what the Dems were trying to weave tonight. It was a scathing attack on McCain and support for Obama via comparison and contrasting of their opinions on major foreign policy decisions. That seemed to be the theme tonight.
I think Clinton's best line was something like "the world has always been benefitted less by our example of power than our power of example." Something like that, but it was a great line.
Biden was great too. Nice backstory, nice positives for Obama, and nice scathing attack on McCain. Also, Biden's mom sounds like an awesome person and a great mom too.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I just got home for Biden's speech. I'll check out Kerry's tomorrow on online.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Did anyone see Richardson? It was the only speech I missed tonight that I wanted to see.
I got my mom to watch some of it, and she didn't get why so many people she'd never heard of were giving speeches all saying the same thing. I think her exact words were: "Is everyone in the Democratic party giving a speech?" I had to explain to her that it's pretty much every Democrat up for a major office that needs the face time on prime time. It's no wonder people get bored during these things. They weren't designed for regular people, they're designed for diehards. At least before 9pm they are.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's been a while since I checked it, but http://www.pollster.com/ has a fun little interactive color coded map/toy thing.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Did you see Kerry's speech? It was good. For Kerry, it was pretty high energy, but content wise it was a perfect thread in what the Dems were trying to weave tonight. It was a scathing attack on McCain and support for Obama via comparison and contrasting of their opinions on major foreign policy decisions. That seemed to be the theme tonight.
His hypothetical debate between "Senator McCain" and "Candidate McCain" was great, very reminiscent of that classic Daily Show clip where they have "Governor Bush" debate "President Bush."
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I didn't see much of Clinton's speech, but what I did see was pitch perfect. Honestly, I think the Clintons just schooled the GOP in the art of politics. I think Hillary led with a feint, and when the conservative talking heads lunged (on the "she didn't say Obama was ready to lead" point, which I agree with Sterling was very weak) Bill laid them out cold.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Lyrhawn - according to the channel I was watching last night, Richardson's speech got moved to tonight. So you didn't miss it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Warning :: Rant ahead
There are a couple of things that are bugging me (and part of it goes to why I found the Chelsea montage poor). The assumption is that most disgruntled Hillary supporters are women who wanted a woman president; I think that's completely wrong. Obama has led a resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, which has ousted the centrists (like the Clintons) who've more or less held sway for the past 25 years. I think a lot of the disgruntled Hillary supporters are just centrist Democrats who don't like the rainbows and sparkles idealism of Obama's candidacy, but prefer a more hard-headed political realism (which translates to centrism). While Obama's paid this position lip service (through his infamous pivot to the center), I don't think it's been enough to convince that contingency of his sincerity.
As for McCain, I think he's got the inverse problem. He's spent his career in the Senate as a realist, a Republican centrist in a time of Reagan idealism. But for the past eight years, he's positioned himself to be able to mollify the currently-in-power idealogues within his party (at the expense of tarnishing his "maverick" image). I think he's been more successful than Obama in mollifying the opposing wing of his own party (to the "why aren't we talking about GOP dissonance" point) because he's invested more time preparing for it. That said, the dittoheads are still leery, which is why there were major news items last week about Rush's threats over McCain's potential not-completely-pro-life VP picks (Lieberman and Ridge).
About the picking of VPs: I think the Obama camp has done a much better job of using the media than the McCain camp. Obama's staff managed to strike the perfect balance between teasing and coy, with leaks allowing the press to vet various candidates (Bayh, Sibelius, Kaine, etc.) and generate buzz. McCain's taken a much more private approach, or at least has been much less successful at getting the press to present the story. I think when it comes to framing the story in most media (television, newsprint, blogosphere), the Dems do a much better job than the GOP. When people complain that Dems don't know how to play politics I think it's pretty naive; Dems are just as good at the things they do well as Republicans are at things they do well. The whole "they're just that good at politics" meme along with the "Republican smear machine" meme are poor reflections of reality (IMO).
Lastly, I hate that I care so much about the presidential election. Whether Obama wins or McCain wins, I don't honestly believe my world or my way of life will be dramatically different in four years, or eight years, or twenty years. I wish my local elections were as entertaining (or generated as significant levels of media coverage), because I think time spent focusing on how much money to allocate to repaving roads and how my school board will be constituted will have a much bigger impact on my life than offshore oil drilling or the constitution of the US Supreme Court.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:When people complain that Dems don't know how to play politics I think it's pretty naive; Dems are just as good at the things they do well as Republicans are at things they do well. The whole "they're just that good at politics" meme along with the "Republican smear machine" meme are poor reflections of reality (IMO).
This suggests that how one handles the media is the only way to play the game. I think Republicans are better at it personally, but I don't think that's the entire game. I think Republicans are more willing to take a stand and trust the American people to back them up, even if they're totally wrong, because Democrats constantly back down under such pressure, even when they are right. I think that's why Democrats tend to win in spite of themselves, because they're scared to death of the American people, and are willing to compromise their stated principles to do what's popular over what's right.
That's all part of the political game. The war in Iraq is the perfect example. The midterms of 2006 were hailed far and wide as a referendum on Republican support for the war. I don't think anyone voting didn't think that their vote was going to have a serious effect on the war, or at least hoped it would. It caused a nationwide upheavel of the political landscape, ushering Democrats into state houses, governor's mansions, the US Senate and House all across the nation. And what did Democrats do with their mandate? Not a damn thing. Why? Because every time they paid lip service to the whole ending the war thing, Republicans trotted out their "Democrats are unpatriotic and hate the troops" mantra and Democrats backed down every single time. They said there wouldn't be a blank check for the war, and yet Bush isn't complaining about funding, just the hassle he has to go through to get it. Nothing has changed. Democrats could have ended the war a year ago quite simply by cutting off the funding for it. They could have sent Bush a letter saying "Sorry, your wellspring of money has dried up, so if you plan to feed or clothe the troops, you'd better bring them home. You have a year, tell the Iraqis to figure it out." In such a situation, what would Bush do? He can't veto such a measure, since there's nothing to veto. If Congress doesn't pass a spending bill, the money doesn't get spent. Congress has constantly refused to use the power of the purse against Bush. It's bad enough they've abdicated their oversight responsibilities, but they've given the White House wide control over the budget too. Why even bother with Congress? Instead of doing that though, they kept saying "benchmarks and time tables," and when the Republicans refused to back down (because they KNEW the Democrats would cave) the Democrats, of course, caved, and gave in to pretty much every demand that Bush had saying "drat, they bested us again!" You might say it's a pretty dramatic way to end the war, and Republicans would have framed the issue first off as beint anti-troops and second as anti-American safety. Considering the nationwide pro-Democratic vote, I don't think they would have had a problem with the safety issue. Americans wanted to end the war. On the other point, they could stand up for themselves and say "Look, this is the only way to end the war given Republican opposition, and it will only hurt the troops if President Bush refuses to bring them home, so it's really his fault." But they never tried it because they didn't trust the American people to side with them, despite the massive number of votes for them only months prior.
I still won't vote for Republicans until they get better policies, and I'll still vote for Democrats because I think they have better ideas, when they actually enforce them. But not a day goes by that I don't turn on the TV and wish to high heaven that the Democrats would friggin' man up, grow a pair, and fight back once and awhile. More specifically, I wish they'd do two things: 1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.
[/rant]
In other news, McCain is to announce his VP pick tomorrow, but I bet it's leaked by tonight for two reasons. 1. I think that like Obama's pick, he just won't be able to keep it under wraps. The media will find out. 2. I think he WANTS them to find out ahead of his official announcement to cut into Obama's post-speeh afterglow as much as possible. He if times it right, it'll end the Democratic Convention instantly and launch the focus onto the Republican Convention. There are conflicting reports that he has and has not picked, but he's supposed to start making calls later tonight. Rumors are swelling around two oft named favorites, Romney and Pawlenty. Joe Lieberman is on the short list, supposedly, and a woman is said to be in the running (which I take to mean either KBH or Sarah Palin of Alaska). There are a lot of other names too, but these are the ones being talked about the most. I bet we find out in about 12 hours.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: 1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.
Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne Bradley, you know full well I never said any of those things you attributed to me. Is this a deliberate tactic, or just a poorly conceived attempt at satire?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
I was thinking this morning, of the "Kennedy Assassination Quiz Show Game" skit from SNL.
In it, contestants are given 10 seconds to recite their conspiracy theory for the Kennedy assassination. The first contestant starts with the Mafia and its ties to the CIA, and then runs out of time. The second talks about the KGB and Lyndon Johnson, then runs out of time. The third says "A tiger got him" and wins, because he's able to completely verbalize his theory in the allotted time.
It loses a lot of funny in the telling, but it was a good skit.
I agree our political discourse needs more dialogue and less demagoguery. I don't believe there's any truth to the assertion that Democrats are unique in their ability to wrestle with nuance. Nor do I believe that they lack an ability to couch their doctrines in bumper sticker length sound bites for ease of consumption. This is exactly the sort of simplistic and counterproductive meme that I think detrimentally misleads Democrats into believing Republicans have a populist advantage. It's also, IMO, part of why the competing "elitist" meme is so current among Republicans, despite a similar lack of grounding in reality.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: 1. Become better at explaining why what they want is good for the American people. 2. Trust the American people to listen and give them a fair shake.
Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
I agree, but then I have to go into my rant on how much I hate the media, and that's a whole different can of worms. I think the media are probably 40% to blame for the current state of politics in America. I blame 40/40/20, media/US Government officials/the American people. The media stopped being effective when they started caring less about their jobs as informers of the public and started caring more about making money and ratings. I think the media in America has always had partisan rags, and has always been a business, but the noise to substance ratio used to be far, far more skewed towards substance, whereas today it's far, far more skewed towards noise. They suck at what they're supposed to do, politicians take advantage of it, and we're complicit in the whole thing by not DEMANDING better politicians and better coverage. Blogs have tried to pick up the slack with a new 21st century sort of muckraking, but they just don't have either the access or the face time that the big hitters do. I think part of the problem is that Americans are lazy and just want the information laid out for them (but again, that's a separate rant as well). There will always be bad journalists, and dirty campaigns. Heck, they go back to Thomas Jefferson. But the advent of the 24 hour news networks has really turned everything on its head. They talk just to hear themselves talk, because there isn't always something super exciting going on, so they sensationalize things that really aren't that exciting and push and pull Americans all over the place, placing emphasis on things better left silent and refusing to cover the larger issues of the day. No one is asking hard questions and demanding good answers.
I think the current crop of media people cater to the lowest common denominator both in the American electorate and in the American government.
[/smaller rant]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Headline on cnn.com:
quote:Obama expected to address change in speech
Noooooo...really?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And bloggers don't really fill the gap with most people. Not everybody is "wired". Especially in poorer or more rural areas or among older voters. We forget how new the internet is. I didn't use a computer till I was out of college and wasn't connected to anything until I was in my thirties.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Obama has led a resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, which has ousted the centrists (like the Clintons) who've more or less held sway for the past 25 years. I think a lot of the disgruntled Hillary supporters are just centrist Democrats who don't like the rainbows and sparkles idealism of Obama's candidacy, but prefer a more hard-headed political realism (which translates to centrism). While Obama's paid this position lip service (through his infamous pivot to the center), I don't think it's been enough to convince that contingency of his sincerity.
As a member of the liberal wing of the democratic party, I think people are assuming that Obama, because he is black, is further left than he is. Sure, he was against the Iraq war, not out of a principled stand against violence, but only so that he can put more troops in Afghanistan. He is pro-death penalty. He likes the architecture of NCLB; he just wants to put more money in it. Liberals don't even like the architecture. If Evan Bayh-- the paragon centrist-- were pro-choice, or even Pro-Choiceish, I don't know how much daylight there would be between Bayh and Obama.
Obama has a bit of loft in his rhetoric, which gives the appearance of being a liberal, but he just employs picturesque metaphors to support down the middle policies.
[ August 28, 2008, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: As a member of the liberal wing of the democratic party, I think people are assuming that Obama, because he is black, is further left than he is.
In my case, I assume he's liberal not because he's black, but because his support base is young and he has the backing of the Kennedy contingent that lost out back in 1980, as well as the early and continuing support from MoveOn.org. Not to mention his positioning in his primary run against Clinton, where he pretty willingly held himself up as the "progressive" candidate to Clinton's realist-centrist. None of that is issue-based, however.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
I find this goes the other way at least as often, such as accusations that McCain supports torture or favors a 100 year war.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Here is what I consider the nub of the problem. The Republicans have mastered the short, simple, no nuance slogans. The media want short, simple, soundbite slogans. People get bored with long complicated answers and change the channel.
Unfortunately for us, reality often requires long complicated answers, but explaining nuanced positions sounds "wishy washy".
I find this goes the other way at least as often, such as accusations that McCain supports torture or favors a 100 year war.
Both sides have mastered the smear tactic. I think they were referring to simple slogans for their own positions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't see a difference between the parties there, either.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Headline on cnn.com:
quote:Obama expected to address change in speech
Noooooo...really?
:: laugh ::
I read that same headline to my office mates this morning, followed by "really? No foolin'?"
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
To be fair, NCLB is a liberal policy by definition. Rather than a federalist approach where you let the states have the most control of their education programs, you have regulations and testing that's required from Washington. That said, you have fairly strong points on the other aspects of Obama's liberalism.
I've been loving this convention, it's been fun, the speeches are nice, we've been getting more than we hoped for in needed speeches, (Michelle Obama proving patriotism, Senator and President Clinton showing ardent support for Obama, etc.) and we have a great amount of energy being built.
By the way, Gallup's daily tracking poll may be showing the start of a bump.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne Bradley, you know full well I never said any of those things you attributed to me. Is this a deliberate tactic, or just a poorly conceived attempt at satire?
Who are you trying to fool?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:To be fair, NCLB is a liberal policy by definition. Rather than a federalist approach where you let the states have the most control of their education programs, you have regulations and testing that's required from Washington. That said, you have fairly strong points on the other aspects of Obama's liberalism.
All the talk about how to implement testing, accountability, and competition without actually talking about what we are trying to test for, account for, and maximize smells like of some MBA or management consultant gone wild in the Department of Education, trying to control, manipulate, and make more efficient, without actually thinking.
________
Win or lose, Obama has given a lot of speeches. Most people live and die without the opportunity to give a speech as big as the DNC Keynote, then the Announcement Speech, the race speech, and the Berlin Speech. The pressure is almost dizzying.
[ August 28, 2008, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You know, I keep looking for these liberal beliefs of Obama's. He's not out suggesting we nationalize the oil industry or that we delve into communisism or that we tax the church to pay for abortion clinics or anything radical. I haven't heard much liberal from him at all, except that he's not afraid of the word liberal and that he wants to take it back from the Republican Spin-Masters who've turned it into a dirty word.
The only reason I hear people are saying he's too liberal is because other people are saying he's to liberal. And that started as dirt thrown at him by his opponents.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I haven't even heard him say the word Liberal.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Okay, so Irami's rebuke sent me looking for statistical data.
In the past three years, National Journal rated Obama the 16th, 10th, and 1st most liberal Senator. There are concerns over methodology, however, particularly regarding the most recent year in which Obama missed several votes which might have pulled his rank lower due to campaigning.
A more academic analysis is done at voteview.com, run by some Political Scientists at UCSD. They discuss in a great write-up here** the comparable liberality of Clinton and Obama. Using their methodology, for the first two years he was in the Senate, Obama was the 21st most liberal Senator; for the second two years he was tied with Biden as the 10th most liberal Senator.
All of which is to say, Obama is left of center for the national party. He's no Russ Feingold, but it's far from inaccurate to call him a liberal.
** For those interested, when full voting history is considered, McCain is much closer to center than Obama. However, just considering his last six years of Senate service, he has moved dramatically to the right. In each of the past three Senates he's ranked as one of the five most conservative Senators. The graphs show that McCain, with his full service considered, skews center much more strongly than his recent votes would indicate. For me, this somewhat validates my opinion that he's spent the last eight years laying the groundwork for mollifying the right wing of the Republican party.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:A health care policy adviser for the McCain campaign told a newspaper reporter that nobody in the United States is technically uninsured, because everyone has access to hospital emergency rooms.
"So I have a solution [to the health care crisis]. And it will cost not one thin dime," John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, told the Dallas Morning News in an interview published Thursday.
"The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care. So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."
-----
UPDATE: McCain's campaign says they do not consider Goodman to be an official campaign adviser.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote: "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care. So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."
That doesn't even make sense.
.
(I should clarify - ElJay didn't say that - a quote in her post did. ElJay would never say such non-nonsensical things) Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The rest of what he said doesn't make sense, to me, either. And although the McCain campaign doesn't consider him an official advisor, apparently he was instrumental in helping write McCain's health plan. I haven't read McCain's plan in detail, but I still must say I don't find that comforting.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
It's stretching the definition of "insurance" to mean "when you get sick you are insured you will be seen by someone who can help, provided you can get there in time and make it through the triage" which is not what is usually meant by "insurance."
And it strikes me as pretty counterproductive to the discussion to play such silly semantic games.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Exactly.
Plus one the big points of having insurance is that you can get preventative care, or when something goes wrong get it fixed when it's still minor (and cheaper) before it gets bad enough to go to the emergency room. Wasn't there a study recently that showed that providing free preventative care to the most frequent patients seen at a large urban emergency room saved the hospital a lot of money, since the care was cheaper and they didn't have to take the loss on the emergency visits? I think it was linked here within the last year. . .
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
If he was instrumental in helping write mccain's health care plan, the dems should have a field day with this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's not stretching the definition of insurance, it's totally changing it. Insurance is how you pay for a service, an emergency room is the service itself. Plus Eljay's point about preventative care, which is a huge, huge point all by itself, but suggesting that er's are health insurance is stupid. Anyone can go to the er right now, and come out with thousands and thousands of dollars in bills, which is the entire point of insurance.
It's no wonder McCain's healthcare plan is all smoke and mirrors.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And people still get billed for emergency care. It isn't like trips to the emergency room are free. The "I went to the ER because I couldn't afford to go to a doctor, so now I am in bankruptcy" scenario is not a good one.
Especially when you add the "and by that time it was too late" epilogue.
edit to add: "They aren't homeless; they're campers!"
[ August 28, 2008, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have nothing good to say about the comment being discussed.
But I do find the idea that insurance should pay for preventative care to underscore one of the huge disconnects in health care policy and how it is discussed. Insurance is usually used to pool risk - usually because the risk only happens to a small percentage of the pool.
Now, that's not to say that a health care plan shouldn't pay for preventative care. Obviously, that makes good financial sense. But such a plan isn't insurance. This is a comment about the term "health insurance" and its use in the policy discussion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:A health care policy adviser for the McCain campaign told a newspaper reporter that nobody in the United States is technically uninsured, because everyone has access to hospital emergency rooms.
Hell, that's like saying nobody in the United States is technically homeless if they have access to shelters.
And that we should change the definition of homeless to that effect.
Voila, problem solved. Hi my name is JOHN GOODMAN and i have BRAINWORMS
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Hell, that's like saying nobody in the United States is technically homeless if they have access to shelters.
It would be, if shelters were required by law not to turn people away.
I agree with Dag; people are talking about universal health care when they talk about preventitive procedures, not insurance.
As a question, if we as a nation had the resources to either a) provide preventive care or b) provide insurance against catastrophic illness, which should we morally do? Perhaps that should go in it's own thread; if the discussion takes off I'll likely move it there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree with Dag that people are talking about healthcare (not necessarily universal) rather than pure insurance. I think that's a subtle but perhaps important difference that people often consider synonymous.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The reason that they consider it synonymous is not that any insurer with a brain would provide preventive care so as to cut the risk and cost of covering catastrophic care.
In other words, "I can't afford my Insulin so I went to the Emergency Room when the Diabetic Coma struck." It costs the insurance company much less to provide Insulin than to take care of a coma patient.
Preventive Care is a way for the Insurers to lower risk, while also providing extra services so actually being able to increase income.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I'm not finding Obama's speech to be his most inspiring but I can see the points he's trying to hit. He has complimented Bill Clinton's administration, mentioned progress in equality for women, and specified what needs to be changed ("let me specify EXACTLY what I mean by change..."). I think his goal was to make his speech as bulletproof as possible to criticism rather than as inspirational as possible.
EDIT: I'm not saying it's boring Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: I think his goal was to make his speech as bulletproof as possible to criticism rather than as inspirational as possible.
Agreed. I think he did that pretty well.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Well, I didn't catch it all. I came in around 10:30.
It's hard for me, as a McCain supporter, to know how unpartisan this opinion is, but I thought the speech was really flat. Maybe I just wasn't the right audience.
A lot of the words were right, but it seemed like he was trying to be all things to all people. He had his set of talking points, and he hit them methodically and without spirit.
Best moment: "That's a debate I'm ready to have" looking dead into the camera. That was great. But compared to his Keynote address in 2004, this was, to me, disappointing. He brought back some of the same themes (even some of the same rhetoric, i.e. "they didn't fight for a red America, or a blue America, but the United States of America"), but it seemed like he didn't have the same energy.
And I simply don't believe that he really has a plan, or even an understanding of the costs, of all the new benefits he mentioned tonight. His speech was a litany of new entitlements that he claims can be paid for through closing corporate tax loopholes and making judicious, line-by-line budget cuts. I'm skeptical.
Despite his speechwriters' best efforts, it didn't put to rest my concerns about his ability to lead from day one (to steal one of Clinton's lines) or his temperment to get detail oriented in setting a real agenda. The details were there, but it just seemed his heart (and his head) weren't in it.
Anyway, one man's (likely very biased) opinion.
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
Did anyone else notice how Obama started speaking in a deep southern accent the last two minutes of his speech? Directly after talking about Dr. King? Even though I understand that politicians are going to use basic "mind games", it still really bugs me.
Other than that, I really liked what he had to say about not wanting more of the same. Let's just hope his change is a better one.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I never noticed that. When did Sen. Obama ever live in the deep south?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Senoj -
I agree and disagree. The thing is, there was absolutely no way he was going be able to meet the insanely high expectations that everyone had of him. I mean, a speech given on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's speech, and this being the first black nominee, and after all the speeches that came before given by both him and others, it was just never going to happen. So instead of the over the top energetic magic, he set out to mollify the biggest criticisms against him. I think he did that.
Frankly I got bored during the opening part. The biographical stuff was all old news. I understand why he had to do it, but for those of us who've already heard it, I was nodding off. He heated it up part way through when he both took it to McCain and clearly laid out his own plans and issues (and it was nice that he brought up some social issues for the first time in the election). I liked how he didn't try and use them as wedge issues either, he tried to plot the middle course where we agree instead of sticking to the Left side.
Was it as soaring as the 2004 speech? Nope, and for good reason. He's given the soaring speeches, and the more he gives them, the more he gets attacked for it, so he decided to up the substance to poetry ratio.
We have a $3 TRILLION dollar budget. I have zero trouble believing that Obama can find massive cuts that can be made in the budget to pay for what he wants to do, and frankly I think it all needs to be done, so someone is going to have to make the tough choices. I don't know where the "litany of new entitlements" comes from. Other than healthcare, what was he talking about that was a new idea?
Clearly he has a plan. He just told it to you in pretty clear detail, and it's a lot more detailed than McCain's. And I think their criticisms on McCain, that Republicans just say you're on your own, is a rebuke of pretty core Republican ideals at a time when people are struggling to get by. I think it'll resonate. That you don't like his plan is fine, but I'm sick of the people who say that Obama doesn't have a plan. I'd say they're just lazy and don't look it up when it's clearly there, but the man keeps telling people his plan.
Ron & landy -
I listened to the speech, and didn't hear the accent. I'll have to listen to it again later when it's on YouTube.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I thought it was great. I agree it was slow at the beginning and for me a lot of it was rehash. But I thought he really kicked it into gear as he went along and became really inspirational. But like Lyrhawn says, stayed focused on the specifics. I absolutely love his speeches where he goes off on tangents talking about lofty ideals, but with all the criticism he's gotten for being all talk, I thought it was smart to not go there too much.
Our local campaign had a big convention watch party tonight and after Gore's speech and his speech we had a large rush of people signing up to volunteer.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I didn't hear an accent either.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I thought it was great. For the last month, Obama has shown little to no leadership whatsoever, and I began to doubt whether he had what it takes to be President. For instance, it was not, no matter what others say, Hillary Clinton's job to get her supporters to vote for Obama, it was Obama's job, and as a leader, he failed to realize that very notion. For over a month now, McCain has attacked Obama from many sides, and in his attempt to stay above the fray, he has not answered back. Just like when Clinton went on the roll at the end of the primaries, when these attacks came from the McCain campaign came out, Barack Obama stood on the sideline because he is not one to attack or smear. What he failed to realize was that you don't have to smear someone in order to rebut an argument, you don't have to appeal to fear and the worst of us as people, you simply have to argue the argument and not the person, and if you do that, you are righteous and nothing like Karl Rove.
Tonight, he took those criticisms that I had, and turned them into something positive. More importantly however, he showed why he is better than John McCain and why he will be a great President. Great speech.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Despite his speechwriters' best efforts..."
Obama writes his own speeches.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I suspect that he was purposely allowing the McCain campaign to get as dirty as they wanted, until it became a joke. Setting himself up for this speech when he could answer them all calmly and reasonably.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I like the 538 analysis that basically said Obama didn't meet expectations, he defied them. Let's face it, with a greek-temple inspired back drop and an audience of 80,000 people were expecting him to give a rhetorically rich, yet substantively weak speech. Instead he gave us the opposite.
So I agree with SenojRetep in that it wasn't the inspirational speech we know he gives so often and so well, instead he gave the speech that to me, essentially said "Game on!"
This next part is going to be my politically naive analysis on how I view this speech in context to the general election. So if you don't want to read it, or just ignore it completely I'm completely fine with it.
[Naive soap-box ramblings]
I think the average voter decides who to cast their ballot for based off of three things. One is the issues, the voter has their own checklist of what they believe on the issues, so when it comes to choosing a candidate, they find which candidate shares the same opinion on the most issues. You could also see this as the logos appeal of the candidate if you're into classic philosophy.
The second aspect a voter looks to is how they feel when thinking of the candidate. When you hear the name Obama or McCain, you have an immediate gut reaction. Now, while my opinion is very biased, when I think of Obama I think 'warm, compassionate, family-oriented man.' When I think of McCain I think of 'Stubborn, crotchety old man.' You can think of this as the pathos appeal of the candidate, again, if you like classic philosophy.
And the last is their credibility. This is seen in their organizational abilities as well as who supports them. Their ethos, in other words.
What I've seen is Obama building Pathos and Ethos over the past 18 months. My opinion on Pathos is that it takes a lot of time to create a gut reaction to a candidate. You have to hear a consistent message from them, and it will slowly influence your opinion on them. Obama is constantly talking about hope, change, and a bright future. That makes him more alluring. McCain, however, is focusing on negative Obama ads, he sounds bitter and vicious. Because he's been releasing these ads so enthusiastically, it portrays a negative light on him too. There's a sort of rule, if I recall, that Negative campaigning has no positive result in regards to the favorability of a candidate. The question is who will be hurt more by releasing a negative ad. So theoretically if Obama stayed positive and did a better job keeping himself in a positive light than McCain's attempts at taking him down, Obama would do better because McCain's negativity reflects badly on him.
On the Ethos, I can sum this up fairly quickly. Obama is dominating in this arena because of his organizational skills. He knows how to build a strong coalition and grass roots movement. Remember how McCain's campaign almost fizzled out last year because of a bad team? This kind of thing affects voters. Obama built a team that's tightly knit together, yet expansive and effective. That's why he lost only one caucus state. Obama is continuing to do well in this aspect as well, for example in Indiana McCain doesn't even have a field office. Obama has somewhere around 20 fully staffed offices. While this doesn't create an immediate movement in the polls like new advertisements do, it helps to create a network of hard support, not soft.
So what am I getting at?
Obama has built a huge image of himself as a nice guy who builds killer campaigns. McCain is essentially relying on 'not the taxing, weak and poor-judging democrat.' Also Obama is winning in the Ethos department. So the last thing Obama needs to win is the logos, which can be won in a short time-frame. All Obama would need to do is cut the 'nice-guy' act for a couple of weeks, open the flood gates of negative attacks on McCain, and people will remember those for issue selection.
It takes time to create a gut reaction(pathos), but people will only remember the issues for a few weeks back.
I think this is what his speech tonight showed. He was starting to show that he is a grounded candidate who can fight on the issues, and as the election day rolls close, I'm pretty sure we'll see some exciting things from Obama. If I recall correctly that's what his campaign strategy has almost always been. Be the nice guy through the campaign until the last few weeks when you go all out against the other candidate. I seem to recall in some local Illinois election, he even petitioned to have his opponent removed from the ballot for technical reasons.
[/Naive Soap-box Ramblings]
For those of you who didn't read my silly, politically neophyte rant, I can sum it up as I really liked his speech tonight. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
For those interested, here is the full text of the speech.
The fact that that wasn't a speechwriter's job is even less disheartening. Honestly, I was inspired by Obama in 2004; he spoke passionately about strengthening families and communities and returning civility to our political dialogue. And while he still mentioned those things, his passion is largely gone. Maybe he reined in his rhetoric to avoid attacks, but for me (and it sounds like many others) it was a disappointment.
New entitlements (more appropriately, new spending; they aren't all entitlements):
- Tax breaks for companies that create good jobs in America - Eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the startups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. - Cut taxes for 95% of all working families - In ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East - Tap our natural gas reserves - Invest in clean coal technology - Find ways to safely harness nuclear power - Help our auto companies retool - Make it easier for the American people to afford these new [high fuel-efficiency] cars. - Invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - Provide every child a world-class education - Invest in early childhood education. - Recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. - [In exchange for] commitment to serving your community or your country, make sure you can afford a college education. - Lower premiums of all current health care participants - Congressional healthcare coverage for those currently without healthcare. - Regulation of insurance companies so they will stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most. - Help families with paid sick days and better family leave - Change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; - Protect Social Security for future generations.
Let's just take the sick leave promise. I'm not sure exactly what the promise is, but it sounds like he would like to compel business to allow employees to take paid leave if a dependent is sick. Back of the envelope calculations: 150 million workers, 100 million with dependents, additional 1-2 weeks of sick leave per worker, median salary of $50,000/year (or appr. $1000/wk) results in about $1 trillion lost revenue annually. Calculated another way, current GDP is about $14 trillion, with about 2/3 (say $10 trillion) generated by workers with dependents. If we take one productive week out (due to dependent illness), we lose about $100 billion in GDP. So this line will cost either businesses or the government between $100 billion and $1 trillion annually in lost production/revenue. It's nice to say we want to protect jobs, but it comes at a cost. I'm sure I've overestimated it here (and I'm also sure there's no way this actually happens), but I just don't believe there's been an honest accounting.
Wikipedia lists last years federal budget as $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending (additional $1.8 in mandatory spending). $1.1 trillion is a big number, and I know we can trim a lot of that money. I just don't think that it, combined with closing tax loopholes, will begin to fix health care, let alone energy, let alone education, let alone social security. And that's before you give 95% of the country tax cuts.
If we want universal health care, every tax payer better believe they are going to pay for it with higher taxes and lower wages. Which is fine if that's what we want. If we want energy independence in 10 years, every tax payer better believe they will pay for it with higher energy costs and more taxes. If we want to fix social security, every worker better realize they'll pay for it with higher taxes and longer careers. We can do all these things, but pretending we can do them without paying for them is fiscally irresponsible.
This certainly isn't strictly a Barack Obama problem; all national politicians do it. For the past eight years, we've had a president and congresses who've been egregious in the disconnect between what we take in and what we spend. Fiscal reality is one of the first things a lot of the voters Obama's trying to capture in CO, NM, NV and NH consider. And I don't see reality reflected in these plans.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Senoj: Yes all those things require money, and tax increases are most likely where these funds will come from. But not every tax must by necessity target working Americans. There are corporate taxes, roll back of dead end grants and subsidies, import taxes for certain goods, etc.
And yes while my social security contribution might increase in order to make it secure at least I'll get SOMETHING, whereas before I was paying for nothing. While my medicare tax will increase so that I'm paying for subsidized health insurance through the government, at least I'll have stable health insurance. I'd be happy to pay for these sorts of things if they were affordable. My wife can't get health insurance because she is taking medication that automatically disqualifies her from coverage. Our only options are to do without for now, or lie to insurance companies, which we're not willing to do.
Investing in alternate energy costs more money now, but compared to the cost of just sucking down oil until reality catches up with us and wide spread panic seizes the nation when we realize there isn't anymore oil to use here or anywhere else is certainly preferable. Gas will continue to get more expensive, wind and solar power can only get cheaper as the technology improves. I'm tentatively interested in more nuclear power, but I keep hearing that we don't have as much uranium available as one might think.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, I didn't catch it all. I came in around 10:30.
It's hard for me, as a McCain supporter, to know how unpartisan this opinion is, but I thought the speech was really flat. Maybe I just wasn't the right audience.
A lot of the words were right, but it seemed like he was trying to be all things to all people. He had his set of talking points, and he hit them methodically and without spirit.
Best moment: "That's a debate I'm ready to have" looking dead into the camera. That was great. But compared to his Keynote address in 2004, this was, to me, disappointing. He brought back some of the same themes (even some of the same rhetoric, i.e. "they didn't fight for a red America, or a blue America, but the United States of America"), but it seemed like he didn't have the same energy.
And I simply don't believe that he really has a plan, or even an understanding of the costs, of all the new benefits he mentioned tonight. His speech was a litany of new entitlements that he claims can be paid for through closing corporate tax loopholes and making judicious, line-by-line budget cuts. I'm skeptical.
Despite his speechwriters' best efforts, it didn't put to rest my concerns about his ability to lead from day one (to steal one of Clinton's lines) or his temperment to get detail oriented in setting a real agenda. The details were there, but it just seemed his heart (and his head) weren't in it.
Anyway, one man's (likely very biased) opinion.
Have you read the NYT article on his economic plan? It's pretty good at outlining his policy. There are also some charts and progressions (at the Washington Post?) that show how the tax cuts (or hikes) of both candidates would affect various income levels.
I can't remember which article it was, but looking at the tax plans, I think a group computed that Obama's plan would only bee 400 billion in the red, as opposed to almost a trillion for McCain's plan.
Food for thought.
-Bok
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BB, I agree. My point wasn't that these are good things or worthy investments, it was that I don't believe Obama presented the reality that we all *must* pay for these things, either through lower wages (because our bosses are being taxed at a higher rate), higher prices (because of increased import taxes) or higher taxes ourselves. Probably all three.
They're not bad things, some of them are great ideas (like energy independence), but they will all cost money. A lot more money than I think can be generated through efficiency efforts and closing corporate loopholes alone.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I can't remember which article it was, but looking at the tax plans, I think a group computed that Obama's plan would only bee 400 billion in the red, as opposed to almost a trillion for McCain's plan.
Wait, McCain has an economic plan? (tongue in cheek).
<edit>I know McCain is making the same sort of empty promises. I don't like them when he makes them either. I hate that our country, has moved from tax and spend, to just plain spend, and it's been led by Republicans and a misapplication of Keynesian economics. If Obama really wants a change for the better (and I believe he does) I think his responsibility rhetoric should extend beyond parents turning off the tv and include government only spending what it takes in.
Perot in '08.</edit>
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Let's just take the sick leave promise. I'm not sure exactly what the promise is, but it sounds like...
The second hit on Google for a search of obama sick paid is Obama's website. On this topic it says his plan is: 1) "require that employers provide seven paid sick days per year"
2) "expand the FMLA to cover businesses with 25 or more employees" (instead of 50 or more employees)
3) "Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave ... encourage all of the states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers."
So, I think your calculations are way off.
Just for starters you don't account for the workers who already get paid sick days...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Let's just take the sick leave promise. I'm not sure exactly what the promise is, but it sounds like he would like to compel business to allow employees to take paid leave if a dependent is sick. Back of the envelope calculations: 150 million workers, 100 million with dependents, additional 1-2 weeks of sick leave per worker, median salary of $50,000/year (or appr. $1000/wk) results in about $1 trillion lost revenue annually. Calculated another way, current GDP is about $14 trillion, with about 2/3 (say $10 trillion) generated by workers with dependents. If we take one productive week out (due to dependent illness), we lose about $100 billion in GDP. So this line will cost either businesses or the government between $100 billion and $1 trillion annually in lost production/revenue. It's nice to say we want to protect jobs, but it comes at a cost. I'm sure I've overestimated it here (and I'm also sure there's no way this actually happens), but I just don't believe there's been an honest accounting.
Your calculation assumes that the status quo in terms of worker productivity versus wages and benefits is an acceptable situation. I don't think the Obama campaign shares your view. Obama said in his speech that over the last eight years, worker productivity has risen while working and middle class wages have declined.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Please, Senator McCain, please pick Gov. Palin.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
NCLB was cosponsored by President Bush and by Ted Kennedy....and then approved by a bipartisan congress. I would think Ted Kennedy is a decent definition of liberal. It is odd how he is almost never mentioned in connection with NCLB though
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
kmbboots - Looks like he listened... ; )
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sarah Palin!
Wow, interesting choice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It was a joint proposal, but co-sponsored is the wrong term, as sponsorship of a bill can only be done by a member of the chamber in question. Bush cannot sponsor any bills.
twinky: what Obama said isn't quite accurate. There's been no general change in poor and middle-class wages using the same inflation measure across the economy, up or down. However, when using measures of inflation weighted for the different consumption baskets of different levels of income, there has been an increase in wages (as in, people can buy more of what they actually buy on what they're receiving in wages). That is, the wage increase has been hidden in many things becoming dramatically cheaper. It is still a weak increase, but there's a very simple explanation for that: the war in Iraq. It siphons off large amounts of consumer surplus. There's no need for any drastic policy changes, just eliminate that gigantic line item and wages should be free to again increase at normal rates.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and Kennedy has said things several times along the lines of, I supported this, I thought it was a good idea, the evidence has proven me wrong. That's why he isn't villainized for proposing it. Bush still thinks NCLB is basically working as it was implemented, which seems to be rather delusional. Whether it would work given more funding is another question entirely, of course, though my personal position is that there's no good reason for NCLB to exist: that the Federal gov't should generally stay out of eduction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a very, very clever choice. I won't say it's a good one, but it hits precisely the right demographics.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'm not sure why people think closing corporate tax loopholes is such a great thing? If you take money away from the corporation, guess who is going to 'replace' that money. Allentown, PA lost Mack Trucks because of taxes.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I must admit I don't know much about her.
*goes to read*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, I think too clever. The only real argument that Senator McCain has had was the experience, "lead on day one" argument. He is 72 years old. His VP had better fill those qualifications. I'm not sure that 19 months as governor really counts Or being the mayor of a smallish town? Runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant? Do they think that disaffected Clinton supporters will accept this substitute?
Geographically she shores up...Alaska? Were they worried?
Presumably there is a plan, but I am baffled.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I think the Obama camp is going to start hitting McCain's age and medical condition pretty hard right now. He's made what I think is a brilliant choice, but the "is she ready to be president" question is the obvious line of attack.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DK: I'm in favor of closing tax loopholes mostly because they reduce the complexity of the tax code. I'm perfectly fine with figuring out how much was saved on the legitimate loopholes and lowering overall tax rates by the appropriate fractional amount.
Loopholes that advantage one particular form of production over another (such as Mack Trucks) are bad. They result in things being produced that are not as much wanted (relative to their price) as other things, because they distort the cost landscape.
As for who is paying it, that's simple: a combination of the corporation (in the form of lower profits) and the consumer (in the form of higher prices).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job.
I would imagine that they could afford at least two full-time childcare professionals.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The "Obama lacks experience" argument was the Republicans' best complaint against Obama. I just don't see how they can make it now that they've selected someone with even less experience as VP.
She's also going to have to go on national TV and debate Joe Biden on national issues - including foreign policy.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
That occurred to me too, Tres.
I predict Biden destroying her in debate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I just don't see how they can make it now that they've selected someone with even less experience as VP.
They just need to emphasize that McCain is not going to die.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not so sure about Biden destroying her in debates. From looking at her record, she's the sort to be able to take apart flimsy, blustered campaign positions piece by piece. And if Biden gets upset, he's lost.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Here's an excellent post dismantling the problems with the household income argument put forward by many (including Obama):
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That occurred to me too, Tres.
I predict Biden destroying her in debate.
There is now danger in this. Thanks to low-level background sexism in this country.
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Looks like they are really going after the unhappy Hillary voters, putting a whole lot of hope on turning them with, "see, we can put a Woman as VP. To bad the Dems won't."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The only real argument that Senator McCain has had was the experience, "lead on day one" argument. He is 72 years old. His VP had better fill those qualifications. I'm not sure that 19 months as governor really counts Or being the mayor of a smallish town? Runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant? Do they think that disaffected Clinton supporters will accept this substitute?
Where will Palin help him? With Western-style socially ambivalent, fiscally conservative types. Exactly the unclaimed voters who can tip the election for him. Her selection is for McCain exactly what Schweitzer's selection for Obama would have been. And if it's coupled with the sort of fiscally responsible platform I ranted about a couple of hours ago, I think it isn't hard to see McCain riding it to the presidency.
That there are experience costs is undeniable, but if the election is about issues, particularly fiscal and government spending issues, I think it's a win. I'd love to see McCain return to his Maverick roots (rather than just the image) and I think that this VP selection is part of a move in that direction. If he's unable move the dialogue in that direction, though, I think it'll be disastrous. If the focus remains the economy and foreign policy, I see it as bad. But if this is really a change election (or reform, as the McCain camp prefers) then McCain just made a strong statement that his is the real outsider's platform.
It has very little (but not nothing) to do with her gender, IMO.
<edit>And I want to point out that her 19 months of Executive experience is more than the sum total of the Democratic platform. Not that it matters much, but still, there's Senate experience and then there's executive experience.</edit>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She's a great demographic choice. Other than that, does absolutely nothing and opens McCain up to the same attacks he's using against Obama. I KNEW he wasn't going to pick KBH, her Pro-choice stance ruled her out, and Palin was the only other woman even considered in contention. She's a hardcore conservative, and a women, but being a hardcore conservative is actually going to turn a lot of women off, of course having her be a woman alone is going to probably draw a lot of votes off. It's a demographic tizzy.
But Tom's right, the age attacks are going to come flying now. McCain has been attacking Obama for being inexperienced and for choosing Biden to shore up his supposed weaknesses. So McCain picks an inexperienced woman who is young and vibrant to shore up his own weaknesses? It's an odd choice for a guy who thinks experience is so important. If he dies, he'll leave a president in charge that has less experience even than Obama.
It's clever, but maybe too clever in the end. It's hard to say yet though. I have no idea how people will react to this.
quote:I'd love to see McCain return to his Maverick roots (rather than just the image) and I think that this VP selection is part of a move in that direction.
If he was still a Maverick, he'd have picked Lieberman. He picked Palin becuase of demographics and because he needed a staunch conservative. It was a political choice.
Edit to add:
I was thinking about a TV ad to use against Palin. The idea that just any woman would be good enough to woo disaffected Hillary voters seems silly to me. I think a great ad would be to put Palin and Clinton on the same screen and say "she's no Hillary." People might say "well then why isn't Hillary on the ticket?" and I think you blunt that by having Hillary herself be the voice on the ad and be in the ad herself saying that Palin is no Hillary, and that she supports Obama. Lots of people, as has been mentioned, won't like seeing a man attack her, so have prominent Democratic women stand up and say it, and I think that makes Clinton the Dems' new attack dog.
"She's no Hillary" should be the new slogan. People didn't like Hillary because she was the first woman, it's because she's the first QUALIFIED woman, and people are all sad because there aren't any more qualified women around. McCain just grabbed the closest telegenic Republican woman and tossed her on the ticket. "She's no Hillary."
[ August 29, 2008, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The "Obama lacks experience" argument was the Republicans' best complaint against Obama. I just don't see how they can make it now that they've selected someone with even less experience as VP.
Government experience isn't all the same thing. Obama has zero executive branch experience, while Palin's government experience is 100% executive. Being mayor and governor is a lot more applicable than being a senator.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that is even better than my (guilty pleasure) new favorite slogan.
"She would be a heartbeat away from being President. Previous experience - being a heartbeat away from being Miss Alaska."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. I knew all that stuff about changing the way we did politics was all talk.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The "Obama lacks experience" argument was the Republicans' best complaint against Obama. I just don't see how they can make it now that they've selected someone with even less experience as VP.
Government experience isn't all the same thing. Obama has zero executive branch experience, while Palin's government experience is 100% executive. Being mayor and governor is a lot more applicable than being a senator.
Somehow I think that argument will fall silent when that experience is 18 months long and from ALASKA. Obama has a body of work in government and community organizing before that. It's not like he doesn't know what executives do. What major decisions has Palin had to make? I'm sure running the Eskimo military has given her some serious military and foreign policy cred.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Wow. I knew all that stuff about changing the way we did politics was all talk.
I would be disappointed if Senator Obama used that line. I don't think my getting a guilty giggle out of it is quite the same thing.
To be serious, how can we believe any of what the McCain campaign has been touting up till now if this is a person who he believes can be commander in chief?
edit to add: Wasilla Alaska is where she was mayor. Population roughly 8,500.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's a February interview with her on C-SPAN right now, if anyone can or wants to watch.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I think the Obama camp needs to ask voters the question a lot are overlooking.
Can they see Palin as president?
While being a mother of five, former beauty pagent runner-up may make her appear folksy and attractive to the heartland, is she the type of person you want negotiating with Ahmadinejad? Do you see her being able to do something about curbing terrorism around the world?
Make her seem as unpresidential as her resume makes her out to be, and this vp pick will be a huge black eye for McCain.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: To be serious, how can we believe any of what the McCain campaign has been touting up till now if this is a person who he believes can be commander in chief?
I don't really see how this changes that equation. The point is that McCain has the experience, not that his VP has it. I'm aware of the argument -- that the VP should have it as well since McCain might not live through his first or second term -- but I don't think it's terribly compelling. By that time, the VP will have accrued even more executive experience by virtue of having been in office.
I think she's a smart choice and contrasts extremely well with the safe, boring pick of Biden.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There's been no general change in poor and middle-class wages using the same inflation measure across the economy, up or down. However, when using measures of inflation weighted for the different consumption baskets of different levels of income, there has been an increase in wages (as in, people can buy more of what they actually buy on what they're receiving in wages).
Okay. This is an aside, but will that remain true if fuel costs remain high or increase further? I don't expect you to have a crystal ball or anything, but I certainly see that having an impact on what low and middle income earners are able to buy.
quote:That is, the wage increase has been hidden in many things becoming dramatically cheaper. It is still a weak increase, but there's a very simple explanation for that: the war in Iraq. It siphons off large amounts of consumer surplus. There's no need for any drastic policy changes, just eliminate that gigantic line item and wages should be free to again increase at normal rates.
Fair enough.
As another aside, I suspect that in this event the allotments of vacation and sick leave would remain among the lowest in the industrialized world, which IIRC is where they are now. Offhand, I can't think of another country with lower norms for paid time off among workers. That makes me predisposed to support Obama's position, since I already think American workers should get more vacation and sick leave.
(And yes, there's a reason I care about that, but I'm not going to have that particular conversation here. )
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Before becoming governor, she chaired Alaska's energy committee. And, what do you know, energy is a central issue in this election. (That said, I'm less than thrilled about her support for drilling in ANWR).
Another reason to love Palin is she rose to the governorship by fighting government corruption and spending, and when she got there she appointed a bi-partisan cabinet. She's the one who killed Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere. I really think McCain is about to make a big rhetorical shift and start pushing his clean government, anti-spending cred.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Also, I just want to point out, the tactless way she made a desperate grab at Hillary voters was a little pathetic. Women didn't want Hillary just because of her anatomy, they waned her because she is one the few females with the experience who sided with them on social issues they care about. Hillary was for pro-choice, equal wages, gay rights. Hillary was a feminists's dream candidate.
Palin, however, got tapped for VP just because of her ovaries. It's a purley political appointment. If I was a feminist, I would be outraged. They have been fighting the objectification of woman for ages, but now Palin is VP because she is an attractive woman with zero substance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Protestations aside, the female-centric blogs I read are thrilled with the choice, even if they don't plan on voting for her. Regardless of issues, both candidtes can now claim to be making history. I think it was a brilliant political move.
Why are the Republicans so much better at this?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
McCain has anti-spending cred? When's the last time he voted no on the massive budgest the Republicans have been pushing through? He can't talk about spending, he'll get lambasted. Besides, he has tons of new spending provisions on top of tax cuts.
I'll say this about Palin: I've been watching her for the last 15-20 or so, and she's incredibly engaging. I don't know if I like her policies, but I already find myself liking her as a person. She's nice, engaging, seems smart and is great at answering questions and pivoting those she doesn't really want to answer but not making it look like a pivot. Hearing her talk about hunting and fishing I feel like she could be from Michigan. I didn't grow up doing either of those things except in Boy Scouts, but I grew up around people who did, and she feels like she could be from somewhere upstate.
Traditionally VPs are attack dogs, which is a role I think Biden will do well, but I can't see her doing it, and I don't think I'd want to. Nice Sarah Palin is drawing me in. Angry Sarah Palin would probably turn me off. I don't think it's just because it's a woman by the way, because angry Hillary didn't turn me off. I think they have to be careful in how they use her.
Kat -
Well, in this specific instance I don't think they are particularly better. Don't get me wrong, it's fantastic press right now, but it's a totally unknown long term pick for the next few weeks, or she could end up being a knockout, no one knows.
But I think if things had gone the other way around and McCain had been forced to pick his VP first, there is no way he would have picked Palin. She was a response to the Democratic side. Had he gone first, it would have been someone else, and Obama might have picked someone else to balance. This one I think is less about Republicans being better at politics than it is about having the benefit of choosing second and being second: This is a hail mary play.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I don't think they are better. "Political move" are the key words here. He made a VP pick that would help him win, not a VP pick that would be suitable to run the country should the worst happen.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't think she was at all tactless with the reference to Hilary and to Geraldine Ferraro.
I think it was entirely appropriate to commend the women who came before her in running for national office. I think it would have been far more tactless to ignore them.
She said Hilary ran with determination and grace - I think those are two descriptors that work well, because Hilary was certainly determined, and her speech at the convention supporting Obama was certainly gracious.
Palin did a really good job with her speech - she obviously knows how to command a crowd and handle live speeches, which is a skill every politician needs. She's better at it, I think, than most.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
When she said something along the lines of "We women aren't out of it just yet" made it seem like she expected women to vote for her just based on the fact that she is a women. She disregarded that Ferraro and Clinton, two dems, were so strongly supported by females because they champion causes that are important to other females, not simply because they are females themselves.
But having said that, I'm sure Palin will attract the vote of every Hillary supporter who is pro-life and pro-gun.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I really think McCain is about to make a big rhetorical shift and start pushing his clean government, anti-spending cred.
I do, too. If he's smart, he'll realize that Obama has, by pandering to the center, opened himself to an integrity-based attack.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:She disregarded that Ferraro and Clinton, two dems, were so strongly supported by females because they champion causes that are important to other females, not simply because they are females themselves.
That's not nearly as true as Dems hope it is.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, at least Alaska runs in the black on budget (not that I know if any of that is Palin's doing.)
When I was in Alaska, the locals all told me about how they don't have a lot of the taxes we do, because the state is self-supporting.
I tried to just look that up on Alaska's government web site; but apparently everyone else is looking it up too, because the server was unavailable.
I did find this article that says Alaska has a 7.7 BILLION surplus (of money) this year.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think Dems hoped that was the case until just recently. *laugh*
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's not nearly as true as Dems hope it is.
The alternative is that women vote for women soley based on gender. I'll give them more credit than that; the same way I give black people more credit than voting for Obama simply because he's black.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I did find this article that says Alaska has a 7.7 BILLION surplus (of money) this year.
It's worth noting that Alaska has an oil pipeline and no population worth speaking of. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Alaska runs in the black on budget because there's oil there, and because it gets ridiculous amounts of federal money per capita. For instance, that $7.7 billion is less than the amount Alaska gets from the Federal gov't in a year (though I don't know if it is bigger than the amount Alaska gets above what it pays in; from what I can gather, it isn't, but only by one or two billion).
Re: wages, if oil costs again increase dramatically, it will affect things short term, but I suspect that the long term effects will be mitigated by societal lifestyle changes. However, another prolonged dramatic increase isn't very likely for a while.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The alternative is that women vote for women soley based on gender. I'll give them more credit than that; the same way I give black people more credit than voting for Obama simply because he's black.
If you don't live in a black and white world, another alternative is that women vote for all sorts of reasons, and SOME will vote for the ticket because it has a woman on it and they can stomach the rest. How many is the "some" may determine the election.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The reason Alaksa is drowning in money is because the price of oil is through the roof. The ad writes itself. "Palin didn't balance the state budget; while the rest of us are suffering at the pump, Palin and Alaska are drowning in oil wealth."
The only reason Alaska is doing so well is oil revenue. That and tourism (but mostly that) are Alaska's only real industries.
quote:That's not nearly as true as Dems hope it is.
I think it WILL be. Women vote with Democrats, by and large, because of healthcare, education, and the economy. They aren't going to give up the soccer mom issues just to vote for a woman, at least, not in droves. I think it's insulting to women to suggest that they would. Healthcare, education and the economy are bread and butter Democratic issues this time around, and you'll start to see Obama really hammering them home in the coming weeks I think, whereas McCain, near as I can tell, has nothing in the hopper for education, a tax cut and a tax increase for healthcare that wouldn't really do anything, and more budget busting tax cuts for the upper class (and some more of us too, to be fair) for the economy. Or at least, that's how Obama will frame it. And a lot of those hardcore feminists that might vote for a woman just to vote for a woman aren't going to vote for a pro-life one.
Give this thing time for the excitement to die down, and when everyone comes back to Earth, I think we'll see it's not the game changer the pundits are saying.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
The women who supported Hillary and switched to McCain based on Palin would be voting against their own interests. Some people you can't reason with or predict.
The people who vote for Palin simply because she is a woman were lost to Obama since before he declared his candidacy. I can only hope America's electoral system isn't held hostage by that demographic.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?
Brinestone, I like you, but that's just the worst class of sexism. It wouldn't be an issue if she were a man, it may even garner more sympathy. I'm willing to give the Palin family the benefit of the doubt, that they would have a plan.
____
As to Obama's speech: the first half seemed about the economy, security, and why we should be scared to vote for McCain; the second half seemed about how the economy wasn't the most important issue and how we shouldn't be scared to vote against anyone. In the middle were policy changes. The speech was fine. It had something for everyone, but I don't like how it hung together.
[ August 29, 2008, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wonder if the women who will vote for her just on gender will be cancelled out by the socially conservative men who will stay home rather than vote for a woman?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure that's something the GOP has already polled and found to be a worthwhile risk. I think the men that are afraid of Palin will still pull the lever for McCain and the women who don't like McCain will still pull it for Palin. They'll push whichever part of the ticket they need to draw people in. Might work, might not, but I'm sure they've worked it out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The women who supported Hillary and switched to McCain based on Palin would be voting against their own interests. Some people you can't reason with or predict.
This assumes that 1) such women think and vote identically; and 2) all their interests are served by the Dems and none by the GOP.
If, as is more likely, there are diverse opinions on diverse issues and some are served by Dems and some are served by the GOP, then the woman vice-president nudges them over a line they were already close to.
quote: And a lot of those hardcore feminists that might vote for a woman just to vote for a woman aren't going to vote for a pro-life one.
Equating feminism with support for abortion is a long-term falsehood. They are not equivalent.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Does anyone else get a female Dan Quayle vibe?
Also, your second point is accurate. Yes, if those women were already in the bag for Clinton, considering how vastly different the social policies are between democrate and republican, it's fair to assume they are voting against their own interests.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Boy, I guess it's great that McCain made the experience and celebrity arguments against Obama before he picked Gov. Palin or that might have been a bit of a hypocritical pick.
ETA: And the thing about Gov. Palin is that she does reveal an inherent sexism here that Hillary Clinton was not able too, most likely because of who she was, and though that's a harsh thing to say about Mrs. Clinton, it is true. There are different kinds of sexism that are influenced by bias and other factors, and Gov. Palin will be influential in battling sexism because she is not the kind of figure Hillary Clinton was in this election. Of course, in and of itself, the fact that Gov. Palin will be influential in battling sexism where Sen. Clinton won't is sexist as well, but that's a whole other thing.
[ August 29, 2008, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I don't think they are better. "Political move" are the key words here. He made a VP pick that would help him win, not a VP pick that would be suitable to run the country should the worst happen.
that 'he' applies to Obama as well
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I don't think that applies to Biden. The top job of VP is to be able to assume the role of President should something happen. Sure, Biden helps Obama with foriegn policy cred, but he is also a good pick for the country to be a potential commander in chief. Palin is not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Yes, if those women were already in the bag for Clinton, considering how vastly different the social policies are between democrate and republican, it's fair to assume they are voting against their own interests.
Perhaps social policies are not the only issue informing someone's vote. Or maybe they consider having a woman in or near the presidency is also a social issue.
Or maybe, just maybe, Dems addressed some concerns, the GOP addressed others, and the female factor pushes them over the edge. Not everyone is a dyed-in-the-wool member of one party or the other. Human nature being as complex as it is, I suspect that most are not.
It doesn't make a voter shallow to be complex.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: [QB]
quote:Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?
Brinestone, I like you, but that's just the worst class of sexism. It wouldn't an issue if she were a man, it may even garner more sympathy. I'm willing to give the Paulin family the benefit of the doubt, that they would have a plan.
It absolutely would be an issue for me if it were a man. I consider parenting to be the most important job for both me and my husband. Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I don't think that applies to Biden. The top job of VP is to be able to assume the role of President should something happen. Sure, Biden helps Obama with foriegn policy cred, but he is also a good pick for the country to be a potential commander in chief. Palin is not.
So Biden is the best choice? Really? He has an awful problem with telling his own history and for making racist jokes so I might think twice about him
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're arguing about two different things. You're talking about what makes it politically hard for him to win the presidency on his own, not whether or not he's actually qualified to do the job.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'd advise against underestimating Palin. She took on an incumbent and won, and put herself forward as an icon of incorruptability as the major Republican politician of Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens, began to self-destruct on charges of corruption.
And my Alaskan past can't help but huff and puff a little at the idea that Governor of Alaska is an easy job. Yes, Alaska has money (look up the "Permanent Fund Dividend" some time), but it also has difficulty bringing in good people in fields other than oil (a lot of people don't want to come to a state where you can, on many days, completely miss seeing the sun just by going to work or school) and a terrain and climate that make it incredibly difficult to maintain a transportation infrastructure.
I like to think that most women will look past her gender when it comes time to vote, but the bright bulbs who have turned their support for Hillary into support for McCain remind me that the electorate is full of surprises.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Brinestone: President is a time-destroying job. It looks to me that logic would make it so that any parent (of a child under some young age) should never try to be President.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:You're arguing about two different things. You're talking about what makes it politically hard for him to win the presidency on his own, not whether or not he's actually qualified to do the job.
Actually, no those are the same things.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
So anyone with a special-needs child cannot have a job or else they are an irresponsible parent? Being able to hire the very best caregivers is a bad plan? Seriously?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Government experience isn't all the same thing. Obama has zero executive branch experience, while Palin's government experience is 100% executive. Being mayor and governor is a lot more applicable than being a senator.
Somehow I think that argument will fall silent when that experience is 18 months long and from ALASKA. [/QB]
Totally. We haven't had a vice-president from a state that small since... Dick Cheney. Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: So Biden is the best choice? Really? He has an awful problem with telling his own history and for making racist jokes so I might think twice about him
I think you lost touch with your own point. No, he may not be the best choice, but he is not the political choice. If Obama had made a political choice whose only purpose was to win no matter what, like McCain did, he would have chosen Hillary.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Lyrhawn, Biden also voted for the war and kept wanting more troops...up until Bush sent more troops in which case Biden changed his mind and was against sending more troops. He also thought splitting Iraq into 3 countries was a good idea.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:I think you lost touch with your own point. No, he may not be the best choice, but he is not the political choice. If Obama had made a political choice whose only purpose was to win no matter what, like McCain did, he would have chosen Hillary.
Obama could never choose Hillary because he would not win the Presidency. He and Hillary and Bill would all be co-Presidents together and Obama knew that. Politically for Obama picking Hillary would have been suicide.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I doubt it. The republicans main strategy now is using jaded Hilary voters to push McCain over the top. Choosing Hillary is the anti-venom to that. If McCain had to choose his VP first, I doubt it would have been Palin, not with the possibility that Obama may choose Hillary was still in the air
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.
Do the Iraqi's whose country you ruined have a say?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Brinestone:
Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?
Irami: Brinestone, I like you, but that's just the worst class of sexism. It wouldn't an issue if she were a man, it may even garner more sympathy. I'm willing to give the Paulin family the benefit of the doubt, that they would have a plan.
Brinestone: It absolutely would be an issue for me if it were a man. I consider parenting to be the most important job for both me and my husband. Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
Brinestone, you are on the wrong side of this. What you are saying is that anyone with a special needs child shouldn't be President. It's not too far to say that anyone with many children or any child shouldn't be President, because the job takes time away. Do you really not think that it is impossible for someone with the material and political resources of the VP to make sure her baby received the exemplary care.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
By the by, here's a fun one: If Obama loses this time around, I think it's a safe bet that Hillary will run again in four years. I'd also say there's a good chance that McCain will not run again in four years, due to age. Is it possible we've just set ourselves up for a Palin vs. Clinton race in four years? I know that's speculative and depends on Obama losing and on McCain not running again, but it's not all that unlikely.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:You're arguing about two different things. You're talking about what makes it politically hard for him to win the presidency on his own, not whether or not he's actually qualified to do the job.
Actually, no those are the same things.
Wow do I ever disagree with that. I know this is subjective but, Bush got himself elected, twice, but has proven himself totally inept at actually doing the job. We've had presidents in our history who have gotten themselves elected and proven totally unable to do the job. Just because you got elected doesn't mean you are qualified, and just because you didn't make it doesn't mean you weren't qualified. We've had plenty of politicians that were perfectly qualified that would never get elected because they just weren't palatable candidates.
I really don't even see how you can seriously make that argument, you'll have to expand on it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Obama could never choose Hillary because he would not win the Presidency. He and Hillary and Bill would all be co-Presidents together and Obama knew that. Politically for Obama picking Hillary would have been suicide.
For once, we agree.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Lyrhawn, Biden also voted for the war and kept wanting more troops...up until Bush sent more troops in which case Biden changed his mind and was against sending more troops. He also thought splitting Iraq into 3 countries was a good idea.
If you mean the original vote then technically he didn't vote for the war, he voted to give Bush the authority that ended up leading to the war. It's a tricky bit of semantics there, but I think it's an important division. Had the measure they voted on said "it's war time!" I don't think it would have passed. I think many of them, Biden included, thought that Bush would use that measure to pursue an aggressive diplomacy that never ended up happening.
Once the invasion was underway, Biden knew tha tmore troops would be needed to forestall a massive insurgency and house to house fighting that was to come. He wanted to use the same doctrine that we used to fight the Gulf War, which was overwhelming military power to blanket the country, which was an attempt to stop from happening exactly what happened.
He opposed sending more troops for the surge because he didn't see it solving the overarching governmental problems. Sending more troops has since changed the military situation there, but has failed to achieve the goals set forth by the Bush Administration as far as economic, social and political changes that the surge was mean to lead to. I wouldn't call it a failure, but it's incomplete.
Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good and a bad idea. It remains to be seen if Iraq CAN function as a single state democracy, and that question may not be answered for decades. Splitting it into three countries would have gotten rid of a lot of the problems they have now, but would have created a host of new ones as well. The Kurds would have been elated, but then we would have needed to deal with a pissed off and militarized Turkey ready to invade. The Sunni center would have been almost totally robbed of oil wealth and a Arabian port city, which would have left them economically destitute. The Shi'a south would have had oil wealth, an Arabian port city, and likely, close ties to Iran afterwards, creating a problem for Saudi Arabia. All in all we could have partitioned and left the mess for them to figure out, and it might have made the internal situation a lot better, but it would've spilled into several other nations' borders. I don't necessarily think it's a worse idea than invading in the first place was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
There's a theory that this is why traditional Mormons tend to do okay (all that emphasis on education), but are generally absent from the top tiers of most fields.
I'm a big fan of families, but I also think that this attitude can lead to insularity in the sense that it leaves public life to Other People. This means only those of whom I disapprove get to be in charge. That is also irresponsible.
*shrug* While I wouldn't tell any individual how to do their job or live their life, I also would never refuse to vote for someone whose views I support because I think their very attempt to be part of the government indicates a character flaw.
This kind of attitude would also mean you can't be a good parent and a soldier, or a good parent with any kind of high-pressure job.
Besides, Palin is married and she has considerable resources. It is possible to provide fulfill family responsibilities without ignoring the rest of the world as well.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Sending more troops has since changed the military situation there, but has failed to achieve the goals set forth by the Bush Administration as far as economic, social and political changes that the surge was mean to lead to. I wouldn't call it a failure, but it's incomplete.
This does not address Biden's demand for more troops then his reversal for not wanting more troops. I will stop now that I see you changed your post significantly
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, I missed that bit about wanting troops and then not wanting troops so I added a paragraph to address it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It is possible to provide fulfill family responsibilities without ignoring the rest of the world as well.
Especially if you consider your political position to be real public service.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.
Do the Iraqi's whose country you ruined have a say?
Do the Kurds have a say in whether they need to remain in Iraq and Turkey, rather than have their own independent Kurdistan?
Iraq was created by Europe. I suspect that if you were to ask them, a lot of Iraqis would happily split into separate countries.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: By the by, here's a fun one: If Obama loses this time around, I think it's a safe bet that Hillary will run again in four years. I'd also say there's a good chance that McCain will not run again in four years, due to age. Is it possible we've just set ourselves up for a Palin vs. Clinton race in four years? I know that's speculative and depends on Obama losing and on McCain not running again, but it's not all that unlikely.
Very cool. That would really be something. You've almost convinced me to vote for McCain (although being from Chicago, my vote doesn't count in presidential elections anyway).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think they may have underestimated Senator Clinton.
She doesn't want to be President. She wants to be the first Woman President.
If McCain gets elected there is a good chance that Governor Palin will succeed him due to his age. That would mean that Senator Clinton, even if she won an election next time, would not be forever remembered as number 1.
She won't stand for that. If there was any doubt that she would full heartedly support Obama in the election cycle, it vanished.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I imagine she'd swallow hard and be willing to be second in order to hold the office.
However, in eight years, she'll be too old.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Wow do I ever disagree with that. I know this is subjective but, Bush got himself elected, twice, but has proven himself totally inept at actually doing the job. We've had presidents in our history who have gotten themselves elected and proven totally unable to do the job. Just because you got elected doesn't mean you are qualified, and just because you didn't make it doesn't mean you weren't qualified. We've had plenty of politicians that were perfectly qualified that would never get elected because they just weren't palatable candidates.
The problem with being an idealist (this is Obama's problem too actually) is that some will say you fail to understand reality and that lofty goals are meaningless in the face of real-life problems. So here is a question, do you really think it matters or that many people will make the distinction between qualifications for President and those things that will get elected? See, ideally people will make that distinction or believe that it matters, but in this political atmosphere, it clearly doesn't matter. What gets you elected *is* what makes you qualified in today's American politics, whether that is correct or not.
quote:She won't stand for that. If there was any doubt that she would full heartedly support Obama in the election cycle, it vanished.
Which perfectly embodies the sexism and the difference between Gov. Palin and Sen. Clinton that I argued about.
I think this could be a great experiment with Fox News, will they be as sexist towards Gov. Palin that they were towards Sen. Clinton?
ETA: Let's see if Fox is *really* fair and balanced.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: So here is a question, do you really think it matters or that many people will make the distinction between qualifications for President and those things that will get elected? See, ideally people will make that distinction or believe that it matters, but in this political atmosphere, it clearly doesn't matter. What gets you elected *is* what makes you qualified in today's American politics, whether that is correct or not.
Do I really think it matters? Yes. Do I think the majority of the electorate think it matters? Well I guess we'll find out in 60 days or so, but I think it matters to some of them, and not to others. I think that being qualified or not qualified CAN be a political problem or asset in getting elected, but I don't think all political assets or problems make you able or unable to actually do the job. I don't think they are interchangable. I see what you're trying to say, and maybe in the present you have a point, but history doesn't forgive that sort of thing.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, I imagine she'd swallow hard and be willing to be second in order to hold the office.
However, in eight years, she'll be too old.
I don't understand why people keep saying this. McCain is 72 right now, so why would Hillary be too old at 68, especially when women usually live longer than men?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Part of that is probably because a lot of people already think that 72 is too old. And I'd argue that women and men have life expectancy differences because men are stupid and don't seek care where women do, so it's our own fault, but it's not really relevent.
I think that for as many people that are saying that this was her turn that Obama screwed up, there will be just as many saying in four or eight years that she missed her chance and she should let it go. I think she COULD run, and could win the nomination, but there are a lot of rising stars in the party that aren't at all going to feel they owe her anything and won't feel bad about taking her out. I think this election was the passing of the torch in the Democratic party, and she'll be hard pressed to wrench it back from them.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.
Do the Iraqi's whose country you ruined have a say?
The majority of them are saying what I am.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The formatting is a bit screwed up with a copy and paste but ...:
quote: IRAQ POLL 2007 The poll was conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%.
...
Q14 Which of the following structures do you believe Iraq should have in the future? 2007 2005 2004 % % % One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad, 58 70 79 A group of regional states with their own regional governments and a federal government in Baghdad 28 18 14 A country divided into separate independent states 14 9 4 Refused/don’t know - 3 3
While support for a unified Iraq may be changing toward a more federal and provincial structure, there is still overwhelming (86%) support against separation into different countries, at least as of 2007.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I'm sure the 2000 people the reporters questioned are the average Iraqi just trying to go to work and mind his own buisness. Those are in the minority in Iraq.
Plus, who did they ask? Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd? You can't lump all three under the term "Iraqi" and pretend it doesn't matter. Each group has vastly different goals and alligences.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:Brinestone: President is a time-destroying job. It looks to me that logic would make it so that any parent (of a child under some young age) should never try to be President.
I think you're trying to argue with me, but that is basically what I'm saying. And by "some young age," I mean two years of age or so. It's just two years of your life. Try to become president or VP next term if that's what you want. But babies need lots of face time with their parents in order to develop bonds with them, and, like you said, being president is time-destroying. Campaigning for presidency may be even worse.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: So anyone with a special-needs child cannot have a job or else they are an irresponsible parent? Being able to hire the very best caregivers is a bad plan? Seriously?
Did I say they couldn't have a job? (No, I didn't.) I said I wouldn't vote for someone who took a time-destroying job when their child (especially special-needs) was literally an infant. Hiring great caregivers is wonderful if you can also participate at least minimally with your child. I don't believe someone campaigning for presidency and then serving as vice president can do that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Senator McCain's choice is also likely to make sure that abortion is front and center in this campaign.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I see what you're trying to say, and maybe in the present you have a point, but history doesn't forgive that sort of thing.
Well, no history doesn't, but then again, most voters don't care about history.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I'm about the only die hard McCainiac here, so I may be biased, but I think Palin was a very canny choice. Sure she doesn't bring a very electoral-rich state with her, but I think she brings a lot more interest to McCain's campaign that Biden brings to Obama. Biden filled in some of Obama's gaps, where Palin adds to McCain's assets. Also, a huge sigh of relief that McCain dodged the Romney bullet.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
McCain's used his first big decision as President to put the country in danger. Putting someone so unqualified a heartbeat away from Potus is so completely irresponsible that it reeks of Harriet Meyers cronyism and a look at what else is to come in a McCain administration.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: I'm sure the 2000 people the reporters questioned are the average Iraqi just trying to go to work and mind his own buisness. Those are in the minority in Iraq.
The average Iraqi is a minority in Iraq ... you're going to have to show statistics for that.
quote: Plus, who did they ask?
"More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007"
quote:Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd?
Yes.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I'm sure running the Eskimo military has given her some serious military and foreign policy cred.
Wow, is that really you, Lyrhawn?
It's worse to put a freshman governor one heartbeat away from the whitehouse than to put a freshman senator in it? If picking Palin endangers the country, then voting for Obama should be deemed treason.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
The average Iraqi left the country a long, long time ago. Anyone with over 5000 dollars is either living in Syria or Jordan.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: [ It's worse to put a freshman governor one heartbeat away from the whitehouse than to put a freshman senator in it? If picking Palin endangers the country, then voting for Obama should be deemed treason.
Obama never made the experience agrument. He was the first to quantify it as being patent fear-mongering. It was McCain who showed his hypocrasy by choosing someone with even less exerience than his opponent. McCain labeled Palin "ready to be President." So what does that mean, she's ready but Obama, who has more experience, isn't?
Is he an idiot or a liar?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Brinestone, I honestly don't see where serving as vice president is going to take more time that being governor of a state, which though small in population, has a huge amount of resources to be managed and borders on a foreign country. Sure the campaigning is going to be intensive, but it will also only last two months.
I also don't think McCain imagines to woo many Hillary voters.
All Palin has to say to any of Biden's ideas is to refer to his many years in Washington.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Also there is no way you can compare Palin's executive experience with Obama's legislative experience. Obama represets a state with more people than raindeer.
In 2005, Barack Obama was working with Richard Lugar on legislation targeting stockpiles of nuclear weapons to secure our country.
In 2005, Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, (population 5,470 in 2000).
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Regarding the special needs child- I am more then willing to assume that an adult woman is capable of determining what is best for her family and her life. Voting against her because of the special needs child seems extremely paternalistic.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I am really astonished that the eskimo and reindeer jokes are passing here on Hatrack.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hey leave them snow naggers* alone!
*South Park reference.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: The average Iraqi left the country a long, long time ago. Anyone with over 5000 dollars is either living in Syria or Jordan.
Show us the numbers.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
You know? Pickig Palin was like getting it by a softball from 3 miles away, I didn't see it coming but I'm happy, it means if McCain dies in office (if he wins) we'll have a decent President.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It only just occurred to me what you are trying to say, Blayne. I suppose I'm being a bit prim, but I don't think citing a South Park misspelling excuses the n-word.
I couldn't figure out what would be funny about people nagging snow. Oh well. I'll let you all spin your stories about how hopeless the Republican's chances are in November.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That doesn't give supporting numbers for either of your two claims. There are still roughly 28 million Iraqis in Iraq compared to the 2 million at most that could be in Syria or Jordan, hardly making them representative of "the average Iraqi." Second, no proof is given that everyone with more than $5000 is part of that group.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:So what does that mean, she's ready but Obama, who has more experience, isn't?
This is the part I find the best about what McCain did today. Now, he doesn't have to make the experience argument anymore because anytime someone argues that Gov. Palin is inexperienced, people are reminded that Obama is pretty much the same. I bet anything that McCain is hoping beyond anything that the Democrats attack Gov. Palin's lack of experience, and knowing the democrats and their own inadequacy, they will fall right into the trap.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Part of that is probably because a lot of people already think that 72 is too old. And I'd argue that women and men have life expectancy differences because men are stupid and don't seek care where women do, so it's our own fault, but it's not really relevent.
I think that for as many people that are saying that this was her turn that Obama screwed up, there will be just as many saying in four or eight years that she missed her chance and she should let it go. I think she COULD run, and could win the nomination, but there are a lot of rising stars in the party that aren't at all going to feel they owe her anything and won't feel bad about taking her out. I think this election was the passing of the torch in the Democratic party, and she'll be hard pressed to wrench it back from them.
That's fine by me. I don't want her in the presidency. But her age isn't the reason.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Democrats don't need to make the experience argument. They can run on the economy, foreign policy, national security, the environment, civil rights, health care, energy policy...
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
The democrates never made the experience/more years in washington = better argument. They will not mention it, but they will bloody McCain for his hypocrisy.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I found this to be an interesting article last night.
quote:It is unclear if John McCain has notified his running mate yet, but planned Denver media appearances by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, thought to be a top contender, were abruptly canceled Thursday so he could back to head back to Minnesota, an aide said.
It makes we wonder how last minute of a pick Palin was, and whether Pawlenty was being led to believe he was going to be the pick.
It almost makes sense...after Hillary and especially Bill's great speeches did the McCain camp make a last minute change for fear of losing the disgruntled Hillary supporters?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
If they're smart, no one will initiate an attack on Governor Palin; but will only bring her up as defense if the experience thing ever comes up again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, no matter what the Obama campaign says, perception will be that the campaign has attacked her on inexperience.
What is "official" and what is speculation from pundits will get blurred.
Senator Biden is a "safety net" VP. He can council against mistakes and, if needed, can step into the presidency. Presumably, if Gov. Palin had to step in, she wouldn't have Sen. McCain's experience as a safety net. And the country would be in crisis.
I would far rather see an exciting, "risky", reformer president and a boring "safe" VP.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:If they're smart, no one will initiate an attack on Governor Palin; but will only bring her up as defense if the experience thing ever comes up again.
Have you seen what the Democrats have said today? You are correct of course, but clearly, the Democrats are not smart.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would far rather see an exciting, "risky", reformer president and a boring "safe" VP.
Kate, is there any chance that you'd not have voted for Obama because (hypothetically) he had selected a different VP with as little experience as Palin, assuming general compatibility on the issues?
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I am really astonished that the eskimo and reindeer jokes are passing here on Hatrack.
Reindeer - not so offensive. They are all over the place. Eskimo military? That's a pretty absurd statement. Might as well refer to the Mexican military in Texas or the Sioux military in North Dakota.
This reminds me of the Flight of the Conchords epi where the fruit vendor mistakenly takes out his anti-Aussie views on Brett and Jemaine.
Edit: Not only are reindeer everywhere, but they are delicious in sausage-form. I felt that was important enough to add.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I probably would have voted for Senator Obama either way, but then I don't consider him a risky choice. I trust his judgement and experience.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I believe the GOP just scored a tactical, though not crushing victory here...
It was the obvious thing for McCain to announce his VP pick on the tails of Obama's Democratic Convention speech. But had he picked anyone else on the shortlist he had it wouldn't have had nearly the effect picking Palin has.
I missed Obama's speech last night and was completely offline until I put on NPR in the car this morning. I've been pretty busy at work today, so I've only heard NPR, skimmed a few websites and caught up with this thread, but everyone - Obama supporters included - is talking about Palin. I've seen precious little discussion of Obama's speech. So no matter how good it was or how much meat it had concerning the issues, what's on everyone's mind today is McCain's VP pick.
This is what makes the GOP so good at "politics" - not necessarily their PR or advertising campaigns, not their platforms or policy - but their strategy.
Granted, it's a long campaigning season and endurance and consistency hopefully make more impact when the voters step into the booth than a series of "stunts," but I wouldn't be surprised if we see McCain steal the spotlight from Obama just this way many more times throughout the season.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I know I said I was going to shove off this thread, but I did want to point out the Delaware does not have that many more people than Alaska. If one is arguing that the population counts more than natural resources. (Biden is from Delaware, in case anyone forgot.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Democrats won't go after her for experience except as a way to blunt any attack from McCain. If McCain says Obama is inexperienced, Obama will say "that's okay with me, but if it's not okay with you, then why'd you pick your VP who has even less experience than I do? Something doesn't track there."
Obama has to not make the experience argument, he has to make the judgement argument, and that's what he's been doing. If he can stay with that, and not pretend that he's all super experienced or what not, then McCain's choice will look pretty thin.
And sorry about the Eskimo military comment. It was a cheap regionalist joke, but the point, that Alaska'a military forces are rather tiny and she has zero foreign policy experience, which is far less than Obama's, is a valid one. Alaska's national guard totals less than 3,000 people.
Frankly I think McCain would be kind of stupid to highlight abortion, though I understand he needs to reassure Conservatives. A lot of the women on the Democratic side that wanted to vote for Hillary were pro-choice, and McCain/Palin is decidedly not. The more they highlight that, the more they'll be pushing those people back into the Democratic camp, at a time when Dems will likely be talking about the economy and healthcare.
quote:It's worse to put a freshman governor one heartbeat away from the whitehouse than to put a freshman senator in it? If picking Palin endangers the country, then voting for Obama should be deemed treason.
How so? Palin has zero foreign policy experience. Obama has at least been working with the foreign affairs committee, he's visited foreign countries in that capacity and has been in the forefront of trying to stop nuclear proliferation. Executive experience means nothing to me. I realize some people goofily fall for the argument, though I might consider executive experience from a very large industrial state or the actual presidency to carry some weight, generally I think a decision is a decision, and voting on a senate bill is a major decision, especially given the complexity of the issues.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
I think the foreign policy experience argument could be summed up as: Palin, one drop of water, Obama, two. Neither would really quench anyone's thirst. Biden and McCain have plenty to go around.
I think in light of all the cancelling out of arguments that's going on with VP running-mates, political doctrine and previous actions will probably dictate my choice.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Y'know, I just read something that asks a good question: just what is this "foreign policy experience" that everyone seems to take for granted with regard to McCain? The closest he's been in the Senate is his time in the Senate Armed Services Committee, which deals with foreign policy only as it regards military matters. Obama has unquestionably not served in the Senate for as long, but did serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Logic decides to go home for the night.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody else remember Karl Rove's comments from a couple of weeks back on the type of VP Obama would pick? I had wanted to post this yesterday, but couldn't find the source that I'd read. Talking Points Memo contained a link this morning that lead to an article that itself contained a link to the original story.
The relevant portion of the article:
quote:"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."
Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.
"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."
Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:"So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"
So you think Palin is an intensely political choice he made because he's concerned with getting the electoral votes from Alaska?
You're right--how totally ironic.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Maybe it sounds stupid, but who is going to win this election? What is the climate in USA? In my country you can hear only about Obama, very little about McCain. What opinion polls say? Is Obama really going to win?
If I were american, I'd vote for McCain.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
If you look at the popular vote across the country, they're running neck and neck, but if you look at the electoral college Obama is ahead. But it's really too soon to be able to say who is going to win, a lot of people just don't start paying attention until after the conventions.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
It seems to be about even. Some polls say it's Obama by 1-3% in the popular vote. Some say if the electoral votes were added up today McCain would win by a handful. It's going to be another one of those elections. Hanging chads and butterfly ballots.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:"So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"
So you think Palin is an intensely political choice he made because he's concerned with getting the electoral votes from Alaska?
Yes, because I'm very stupid.
Do you really think that that's what I meant, Speed?
Palin is an intensely political choice because she's a choice that at once woos disaffected Clinton supporters and shores up McCain's support among the religious right. She appeals to two key demographics that McCain will need to win. I don't think that she's somebody who would be picked as VP if the presidential candidate's first and foremost concern were "is this person capable of being president of the United States?"
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:Brinestone, I honestly don't see where serving as vice president is going to take more time that being governor of a state, which though small in population, has a huge amount of resources to be managed and borders on a foreign country. Sure the campaigning is going to be intensive, but it will also only last two months.
This is a good point. I suppose there are and will always be people who want to be much, much busier than I do.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:This is a good point. I suppose there are and will always be people who want to be much, much busier than I do.
It's public service, Brinestone. The world is a better place because Sarah Palin took up Alaska's responsibility as her own. She has done brave work in fighting corruption. The kind of work others weren't prepared to do, mostly because those others were too scared and small, narrowly concerned with maintaining their vague and dirty schemes, schemes they took up and profitted from probably in support of their family. It's not a matter of Palin being busy. It's a matter of political courage and will, the quality of which makes everyone's life better. She's a hero. It doesn't mean I agree with her positions on various social policies, but in her willingness and insight to see the corruption in her party and government and serve to fight it, I'm proud to call her an American. I'm rooting for her. I hope she studies up and shocks the world during the debates. I also hope her team loses the election.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Noemon -
I wonder how much hay anyone will try to make out of it. Rove is a major player in the party, but it's easy for the McCain campaign to disavow him. Still, wow, who would have thought that those comments would come back to bite him to incredibly specifically. By that comparison, Palin looks even weaker.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Khavanon: Some say if the electoral votes were added up today McCain would win by a handful.
Really? I haven't seen that anywhere. Both CNN and FiveThirtyEight.com have Obama comfortably ahead in the electoral vote. Where have you seen a projection with McCain winning it?
----
While I agree with Irami for the most part, I do think it's a little extreme that Palin was back to work 3 days after giving birth prematurely. I would expect anyone, male or female, to take a bit longer than that off after having a new baby join the family. But I suppose that she had a lot more flexibility than most people in how she went back to work, too. It's not like being Governor is a 9 - 5 5 days a week job.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
On the KOS link, look at the first video at 4:25-4:38 (while she's walking down the driveway). The jacket pushes against her belly and a clear roundness at the bottom is visible, especially as she turns to her right at about 4:35.
I have a friend who, if she wore a baggy sweater (one she wore before pregnancy), it was impossible to tell she was pregnant the week before she gave birth.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
It's from one of the guys who made that video.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I had someone come up to me and congratulate me, saying they hadn't known I was pregnant, six hours before I went into labor. My pre-pregnancy weight was a bit higher than hers, though. But still, depending on the position of the baby some women just don't show.
However, if she really did get on an 8 hour plane flight knowing she was in premature labor that seems like poor judgment. Going ahead with the speech is no biggee though, I went into work for 3 hours after my first labor started because I had some things to get done before going on leave. Maybe she has long slow labors.
Or maybe the baby really is her daughter's. The thing that really argues against that, in my mind, is that she would accept the VP nomination knowing she had that kind of secret that could come out. That strains credibility a lot more than a pregnant woman not looking visibly pregnant.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I could believe it either way. I watched the video, and didn't really saw what Dag saw but thought she walked like a pregnant women on the shots where you saw her walking from behind. But, she was also walking on slushy streets in about 2.5" heels.
If it is true, I'm not sure if it makes a difference to me. I don't agree with her policies anyway, and I can understand making this kind of decision, although I think it's taking the easy way out and not making the daughter take responsibility for her actions. But that's their choice, not mine. Of the lies you might catch a political candidate in, this one just seems kinda sad. Beyond the fact that it's a great big public lie and shows a willingness to cover up inconvenient/embarrassing things, I don't know that it has an effect on her ability to govern. I don't really believe that there's ever going to be a candidate that hasn't lied about something that could come back and bite them in the ass, they're all human. I certainly have not always been 100% truthful.
So I think it should be investigated, because that's part of the political process, and if she did lie about it she should know that she can't get away with that sort of thing. But I don't think it should affect her candidacy one way or the other. Again, though, I'm not one of the people who would be voting for her, so it's not my opinion that matters.
I do feel bad for the daughter.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I said this about McCain's alleged affair and Edwards affair, but I could not care less about this from a political perspective. From a personal perspective, if it's true, I would hope that people would show discretion because this is a teenage girl that would be in the crossfire. I would hope that the controversy would not become national, the issues remain the key to the election, and the candidates themselves win on their own merits and not because the other candidate is the greater of two evils. This girl deserves much better than to become a late show punch-line, but more than that, it is just plain mean-spirited and personifies the worst of us all. This is the kind of crap we need to rise above, especially for the sake of this teenage girl.
That's what I hope anyway. Probably won't happen, but you never know.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have no idea if that's true or not, and personally I don't really care, as I'm not voting for her anyway. I'm sure it'll be looked into, and once the networks get ahold of it, she might have to answer for it. Here's the thing though, all of them have to release their medical reports, and with this, I don't see how they'd let her not release her medical reports.
If it's a real thing, unless she faked her medical reports, it'll come out. If it's fake, I'd imagine the medical reports can put it to rest, but videos and speculation aren't near enough to convince me, neither is the circumstancial evidence regarding her daughter's school attendence.
This ranks ridiculously low on my scale of importance, and the only reason I'm even curious is because I think it goes to her judgement. Is it the kind of family where they're so scared or ashamed or what not of her daughter being pregnant that they'd lie to everyone and radically alter this child's life just so they're more comfortable? That's something I would never assume about someone without a LOT more proof than what's being thrown around right now. I HOPE that Democrats leave this one alone both because it'll blow up in their faces if they try and use it, and because it's just the right thing to do. You don't go after the family.
Well, I guess trying to run on Hillary's pantssuittails is out. She's going to have to run on her own merits, rather than her biology.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I watched the video, and didn't really saw what Dag saw
I only saw it when I went frame by frame.
quote:The thing that really argues against that, in my mind, is that she would accept the VP nomination knowing she had that kind of secret that could come out.
It does seem unlikely.
quote:I do feel bad for the daughter.
This was my first thought. Either way, this must be terrible for her. Imagine Palin is telling the truth about the baby: this teenager has people pointing out how she looks pregnant in photos. It's like an eating disorder waiting to happen.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have a friend who had her sixth baby 4 days after I had my first. At my baby shower, no one knew my friend was as pregnant as me. By the time she had the baby, people had just begun questioning if she was maybe pregnant.
But poor daughter. I would hate it if people analyzed pictures of me saying I looked pregnant. And if she did have a baby, that sucks too. Also, stupid reasoning but the baby has down's which makes me think that the 44 year old had the baby, not the 16 year old.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Palin is a long-distance runner and an athelete who probably only gained about 30 pounds her entire pregnancy. The jacket was loose fitting...
It's rediculous. If my step-daughter's picture were posted on the internet and they pointed out her belly bulge, I'd be very upset.
Some people need to find a better hobby.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I wish I lived in a world there were consequences for reporting on something like this if it turns out to be false. I really feel bad for the daughter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have to admit, given how common (in the news, that is) unknown teenage pregnancies are, how some teenagers go to a dance or something, go to the bathroom, then come back without the baby...how does anyone expect to be taken serious on the 'she don't look pregnant!' claim?
It's totally absurd. Now that the claim has been made, it should be investigated I think. But it's still a stupid claim.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
They actually address the older mom more likely to have Down's thing in one of the articles, scholarette, and said that while a mom over 40 is more likely, they have a 3% chance vs a 1% chance for a mom under 40, and 80% of babies with Down's are born to moms under 40 just because they have the vast majority of babies. But, yeah, it's one of the first things I thought of, too.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...The campaign is borrowing plot points from "Desperate Housewives"...
...I think I need to lie down.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's also perfectly possible to gain almost no weight during pregnancy. Some women lose all that weight within a day of giving birth, and are back to pre-pregnancy weight right away. It happens.
Ultimately it's just unbelievable that she would have poor enough judgment to do this and expect it never to come out. Aren't there people who work at the hospital where her child was born? Surely they saw who the mother was, and if it wasn't her, we'd find out.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well, at least the_Somalian's first link labels itself properly, STUPID gossip. As for the DailyKos, didja know that HurricaneGustav was started and aimed toward NewOrleans sose that McCain&Palin could look all presidential during the photo op? Much more dramatic than having the RepublicanConvention as a backdrop.
[ August 31, 2008, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, no, no, Gustav was created by the Democrats to hit New Orleans and make Bush look bad.
I have actually heard intelligent people say that the Dems would love to see New Orleans get hit hard just for that reason. This strikes me as just as insane as saying the Dems wanted soldiers to keep dying to prove the surge wasn't working. How can anyone think that of another human being?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
More than if she looks pregnant or not, the parts that make me think it's plausible are the long wait after she started leaking fluid before going home, and then going home to have the baby and the daughter being out of school for so long. Even if you've had 4 kids already and know you have long labors, there's always a chance of something going wrong or starting to progress faster, and getting on a plane for an 8 hour trip just seems whack.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
McCain's choice kind of forces the American people into a chess fork. It's the only analogy that persistently pops up in my imagination when I think of this race.
[ August 31, 2008, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Something I hadn't really considered before, but as more and more women come into serious play for major federal political office, this kind of scandal/accusation of scandal will become more common.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Can someone please explain something to me, because I honestly think part of this conspiracy theory is going over my head.
I agree that, if one were really pregnant and leaking amniotic fluid, it might not be a great idea to get on a plane from Texas to Alaska.
On the other hand, it seems to me that if one were not pregnant and were making the whole thing up, and they were thousands of miles away from a place they could comfortably and discretely pretend to give birth, it would be even stupider to invent a story about their water breaking long before they ever intended to start the cross-country plane ride.
I'm sure there's some element of the story I'm missing, because neither option seems to make any sense to me.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
(I don't know how well this fits into the actual facts but...) my guess is that they needed a reason to suddenly fly back from Texas to Alaska. They may not have realized how serious an excuse water breaking is. Maybe the daughter was ~8 months pregnant* and her water did break, thus suddenly making it important to get back for the birth.
* Trig was 6 lbs or so, from newspaper reports, which at first sounds a bit larger than your average 7 month preemie but I haven't looked up the stats. Edit: Though, the age of the baby isn't that big of a deal. Quite frequently estimates on gestation are wrong. You can tell once they're born by the neurological exam and the condition of the skin etc.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Rakeesh, by "this kind" of scandal, do you mean pregnancy related? I don't know that it will be more common, it's just that it will be about the candidate's pregnancy as opposed to who the candidate got pregnant. I mean, think of Strom Thermond. A female politician is going to be less likely to have a secret child turn up decades later just because it's harder (although not impossible) to hide being pregnant than to hide having gotten someone pregnant. And, really, pretending your teenage daughter's child is your own when you're already in the public eye is going to be pretty rare, whether that's what's happening here or not. Raising your grandchild as your child? Sure. Actually putting your name on the birth certificate? Requires accomplices in the hospital, is not going to become a regular thing no matter how many female politicians there are.
----
Speed, yeah, I was wondering that too. Best I could come up with she needed an excuse to leave Texas early and thought this was plausible. If she said it broke after the speech and she ran to get on the plane, that might look more irresponsible than it broke earlier but she wasn't progressing in other ways so in consultation with her doctor she decided it was okay to fly home.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
For the record, my money would be that the rumor regarding Palin is just that and nothing more. But I suspect it would be easier to conceal something like this in some parts of Alaska than in many other states. Health care is pretty spotty in some regions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
ElJay,
I just meant pregnancy related. I dunno, I guess my off-the-cuff thoughts on the matter are that it's simpler for a man to hide a woman's pregnancy than it is for a woman to hide her own pregnancy, when the ones doing the hiding are in the public spotlight and get their history checked out to some degree.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I agree -- which would indicate to me that less women would try to hide their own pregnancy then men would try to hide having gotten someone pregnant, because it's so much more difficult.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I agree with that too. That it's much less likely for such a story to be true about a woman (hiding her own pregnancy) than a man (hiding a woman he's gotten pregnant).
What I meant by the original post, though, is simply that I thought that these sorts of stories would become more common-not that they'd be true.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh! Okay, gotcha.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I guess it all depends on what you mean by "scandals like this". Its relatively uncommon for a woman to have a baby and a sixteen year old daughter and probably very unlikely for a that sixteen year old daughter to have been out of school with mono for the previous 5 months. So I suspect that even as women in politics become more common rumors of this nature aren't terribly likely.
If on the other hand what you mean by "scandals like this" is simply pregnancy scandals involving women politicians, then I suspect it will be come more common for women politicians to be accused of things like have given up a child for adoption as a teenager, having had an abortion at some point in their lives, or having a child that was not fathered by their husband.
As a side note, I don't know if pulling this off would be as difficult as some people have indicated. It wouldn't require the doctor to forge the birth certificate since birth certificates for living persons are not generally in the public domain. Medical records are protected by federal law. Hospital employees are bound by law not to reveal this sort of information, doing so would cost them their jobs and likely their license so its unlikely anyone would be willing to go on the record about it.
I'm not saying I believe the story is true, it's probably not. From a political angle, however, I think it might be better if it were true. I'd think much more favorably of a mother who was going to such lengths to protect her teenage daughter than one who boarded a plane for an 8 hour flight while in labor. Do we really want a VP who was more concerned about where the baby was born than about the child's health and safety? Do we really want a VP who was willing to risk giving birth at 30 thousand feet to a child who was known to have a serious birth defect just so her baby wouldn't be a Texan?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
But then he would have had that terrible Texan accent!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...Well, and if you're born in Alaska, you qualify for a Permanent Fund Dividend check.
Not saying that's why she did it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The more I hear about the hurried revision plans for the GOP convention, the more I think this might help them big time. By slashing the opening festivities to just what's legally required, by going to emergency centers now as McCain has done, by flying affected delegates home, by asking donations to be send to victim relief, and by basically being presidential about the oncoming disaster in a way that President Bush famously was not, McCain could come out of this looking great.
I do not suggest that motivation is anything but doing what's right for the storm victims, mind you. Had McCain been in charge during Katrina, I have absolutely no doubt that there would not have been the same complaints about the administration. But the way they're going about dealing with the storm makes me think much more highly of them.
I'd love to see the Dems join forces with the GOP and really work together. How cool would that be, during a heated campaign? Put away everyone's egos and serve the country. We could really, really use it for once.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Politically it does seem like the only answer is the one they're currently doing. Shorten the convention and focus on the hurricane. So far both sides have been respectful and conscientious. It's nice.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
according to Fox news Palin is a great VP because she has foreign experience, "since after all being next to Russia" would give said experience.
:facepalm:
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Politically it does seem like the only answer is the one they're currently doing. Shorten the convention and focus on the hurricane. So far both sides have been respectful and conscientious. It's nice.
Though to be fair, that guy's a former DNC chairman.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Idiot. You better assume, in this day and age, with cell phone cameras and small recording devices, that you are on a live mike at all times.
I can understand the remark - honestly, I've said many flippant things in jest that were they posted on YouTube would sound very offensive even though I didn't mean them that way.
But I'm not a political figure, and no one is likely to care if I make such flippant remarks.
Jest or not, this makes him look like a real jerk. Granted, Falwell was a jerk too with his remarks. But joking in the same vein looks more like emulating Falwell than denouncing him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Was he joking about Falwell? Perhaps. Though he didn't mention Falwell until he got caught.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:Bristol Palin, the 17 year old daughter of Sarah Palin, is pregnant and will keep the baby and marry the father, a senior McCain aide confirmed to CNN Monday....Bristol Palin, a senior in high school, is about 5 months along, in her second trimester, according to the aide.
Well that throws the rumor for a loop. Now we're back to flying on a plane for 8 hours after your water broke.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Link to story on Bristol's pregnancy. Some of the reader's comments at the end are despicable. I think about some of the stuff my brother did at 17 and hate to think that people judge my mother's values based on it.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I hope for Bristol's sake that she would have married that guy whether or not her mom suddenly became the VP candidate. It's not a remote possibility that she's being forced this choice as the most politically viable considering her pregnancy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm finding it a little hard to believe that McCain's campaign actually knew about this when they chose her.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Democrats won't go after her for experience except as a way to blunt any attack from McCain. If McCain says Obama is inexperienced, Obama will say "that's okay with me, but if it's not okay with you, then why'd you pick your VP who has even less experience than I do? Something doesn't track there."
They already did. From Obama spokesman Bill Burton, on the day of the VP announcement:
quote:Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.
I never bought the experience argument anyway. But this is amazingly self-destructive. They should have listened to you.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
Self destructive? Come on. You're not thinking the conversation out.
Obama: That's okay with me, but if it's not okay with you, then why'd you pick your VP who has even less experience than I do?
McCain: I picked someone who has fought corruption in both parties, fought big oil, passed a landmark ethics reform bill, and fought back congressional pork projects, including the "Bridge to nowhere." She did all of this and more while you spent your two years in the senate running for President. How many times has the Senate subcommittee on Europe you chair even met, Senator?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, why would anyone accept a nomination for vice president knowing that their daughter's unplanned pregnancy would thereby instantly become national news?
Palin must put quite a high priority on her career.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Guess who knows next to nothing about the circumstances among Palin's family, Destineer?
That's right! You don't!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cactus Jack: fought big oil
From what I've read, Palin has sucked up to big oil. She's heavily pro-drilling.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Describe to me a plausible set of circumstances according to which accepting the nomination was the best choice for the Palins' kids.
By the way, I don't think her misplaced priorities set her apart from other politicians at all. Why John Edwards would seek high office, giving investigative reporters every incentive to make his affair public, is also beyond me.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Obama has strongly condemned the use of Bristol Palin by Democrats as an avenue of attack, going as far as to say that anyone in his campaign who does so will be fired. He also reminded reporters that he himself was the result of a teenage pregnancy - his mother was 18 when he was born.
Exactly the right response in this situation.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Sometimes I wish people would just mind their own business. Other times, when I get a little angrier, I wish the media in general would just one day find their jobs gone and be forced to scavenge crap elsewhere. Good for Obama to make that response. When are people gonna learn that politicians are not mass-produced from a factory, or sent down from God? They are normal people just like every other American in many ways. And, gasp. GUESS WHAT? Normal people quite often have young pregnancies, unfaithful marital situations, and say bad things when they get emotional. NO WAY!!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I say leave the daughter out of it, but frankly the biggest attacks she'll get are from the same people that were so excited she was chosen to begin with. The same family values people that she energized are going to wring their hands at her parenting skills. I think it's liberals, ironically, who'd have a much smaller problem with this. I know I don't personally.
The only possible problem I might point out, is that Palin supports abstinence only education. Maybe if her daughter had known about protection, she wouldn't have had this problem. Still I wouldn't make her daughter a campaign issue. I still think it's a valid debate point (sex-ed, not her daughter) but I'd leave her daughter out of it. I'd like for the press not to mention it at all.
quote:Originally posted by Cactus Jack: Self destructive? Come on. You're not thinking the conversation out.
Obama: That's okay with me, but if it's not okay with you, then why'd you pick your VP who has even less experience than I do?
McCain: I picked someone who has fought corruption in both parties, fought big oil, passed a landmark ethics reform bill, and fought back congressional pork projects, including the "Bridge to nowhere." She did all of this and more while you spent your two years in the senate running for President. How many times has the Senate subcommittee on Europe you chair even met, Senator?
Easily refuted. She leapfrogged scandal entangled Republicans to get ahead of them to the Governor's mansion, she didn't fight pork, she's on record as having said she wanted to get as much money as she could while Stevens was still a powerful senator, and when she "killed" the bridge to nowhere, she redirected the money to other Alaskan projects, she didn't give it back. Her way of fighting big oil is to push for a massive new pipeline and wants to drill everywhere there is oil, she's just quibbling over a couple dollars and cents here and there in royalties. Huzzah for that, but it ain't fighting big oil. While she was the Mayor of Wasilla, he was in the Illinois state legislature passing ethics reform legislation, and dozens of other bills in a large industrialized state while she enjoyed a largely ceremonial position. She has limited experience in a state whose problems do not mirror the problems of the nation at large, problems that Obama has been working on for the last couple years, and that Biden has been working on for decades. Then he can bring up Biden's qualifications.
McCain will lose the experience argument here. The media is already all over it, and he's not going to turn it with a couple press releases, not when her record is so small and easy to read.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Not to mention that she actually supported the "bridge to nowhere" until it became politically unpopular and a prominent example of government overspending. Cite. Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Easily refuted.
Rather, I would say, "Refutable."
I didn't toss it up there as inalienable proof she was more qualified. Just that it was presumptuous to say the whole campaign was going to be destroyed by this.
My guess is no matter what either side says about experience, all the same people will still support both sides. It's not going to change anybody's minds either way.
The original post had just acted as if there would be no response, and that was just silly.
But I'm not surprised that people felt the need to argue with my argument, even though my argument wasn't my point--my point was just that there was an argument.
Um, what am I talking about?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Obama has strongly condemned the use of Bristol Palin by Democrats as an avenue of attack, going as far as to say that anyone in his campaign who does so will be fired. He also reminded reporters that he himself was the result of a teenage pregnancy - his mother was 18 when he was born.
Exactly the right response in this situation.
I hope he can stand by that stance, he has shown his willingness to fire staffers who do not run the campaign he is running before.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sen. McCain has stated that he was told about Gov. Palin's daughter being pregnant during the vetting process, and he decided that most Americans would not hold this against the Governor, and it would not hurt their candidacy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort*
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sen. McCain has stated that he was told about Gov. Palin's daughter being pregnant during the vetting process, and he decided that most Americans would not hold this against the Governor, and it would not hurt their candidacy.
If that's true, I'm surprised that a) they didn't release the news themselves earlier so they could control it, rather than waiting until they had to release it to counter a more potentially damaging rumor, and b) that their response to the issue seemed so unpolished.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The same family values people that she energized are going to wring their hands at her parenting skills. I think it's liberals, ironically, who'd have a much smaller problem with this.
I decided to check this out. I was at a meeting with 6 evangelical Baptists tonight (plus me, a Roman Catholic), and afterwards I said, "Informal poll. Governor Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant and unmarried. What effect does this have on your opinion of Palin's candidacy?"
5 said "no effect." The other said, "People make mistakes."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
See, that's the thing. People like this (and me) may be opposed to a culture that says it's just fine and dandy for teenagers to be unwed mothers. That doesn't mean that we condemn everyone in that situation. Mistakes do happen. It's when people refuse to acknowledge that it was a mistake and try and make it into a virtue that they run into opposition.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As more and more comes out about how Senator McCain chose Gov. Palin, it seems more and more obvious to me that his priority was mobilizing the conservative base (and possibly women) and that providing for the country's security was not.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The same family values people that she energized are going to wring their hands at her parenting skills. I think it's liberals, ironically, who'd have a much smaller problem with this.
I decided to check this out. I was at a meeting with 6 evangelical Baptists tonight (plus me, a Roman Catholic), and afterwards I said, "Informal poll. Governor Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant and unmarried. What effect does this have on your opinion of Palin's candidacy?"
5 said "no effect." The other said, "People make mistakes."
Figures. When they read about it on the news they rail about parenting and how schools are warping the minds of children and how society is crumbling, but when their standard bearer is the mother of a an example, then suddenly people make mistakes.
It's not universal, but there's some hypocrist going on there. I guess I shouldn't be surprised but I am.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
They certainly had no way to win on that one! Whether they agree with you or not, on a yes or no question!
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: When they read about it on the news they rail about parenting and how schools are warping the minds of children and how society is crumbling, but when their standard bearer is the mother of a an example, then suddenly people make mistakes.
I think most people understand the difference between decrying a growing trend of nameless, faceless numbers and making a judgement about one person in particular. And given that these are folks who likely believe that we should love the sinner but hate the sin, it sounds logically consistant to me.
Personally, I was having sex at that age so I wouldn't be very comfortable saying jack about it. Just sayin.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I say leave the daughter out of it, but frankly the biggest attacks she'll get are from the same people that were so excited she was chosen to begin with. The same family values people that she energized are going to wring their hands at her parenting skills. I think it's liberals, ironically, who'd have a much smaller problem with this. I know I don't personally.
did you happen to see Diane Sawyer this morning?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm of the "People make mistakes" crowd regarding Palin.
I do think there are times when parenting matters. For example, here, when Jeb Bush's kid was arrested for public drunkenness and resisting arrest. I don't mind the son's crimes, but the Bush response, about how this is a family matter and about how they supporting him. The guy was 21 and resisting arrest. That night, he was a menace. I don't want to hear that the Bush's support him or think it's merely a family matter. Gov. Bush's first priority should have been to apologize the officers. I want to hear that they feel bad that their son is a nuisance and officers had to risk themselves to detain him. Another example is Obama's talk about urban and public education and talk against vouchers, yet he chooses to send his kids to private school, on a University of Chicago voucher. I think that's fair game because that's not about the kid's decisions, it's about the parent's character.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Completely unfair gut reaction:
Romney is unacceptable because something that happened a hundred years before he was born, but Palin is awesome despite the chaos in her own family?? What - it is better to mouth the correct "values" using the correct words to prove membership than it is to actually live up to them???
Posted by Mankind (Member # 2672) on :
I hate to sound crass, but I think the left and the MSM actually did Palin a huge favor. By reporting the over-the-top rumors about Palin's youngest baby actually being her daughter's, when the real story came out it made the MSM and left-wing pundits and bloggers seem so vicious it cast the whole thing in a light far more sympathetic to Palin than if word had simply got out that her daughter was pregnant.
What I find hilarious is that basically the left's reaction to the true story is, "Well, we don't care about such things, but you know this is going to upset those snooty, self righteous conservatives."
I'm sorry, but the fact is that, believe it or not, even conservatives know this kind of thing happens, and I'd venture a guess that religious conservatives actually have more exposure to teen pregancy than any non-religious liberal who doesn't work with teenagers. We know it happens, even to the best kids, and sometimes even to our own kids.
This isn't something we've suddenly found a softer position on because of Palin--this the position nearly every Christian conservative discovers the moment a teen they love makes a mistake.
And watching the Palins handle this problem--not in the only acceptable way, as many non-christians would have it--but in one of the many possible ways helps us gain respect for them. As opossed to Obama, who, despite his position as the candidate of nuance, feels that there are only two options when a teen becomes pregant--abortion or to "punish my daughter with a baby."
I'm not trying to derail this into an abortion debate--I'm just trying to show you how a lot of conservatives see this, as opposed to how the MSM is trying to spin that their caricatures of conservatives should be seeing this.
And yeah, I know the "two option" view of Barak's position of abortion is a bit of an exaggeration, but when the "punish my daughter with a baby" quote is floating around during a time like this, that is exactly where the contrast between the two candidates gets drawn.
Besides, as teenage pregancies become more common, the left simply can't make this an issue without inadvertantly offending everyone out there who either had a teenage dauaghter or sibling become pregant, was a teenage parent themselves, or was the child of a teen parent.
As for the notion that the pregnancy was kept secret from McCain, CNN/Time says that it was an open secret in Alaska:
quote: Romney is unacceptable because something that happened a hundred years before he was born, but Palin is awesome despite the chaos in her own family??
Romney is unacceptable because he wanted to abolish the US Department of Education. He has since changed his mind...
Romney is unacceptable because he equated his sons campaigning for him in the primary to other people sending their kids off to fight in the war. The problem with Romney isn't that he is LDS. Harry Reid is fine. The problem is that Romney is an ass.
quote:What - it is better to mouth the correct "values" using the correct words to prove membership than it is to actually live up to them???
It sounds like the Palin family is making the best of a bad situation, and let's be honest, for a family who loves kids, I think it's nice they are trying to make it work as a positive. If you are going to have children, I think the chlidren should be welcomed. I think in providing support and a home for the untimed new born, Sarah Palin is living up to her values. None of this changes that Romney is still an ass.
[ September 02, 2008, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I'm fine with opposing Romney because of his political stances or personal history.
It's opposing Romney because of his religion or his great-grandfather that I find despicable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Romney is unacceptable because something that happened a hundred years before he was born,
Romney is unacceptable to many Evangelical voters because he has made position changes on issues highly important to them, and each time he made the switch, it was in the direction of the view that was most politically expedient at the time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
All of which is fine.
But for many many, they wouldn't even consider voting for him because of his religion.
Which is so utterly lame and unAmerican it makes me nauseous.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:All of which is fine.
But for many many, they wouldn't even consider voting for him because of his religion.
Which is so utterly lame and unAmerican it makes me nauseous.
I think it's distasteful, but depending on the religion, is it really unamerican? I thought part of the dignity of the secret ballot is that one can vote however one wants for whatever reason one wants.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There is also the plight of the ethnically Chinese atheist. I think the only way one could be less considered for voting would be to be a gay Chinese atheist, although judging by the "Obama is a secret Muslim" hoopla, being a Muslim is no picnic either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd venture a guess that religious conservatives actually have more exposure to teen pregancy than any non-religious liberal who doesn't work with teenagers.
Well, sure. You don't tell them about birth control, you're going to get pregnant girls more often than people who do. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mankind: Besides, as teenage pregancies become more common, the left simply can't make this an issue without inadvertantly offending everyone out there who either had a teenage dauaghter or sibling become pregant, was a teenage parent themselves, or was the child of a teen parent.
You mean people like Obama?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Personally, I was having sex at that age so I wouldn't be very comfortable saying jack about it. Just sayin.
Were you using reliable birth control?
---
In general, I agree that Gov. Palin's daughter should be left alone (given that the media harped on Sen Obama not wearing a flag pin, I don't see that happening), but given Gov Palin's pushing abstinence-only education, I do think she should be asked if, given what happened, she would have preferred that her daughter was taught how to use birth control and that it was readily available for her.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:In general, I agree that Gov. Palin's daughter should be left alone (given that the media harped on Sen Obama not wearing a flag pin, I don't see that happening), but given Gov Palin's pushing abstinence-only education, I do think she should be asked if, given what happened, she would have preferred that her daughter was taught how to use birth control and that it was readily available for her.
If there were a tasteful way to have that conversation, it would be an excellent discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Screw tasteful. This is a woman who has very little experience, almost no national profile and has not been vetted who could be President soon.
Don't harrass the daughter, fine, but Gov Palin doesn't have the priviledge of people having to tiptoe around topics like this.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Fair enough. Abstinence only education is a far-reaching wreck, and it would be great for the country to have this conversation.
____
On a completely different and shallow note, I love the way Cindy McCain wears clothes.
Posted by Mankind (Member # 2672) on :
Is the assertion behind the question that Palin somehow kept her daughter ignorant of contraception, or that Palin made her daughter believe that having sex with contraception was a bigger mistake than having unprotected sex?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Is the assertion behind the question that Palin somehow kept her daughter ignorant of contraception, or that Palin made her daughter believe that having sex with contraception was a bigger mistake than having unprotected sex?
No.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Is the assertion behind the question that Palin somehow kept her daughter ignorant of contraception, or that Palin made her daughter believe that having sex with contraception was a bigger mistake than having unprotected sex?
Something happened. In general, we don't like it when high-schoolers get pregnant. Now the Palin family is solid enough to absorb an unplanned infant or two, but as a matter public policy and public education, what happened and why should be addressed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"I do think she should be asked if, given what happened, she would have preferred that her daughter was taught how to use birth control and that it was readily available for her" seems to imply that nobody taught her daughter to use birth control and/or that it wasn't readily available to her daughter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I sort of agree with that, although it is more absolute than I would like.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So far, I think they've done a very poor job making the case for her as a viable VP.
I'm not a big fan of Sen Biden, but it is clear that he can belong on a Presidential ticket. Even the people specifically tasked to promote Gov Palin don't seem to think that she does.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"but given Gov Palin's pushing abstinence-only education, I do think she should be asked if, given what happened, she would have preferred that her daughter was taught how to use birth control and that it was readily available for her."
Yeah 'cause the birth control part of sex-education that the libs teach works so well...
This country has no problems with abortion right...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
lobo: indeed, it has been shown to be more effective than abstinence only education in preventing teen pregnancy several times.
And I know you were trying to be sarcastic.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Screw tasteful. This is a woman who has very little experience, almost no national profile and has not been vetted who could be President soon.
Yeah, because the professional politicians have done such an outstanding job.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, it seems people are assuming that I think that Gov Palin's answers will be to her detriment.
I don't necessarily think that this is the case.
I think that this is an important conversation to have and to have with an eye towards the results. I think some of the more simplistic, dismissive ideas about this are much less likely to be satisfying when one has a teenager get or get someone else pregnant.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yeah, because the professional politicians have done such an outstanding job.
You seem to think that I regard professional political experience as a definitely good thing to have. I don't.
What I do value is information about a candidate, especially indications that he can handle the job he is seeking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it is appropriate to re-ask Gov. Palin's stance on abstinince only education. "Gov. Palin have you re-thought your support of abstinance only education?" I don't think that specifically or directly refering to her daughter is necessary or appropriate and I don't think that we need more information than that.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Screw tasteful. This is a woman who has very little experience, almost no national profile and has not been vetted who could be President soon.
Yeah, because the professional politicians have done such an outstanding job.
So now Sarah Palin isn't a professional politician? Does being governor of Alaska count as executive experience or not?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am a huge, enormous fan of complete and total clinical sex education.
1) I'm a fan of information in general. I don't like secrets, and I don't think people are benefited by them.
2) Sexuality is part of being human. I'm not talking about discussing the fringe things people do, but information about what will most likely be a big part of their lives can only be to their benefit.
3) This is just me, but holy crap, talk about off-putting. You can get diseases through sex that you can't get ANY OTHER WAY except by sharing blood. Sex isn't like hugging someone - it's mingling juices in a particular intimate way. It isn't a way to prove your love; it isn't a trophy; it isn't a chip to be gambled or used for leverage. It's a big deal, and a thorough and honest sex education teaches that better than all the "It's A Big Deal Don't Do It But We Won't Talk About It" preaching could.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think that specifically or directly refering to her daughter is necessary or appropriate and I don't think that we need more information than that.
I think personally having to face what is the increased results of a abstinence-only education is an important part of this conversation.
Without something like that to keep them honest, I expect most politicians to go with the pat, empty answers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ooohh! I agree with Kat.
Mr. Squicky, anyone who is paying attention knows the context in which Gov. Palin is answering that question. If she gives a thoughtful response that shows she is facing the question in an honest way - even if it hasn't changed her mind - we will know something useful. If she give a pat answer, we will still know something useful.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ya ever think it might be silly discussing her daughter when Palin hates Americans so much that she wants Alaska to secede from the UnitedStates??? Which might explain the talk about her being close to the Russians.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Screw tasteful. This is a woman who has very little experience, almost no national profile and has not been vetted who could be President soon.
Yeah, because the professional politicians have done such an outstanding job.
So now Sarah Palin isn't a professional politician? Does being governor of Alaska count as executive experience or not?
What do you mean by "count"? As best I know this isn't a simple scoring operation. Being mayor even of a small town gives one executive experience, being Governor of a small state for a year and a half gives one executive experience. But that doesn't even begin to address the real question -- What part of her life experience is relevant to being VP or potentially even President of the US?
So for example, city governments deal with zoning, local roads, police, utilities, and parks. In Bozeman MT for example (a town 5 times the size of Wasilla Al), the primary budget items are for snow plows, road repair and tree maintenance.
State governments biggest budget items are education, prisons and roads. In fact, the intersection between what local and state politicians do and what national politicians do is very very small. What specifically has she dealt with that will be of use to her as VP or potentially even President (McCain is after all the oldest man ever to run for a first term).
The question posed in the CNN link MrSquicky posted is a prime example. Yes Palin has been commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard for the past 19 months, but what specific choices, duties and responsibilities has she had that are even remotely relevant to being commander in chief of the US army? In reality, since 9/11/01, governor's have had almost no say over deployment of National Guard troops and equipment. In 2005, Montana's governor requested that Montana National Guard troops be sent home for the summer to assist with a severe fire season (suggesting that they could instead serve in Iraq during the winter months). The pentagon and the courts told him he had not say in it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Obviously, and undeniably in fact, Bristol disobeyed her parents. How should parents deal with a child who disobeys, and as a result suffers consequences that are life-long lasting? Conservative Christians around the country, by all accounts I have heard, approve of the way Gov. Palin and her husband are dealing with the problem--accepting that what is done is done, and giving their whole-hearted support to their daughter, and their guidance for her to make the best of the situation by having the child and marrying the child's father. I'm not sure that marrying the child's father would always be the best thing to do, but that is what they have chosen to do in this case. I hope it is not a classic "shot-gun" wedding. Imagine the pressure on the father, to face the entire nation knowing he impregnated the daughter of the person who could become vice president, and even president, of the United States!
I also sympathize with Bristol--imagine her fear that she may, by her indiscretion, have cost her mother her chance to be elected vice president of the United States. It still is not clear that will not be the result. Teenage rebellion is one thing, but no daughter who even remotely loves her mother would want to cause that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In fact, the intersection between what local and state politicians do and what national politicians do is very very small.
Which is the primary reason I find her views on sex education to be irrelevant to her suitability as VP. It quite simply shouldn't be a federal issue.
But I lost that battle decades ago.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I sympathize with Bristol Palin as well. Surely, going through this in the public spotlight - inevitable once her mother decided to run for national office - must make a difficult time even more trying.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The pentagon and the courts told him he had not say in it.
That really bothers me. I'd have to do some research into what the specific laws say regarding militias, but I know that a 150 years ago, states would have left the union if the president claimed control over state militias. I think even 100 years ago, when the Milia Act was passed, they would have.
I know that just recently the law was changed twice. A few years ago it was changed to make the President commander in chief of all national guard units. When every governor in the country rightfully cried bloody murder, they changed it back a couple years ago, so I don't understand how the federal government still gets control of them. Maybe there's a perfectly reasonable explanation, but I just haven't had time to look for it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As I understand it, which is just going on not much at all, the President becomes Commander-in-Chief when the national government calls them up and the state governments consent. So, I think that the states can keep control, but if they give it up, can't get it back unilaterally.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm going to agree with you on that one Dag. In my experience, curriculum decision should be made as close to the classroom as possible. The further the decision makers are from the actual classrooms, the worse the decisions tend to be.
Unfortunately, we are a long way from that ideal and moving further from it. As long as Presidents are making decisions about the sex education curriculum, I think it has to be a relevant question for a VP candidate. If her answer is, I think those decisions should be made at a local level and would oppose any federal legislation that connected federal funding with restriction of any kind on the nature of sex education curriculum -- I'd approve, but that would be a departure from her previous stance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As long as Presidents are making decisions about the sex education curriculum, I think it has to be a relevant question for a VP candidate.
Yeah, I should have had a "should" in my first sentence of my previous post.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:In fact, the intersection between what local and state politicians do and what national politicians do is very very small.
Which is the primary reason I find her views on sex education to be irrelevant to her suitability as VP. It quite simply shouldn't be a federal issue.
But I lost that battle decades ago.
Assuming it has become a federal issue doesn't that make it relevant to her suitability as VP?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Asked and answered.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I will be quite surprised if Gov. Palin is NOT asked about her views concerning abstinence only education in light of this. But I do hope the question is put tastefully, and that she impresses me with her response.
Right now I just don't know enough about her to form a strong opinion.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Personally, I was having sex at that age so I wouldn't be very comfortable saying jack about it. Just sayin.
Were you using reliable birth control?
I was! The most reliable kind there is! With other girls.
I've always been the responsible type.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The Pixiest.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Personally, I was having sex at that age so I wouldn't be very comfortable saying jack about it. Just sayin.
Were you using reliable birth control?
I was! The most reliable kind there is! With other girls.
I've always been the responsible type.
*grins*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: As I understand it, which is just going on not much at all, the President becomes Commander-in-Chief when the national government calls them up and the state governments consent. So, I think that the states can keep control, but if they give it up, can't get it back unilaterally.
I think that one has been tested in court and the courts have ruled that if the states are accepting federal funding for equipment and training of the national guard (which all states are) the federal government can call them up for international assignments without the state governors consent. I can't find the reference on that but I will keep trying.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
She hates america, wow she's crazy.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I read a comment on a blog that said McCain must have chosen Palin as an excuse. He's going to lose, but now he has something to blame it on.
I'm not sure McCain is that smart, but I'm not sure he's that stupid either. In any case, I'll be amazed if he wins.
[ September 02, 2008, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I read a comment on a blog that said McCain must have chosen Palin as an excuse. He's going to lose, but now he has something to blame it on.
I'm not sure McCain is that smart, but I'm not sure he's that stupid either. In any case, I'll be amazed if he wins.
Putting impartiality aside for a moment, I hope you're right. But I don't think at 72 McCain is intentionally playing any part of his campaign to lose.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If I had to guess, I'd say he probably knew most of what is coming out. Either he's utterly feebleminded, or he knew it all and didn't care. I think the latter is plausible. He didn't care because so long as he can sell his "Maverick" credentials, then the more and more that comes out about Palin's ultra-social conservative views the better. He can go after independents while she sates the hardcore Right (which only improves the comparisons to the last season of the West Wing, creepily enough, actually, BOTH VP picks do that. Biden is Leo).
Still, if he did know, he's playing it all wrong in the press. A new story is coming out every day about Palin. Pregnant daughter, ultra-conservative social views, tried to ban books, claims she's against ear marks but has lobbied hard to secure them for her city and then her state, culminating in the bridge fiasco and who knows what else is to come. If McCain knew about everything, he's doing a horrible job of spinning it. If he didn't, then he did a horrible job of vetting her.
I agree with a lot of the pundits who say that at the end of the day, people vote top of the ticket. I think that maybe though, this election will be an exception with McCain's age and health a major concern for a lot of people. Few are afraid that Biden will have to take over, but know that he could if he had to. But some are concerned that Palin really could take over. I think that'll probably increase support in a few states that Obama was challenging that usually he wouldn't have a chance in. States like Georgia, North Carolina, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia. If it comes down to a few thousand votes or a couple percent points, she might be able to keep them on the Red side of things. But I think she'll spook moderates and independents all over the board. She was McCain's attempt to combat the overwhelming turnout/enthusiasm advantage that Obama has right now. The election is still 60 days away, and regardless of all this theorizing, I still think the debates are going to really decide this thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "I do think she should be asked if, given what happened, she would have preferred that her daughter was taught how to use birth control and that it was readily available for her" seems to imply that nobody taught her daughter to use birth control and/or that it wasn't readily available to her daughter.
These things may be true. I think the point of ever bringing this up would be to ask, "is it better to tell your kids to not have sex, period (avoiding all discussion of protection), or is it better to reasonably suggest that they not have sex, explain the consequences, and then explain methods of protection carefully and thoroughly."
The biggest problem with "abstinence only" education is, at least to me, that it is unreasonable to suggest that a majority of young people (age 17-20, say), are going to abstain from sex completely. I don't even think they should abstain, and I think approaching that group with an attitude of "no sex till marriage" is going to be a losing battle until the end of time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the rub might come in having that same discussion with 13-15 year olds. Unless you live in a hole, by the time you're in college, I can't imagine you haven't figured a lot of that stuff out. Health class in junior high and high school never talked about protection methods. I found out through pop culture, friends, and the internet. I have no idea how able the parents of kids who want to shield their kids are at blocking their access to the outside world, but by the time they hit the 17-20 range, I think the cat is out of the bag, and I think that at that age, you're a lot more responsible for your own actions. Actually by 20 you really should be solely responsible for your own actions.
I think the rub is more of the 13-15 age range. I think it's extremely reasonable to expect that kids in that age range abstain from sex totally, and I think you get a lot of opposition to teaching comprehensive sex ed at that age because they feel like it's introducing something far beyond their years into their orbit where it shouldn't be.
It's not a black and white issue, and while I personally support a more comprehensive sex education, I realize there are a lot of degrees within in the conversation.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote: Personally, I was having sex at that age so I wouldn't be very comfortable saying jack about it. Just sayin.
Were you using reliable birth control?
Depends on how reliable condoms are. I thought those annual birth control specials in the teen magazines gave them a failure rate of about 12%, but I've heard other people dispute that.
Fortunately, after the first couple months my periods got so bad that I had to go on the Pill anyway. Not only have I not gotten pregnant in 12 years, but I feel much better now.
Hooray birth control!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I read a comment on a blog that said McCain must have chosen Palin as an excuse. He's going to lose, but now he has something to blame it on.
I'm not sure McCain is that smart, but I'm not sure he's that stupid either. In any case, I'll be amazed if he wins.
Actually, while I was never going to vote for Obama, I wasn't planning on voting for McCain, either. Now I think I am. I think you're very mistaken if you think this choice hasn't helped.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What about her makes you want to vote for McCain?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Still, if he did know, he's playing it all wrong in the press. A new story is coming out every day about Palin. Pregnant daughter, ultra-conservative social views, tried to ban books, claims she's against ear marks but has lobbied hard to secure them for her city and then her state, culminating in the bridge fiasco and who knows what else is to come. If McCain knew about everything, he's doing a horrible job of spinning it. If he didn't, then he did a horrible job of vetting her.
If only the press could have done this much work this fast when Obama first started to run. Those liberal blogs, especially DailyKos are doing a tremendous amount of work uncovering or completely making up dirt about Palin. Too bad they were so silent on Obama and Biden.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If only the press could have done this much work this fast when Obama first started to run.
Are you implying that Obama's children are pregnant? Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Ah cheery, so if McCain is Tigh, that would seem to make Palin, Roslin ... of course this being the Internet someone is already ahead of me. link Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What about her makes you want to vote for McCain?
Because out of the four folks running this fall (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin), Sarah Palin is the one I'd choose to be president. McCain is old. If he makes it through his four years, it's unlikely he'll run again, and maybe Palin will. And then again, maybe McCain won't make it. Either way, it'll be a good thing.
She's a fiscal conservative. Okay, she's no Ron Paul, but she seems to have more common sense than the average run of Washington bozo.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Are you implying that Obama's children are pregnant?
No, but we should do a complete and thorough investigation of them. Perhaps they are crayon stealers or even worse! What kind of grades are they getting? Maybe they are too talkative in their classes which would surely impact Obama's ability to be President.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
or more correctly, how about a rehash of why Dukakis defeated Biden, or maybe a huge indepth examination of why Biden's son and Biden's brother are under investigation? No? Hmmm, I wonder why?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Ahh ditto heads. You got to love them and their talking points.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Because it would not sell newspapers. People aren't going to get excited over a rehash of why Dukakis defeated Biden. People are going to get excited when somebody they've never heard of is nominated as the first female Republican candidate for president and it turns out she has multiple scandals going on, including a pregnant teenage daughter (particularly when the mother is trying to make the case that she represents "family values"). It may not be a good thing for American politics that this is what people pay the most attention to, but the media generally has a pretty good idea what people will go out and read about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Where do you get the idea that Gov. Palin is a fiscal conservative?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So no investigation of Biden's son and Biden's brother? Wouldn't that make a great story?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
no because merely being related doesn't make you an accomplice to anything.
Also dear god Palin seems worse and worse every day I started out "Huh, she seems alright, unexpected by alright" to now "dear god she'll destroy everything"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
DK, What makes you say they aren't investigating it? The Washington Post did a story on it on August 24 ( link) the day after Obama announced he was the nominee.
The New York Times ran a story on it on August 25 link. The LA Times ran a story on it on August 27 and 28.
You should also note that Palin's daughters pregnancy was announced by the family, not the newspapers.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
Right, because the MSM was busy running with outrageous rumors from the DailyKOS.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
MSM is Main Stream Media - meaning television stations, traditional newspapers, etc. None of these printed or televised rumors about Palin's daughter until after it was announced by the family. The rumors came from nontraditional media, such as bloggers - or threads on Hatrack...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cactus Jack: Right, because the MSM was busy running with outrageous rumors from the DailyKOS.
Give me a link to any place in the MSM that ran rumors about Palin's daughter prior to the families announcement.
As I pointed out before, three purportedly liberal main stream newspapers (Washington Post, NY Times and LA Times) were running stories on Biden's family members financial scandals within as little as 24 hours after Obama announced he was the VP choice. So show me one mainstream news outlet that said anything about Palin's daughters problems prior to when the family announced it.
If you are going to count rumors reported on liberal blogs, then they need to be compared to rumors that Obama is actually a muslim terrorist and other lies being spread by wight wing wackos. And I might note that those links have been made by people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who are much closer to being in the MSM than the DailyKOS.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: DK, What makes you say they aren't investigating it? The Washington Post did a story on it on August 24 ( link) the day after Obama announced he was the nominee.
The New York Times ran a story on it on August 25 link. The LA Times ran a story on it on August 27 and 28.
Front page news for the Times? Post? Major TV networks? Nope. Buried in the back. Has the Times covered that scandal the same way they are covering Palin's daughter's pregnancy? Being pregnant is more of a story than being indicted for fraud?
Palin's daughter's pregnancy and the associated smear campaign was already launched by liberal blogs before the family announced it. I suspect you knew that though DailyKos
quote: Give me a link to any place in the MSM that ran rumors about Palin's daughter prior to the families announcement.
CNN? First clip Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
DK, That clip was first broadcast after the McCain campaign made the announcement. CNN admits they were investigating the scandalous rumors that were being spread on the internet when they received word that announcement was going to be made. That isn't the same as reporting unfounded rumors. You are going to have to try harder because this doesn't back your claim.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
DailyKOS hardly qualifies as the MSM.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
It doesn't? That is where CNN got their lead to start attacking a pregnant teenager
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
Okay, I know what MSM stands for.
The rumors that Palin's 5th child was actually her grandchild started with a youtube video.
This video was linked to by the DailyKOS.
Then, Andrew Sullivan pickedupthe baton. Sullivan is actually the bridge point, in that he's a blogger, but a blogger who blogs for a MSM website (The Atlantic magazine), and it was when he started talking about it, that other MSM news outlets started feeling justified in "getting it out there."
So we had 2 cases of the "New Media" branches of the MSM carrying the story.
And of course by then, the MSM started asking questions about it at the press conferences with the campaign advisers. While the blog posts themselves were hard to justify as news, a comment by a campaign rep about the rumors was not hard to justify at all. So while the public had not yet associated the story with MSM, it was MSM reporters who were asking questions about it and investigating the story, so the MSM had already become involved in the story from the campaign's perspective.
By Sunday night, DailyKOS had already decided they were wrong. But by their "unanswered questions," it's clear they were actually moving further away from the truth, not closer.
But yeah, as far as I can tell, there aren't any MSM stories through old media outlets during that time frame over the weekend. All the MSM old media reporting of the "rumors" were in articles about the official announcement on Monday.
This is exactly what happened as near as I can figure it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: If only the press could have done this much work this fast when Obama first started to run. Those liberal blogs, especially DailyKos are doing a tremendous amount of work uncovering or completely making up dirt about Palin. Too bad they were so silent on Obama and Biden.
Not just the pot calling the kettle black, but the pot calling the silverware black.
If there's so much coming up on Palin, it's in a large part because so many people hadn't even heard of her before this point.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The left wing bloggers and leftwing mainstream media seem to be very afraid of Gov. Palin. Why are they so desperate to tear her down? What about her frightens them so much?--That she is conservative, a successful reformer, and a virtual Wonder Woman who has excelled at everything she has done? Why are they deploying armies of investigators to try to dig up any dirt on her, as if her amazingly successful career must be scandal-ridden?
No men have ever been asked if they would have time to tend to their kids while they were in office. Sexism lives.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:The left wing bloggers and leftwing mainstream media seem to be very afraid of Gov. Palin. Why are they so desperate to tear her down?
Cute.
And if no one said anything about her, you'd be here saying how perfect and spotlessly clean she is Ron.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The left wing bloggers and leftwing mainstream media seem to be very afraid of Gov. Palin. Why are they so desperate to tear her down? What about her frightens them so much?--That she is conservative, a successful reformer, and a virtual Wonder Woman who has excelled at everything she has done? Why are they deploying armies of investigators to try to dig up any dirt on her, as if her amazingly successful career must be scandal-ridden
It's all a mass conspiracy Ron. I thought you knew this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Afraid of Candidate Palin? Not really, though I have over estimated the electorate before.
Afraid of VP or even President Palin? You betcha. From her policy positions to the fact that she strikes me as being stubborn, reckless, and clueless, darn right I am afraid of what she would do in the White House.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What about her makes you want to vote for McCain?
Because out of the four folks running this fall (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin), Sarah Palin is the one I'd choose to be president. McCain is old. If he makes it through his four years, it's unlikely he'll run again, and maybe Palin will. And then again, maybe McCain won't make it. Either way, it'll be a good thing.
She's a fiscal conservative. Okay, she's no Ron Paul, but she seems to have more common sense than the average run of Washington bozo.
Lisa's right in everything she said here. Sarah Palin goes a long way in helping me hold back the vomit in the polling booth.
Before, I was going to vote for Barr if California wasn't in play, and only vote for McLame if it was. Now I might vote for McLame in either case.
(Because no matter what, the Obamanation needs to be kept out of the White House.)
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:No men have ever been asked if they would have time to tend to their kids while they were in office. Sexism lives.
That is true and Gov. Palin will face more I am sure. However, I would have taken you more seriously if you had said *anything* about the sexism faced by Hillary Clinton at the hands of the people who you tend to agree with most of the time.
It is really easy to blame the MSM or the liberal media or whatever easy excuse you want to give, but it takes much more to actually face the problem and not go for the easy scapegoat. The other day on CNN, one of the spokeswomen for Sen. McCain said that much of the Sarah Palin stuff was coming up because of the liberal elite media from New York (forget that the inherent implication is that those media types were New York Jews) and it took Wolf Blitzer to point out that the Alaskan media had been all over these stories. I highly doubt that the Alaskan media is part of that northeast liberal elite media that McCain seems to love to scapegoat for his own failings. And all of it just means that people are going to hate each other even more, they will see the "injustice" of the liberal media and become more and more divided, and once again the culture wars will move to the forefront. Of course, that is when I bang my head on the wall and once again wonder about the sanity of American politics.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What on earth is appealing about the idea of having her in the White House? She is not a fiscal conservative - look at her record. She is a social conservative. Honestly, please explain it to me because I don't get it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:No men have ever been asked if they would have time to tend to their kids while they were in office. Sexism lives.
Edwards got a lot of flack for continuing to run after his wife's cancer was revealed. And frankly I think men should be asked that question in similar situations.
The bloggers are doing the vetting job that McCain's people did not. But I would like to see the media drop the pregnancy issue and move on. I am far more interested in the flip-flops on pork and the Bridge to Nowhere, the creationism and book-banning, the heavy-handed way she governed, and her positions, if any, on the economy and foreign policy.
Right now the GOP move is to react angrily to the MSM feeding frenzy - even the part they make up - because that helps them a lot. They can draw together with a shared enemy and they can paint any and all questions concerning her abilities as sexist.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What about her makes you want to vote for McCain?
Because out of the four folks running this fall (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin), Sarah Palin is the one I'd choose to be president. McCain is old. If he makes it through his four years, it's unlikely he'll run again, and maybe Palin will. And then again, maybe McCain won't make it. Either way, it'll be a good thing.
She's a fiscal conservative. Okay, she's no Ron Paul, but she seems to have more common sense than the average run of Washington bozo.
Lisa's right in everything she said here. Sarah Palin goes a long way in helping me hold back the vomit in the polling booth.
Before, I was going to vote for Barr if California wasn't in play, and only vote for McLame if it was. Now I might vote for McLame in either case.
(Because no matter what, the Obamanation needs to be kept out of the White House.)
Why? Do you honestly believe that McCain (likely to die in office) or Palin could do anything good for the nation? Do they stand for anything of substance? They do not stand for fiscal responsibility, they do not stand for multilateral cooperation, they do not stand to help the middle and lower classes in their day to day struggles, and they do not stand for energy security for easily accessible mass transit.
Palin's only pro is that she has the MILF factor going for her.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote: And all of it just means that people are going to hate each other even more, they will see the "injustice" of the liberal media and become more and more divided, and once again the culture wars will move to the forefront.
That is, I believe, exactly why Andrew Sullivan has been hammering on the Palin questions as they come up. The farther the Republican Party moves into the win-at-all-costs, salt-the-earth-behind-you area, the more agitated he gets. I don't blame him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: But I would like to see the media drop the pregnancy issue and move on. I am far more interested in the flip-flops on pork and the Bridge to Nowhere, the creationism and book-banning, the heavy-handed way she governed, and her positions, if any, on the economy and foreign policy.
Right now the GOP move is to react angrily to the MSM feeding frenzy - even the part they make up - because that helps them a lot. They can draw together with a shared enemy and they can paint any and all questions concerning her abilities as sexist.
Yes. Exactly.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The enemy of my enemy will vote for me.
Wit and wisdom of Karl Rove.
I've seen more Conservative Press striving hard to keep this Palin's Family Issue alive than I've seen liberal or moderate press delve into it. Sure its a nice bit of juicy gossip, but that's all.
I do believe she'll make a great movie someday--along the lines of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
However, we shall have to see which is more closer to reality, that movie or the story that the Republicans are building about her....
there are already strong questions about how long she's been a Maverick. Her anti-ear mark stance has been attacked (as mayor she brought in a load of earmarks). Her previous connection with the Alaskan Independence Party is a fun discussion.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
I guess for some people, sexuality isn't the single all-consuming aspect of their identity, and their vote is informed by a variety of different factors.
I don't understand why it's basically assumed that members of certain demographics "must" want to vote certain ways, when individuals are so much more complicated than the groups they're lumped into.
For instance, I could vote for someone who was ignorant and distrustful about Mormonism if I thought they were the best choice for their job, and their job didn't involve unilaterally deciding what happened to the Mormons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. I am asking what "different factors" would persuade a non social conservative who was iffy on Senator McCain to be excited about Gov. Palin.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
because she's female? *remembers latest Daily Show*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: (Because no matter what, the Obamanation needs to be kept out of the White House.)
Amen.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
I guess for some people, sexuality isn't the single all-consuming aspect of their identity, and their vote is informed by a variety of different factors.
And again, amen.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Palin's only pro is that she has the MILF factor going for her.
Oink. You're repulsive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: because she's female? *remembers latest Daily Show*
As I have said before, we are not all interchangable.
If the reason is because you are anti-Obama, why wouldn't you have voted for Senator McCain regardless? Why does Gov. Palin tip the balance?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I have said before, we are not all interchangable.
I wish the people saying that Palin appeals to evangelicals but not women would remember that.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: because she's female? *remembers latest Daily Show*
As I have said before, we are not all interchangable.
If the reason is because you are anti-Obama, why wouldn't you have voted for Senator McCain regardless? Why does Gov. Palin tip the balance?
The daily show I saw made exactly this point (that we are not interchangeable) and I figured that was Blayne's point.
Yeah, I kind of want to know this, too. HOW does Palin shift undecideds towards McCain? Are those that are shifting more to the right of McCain? I mean specifically those who have said so here -- I can look at polls online and all that.
Personally, what is it about her?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:As I have said before, we are not all interchangable.
I wish the people saying that Palin appeals to evangelicals but not women would remember that.
Valid point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Palin has done a good job of getting a large number of people who were going to vote for McCain anyway (but who were not very enthusiastic about it in the first place) to come out and say oh man yeah I'm totally voting for that ticket *now* — she's rallied the theocrats, and the 'down wit da fed' style libertarians.
Great?
Unfortunately, it has caused undecideds and moderates to back away from McCain swiftly.
Obama's never posted numbers as high as what he's got now, and Palin's image is being flooded. In a week or so, if this sort of thing keeps up, it may be safe to say that if McCain wins, it will be despite Palin.
quote:I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
I am never surprised when other types of americans get swayed into voting against their own interests, why not the gays?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: because she's female? *remembers latest Daily Show*
As I have said before, we are not all interchangable.
If the reason is because you are anti-Obama, why wouldn't you have voted for Senator McCain regardless? Why does Gov. Palin tip the balance?
The daily show I saw made exactly this point (that we are not interchangeable) and I figured that was Blayne's point.
Yeah, I kind of want to know this, too. HOW does Palin shift undecideds towards McCain? Are those that are shifting more to the right of McCain? I mean specifically those who have said so here -- I can look at polls online and all that.
Personally, what is it about her?
I don't think she's as much about shifting support from Obama to McCain, she's about getting people who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. Look at Pix and Lisa. They weren't going to go for Obama, but they were hesitant to vote for McCain. McCain is trying to get the people who were going to just stay home to the polls. I think this move signifies a certain amount of retreat from the political center. You don't choose someone like Palin to win the center, to choose her to bolster the Right and the disaffected anti-Obama crowd. She's there for the turnout game, not the fight for independents.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I've actually heard very little on Palin's positions. All the news is tied up in her scandles.
But what I HAVE heard is that, Like The Obamanation and McLame, her stated position is that she's against equal marriage rights. However, she DID veto a bill that would have denied domestic partner bennies for alaska state employees.
Stuff I like: Agressive in the war on terror Pro Gun Drill Drill Drill
Stuff I don't like: Pro-Life Anti Equal marriage rights.
If anyone else knows more about her positions I would love to hear them. Especially her positions on rolling back the size of the federal government and cutting taxes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: However, she DID veto a bill that would have denied domestic partner bennies for alaska state employees.
Right. It's like with Ron Paul. Both of them have personal views that are anti-gay. But both of them have shown that they'll oppose anti-gay measures if they run counter to constitutional considerations. Ron Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sarah Palin vetoed that bill.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know she's called Obama's windfall profits tax a good idea, and instituted something similar in Alaska. Other than that, I don't think she's really stated her positions on specific programs and taxes at the national level.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:She's there for the turnout game, not the fight for independents.
Evidently.
quote: among the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure. More to the point: among undecideds, 59 percent said Palin was unready to be president. Only 6 percent said she was. If the first criterion for any job is whether you're ready for it, this is a pretty major indictment of the first act of McCain's presidential leadership.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: (Because no matter what, the Obamanation needs to be kept out of the White House.)
Amen.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
I guess for some people, sexuality isn't the single all-consuming aspect of their identity, and their vote is informed by a variety of different factors.
And again, amen.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Palin's only pro is that she has the MILF factor going for her.
Oink. You're repulsive.
Whats wrong with thinking an older female attractive? Stop being butch.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I get that. I get that she excites the social conservatives. I am curious about why someone who is not a social conservative - would be excited about her.
Dagonee, I agree. I think, though, that in this context, they are talking about wooing away disappointed supporters of Senator Clinton. Also "women's issues" has become shorthand for things like reproductive rights, equal pay, and healthcare. I agree that it is misleading shorthand.
edit to add: She vetoed the bill to provide benefits even though she supported it because she was advised that it would not stand a constitutional lawsuit.
quote: "It is the Governor's intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue," the statement from Palin's administration said. ... On Dec. 20, Palin signed a bill that calls for an advisory vote on whether there should be a constitutional amendment denying benefits to same-sex couples. The vote, set for a special election on April 3, will be nonbinding but is intended to help guide legislators, Palin has said.
[ September 03, 2008, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
boots: likewise, why should pro-gay people be excited by an anti equal marriage rights candidate like The Obamanation?
When everyone running wants to keep you a second class citizen, it cancels out.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Agressive in the war on terror Pro Gun Drill Drill Drill
*sigh* when will people realize that the "war on terror" is inherently unwinnable with military means? Its a specops/opsfor/spook/police/interpol sort of thing not invade countries supporting terror sort of thing. Intelligence, counter intelligence, coordination between the Great Powers counter terrorism institutions all who have a personal stake in maintaining the status quo.
For as long as there is even ONE nutcase with some homebade blackpowder and a school bag the war on terror will continue and consume billions of dollars which could have spent elsewhere and done by pre-2001 means and police budgets.
The pro-gun argument is "meh" I personally support the right to collect historical firearms and working replicas (Mosin-Nagant, Luger pistol, maybe restore a working T-34 etc), rifles for hunting (animals not people), and up to maybe 2 registered hand guns for personal defence with a expirable license that requires upkeep and a yearly fee and semi regular small arms proficiency tests and constant record checkups.
The motto or perhaps slang of "drill drill drill" is retarded. We need additional nuclear power plants pronto. End of story ignore all the hippies who stand in the way THEY ARE WRONG AND RETARDED and don't have a single one of their facts straight.
What was it? 400 new plants could make the US 100 percent self sufficient on energy needs? And there's what? Enough uranium to last humanity 100,000 years?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: The war on terror has been argued to death. Your dismissal of the other side doesn't win the argument.
I'd be VERY HAPPY if we'd build 400 nuclear plants. But, for the most part, the people who are keeping us from Drill Drill Drilling are the same people who shackled and continue to shackle the nuclear industry.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: As a *hypothesis* as to what gives, I may note that some people do not simply list out the issues and then dispassionately vote based on the degree of correlation.
As amusing as the Blayne/Lisa interaction is, we can't entirely throw out idea that a candidate's attractive personal appearance can affect the vote.
Similarly, there is the "who would I most like to have a beer with" factor or the "who is a maverick and less likely to be an establishment flunkie" factor.
Given a pool of non-single issue undecided voters, some of these (trivial?) factors may be able to tip the balance.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mucus: Uh.. with me it DOES come down to a list of issues, their importance and their correlation with how I think things ought to be done.
Of course, the person needs to be able to win. I can't vote 3rd party and have the greater of the two great evils (that would be Obama) win.
I don't understand people who say things like "I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman" (a co-worker actually said that to me) or "I'm voting for Obama because it'll be nice to have a black man finally in the white house."
If you vote for someone based on physical characteristics, you should restrain yourself from voting because you're too stupid to use the force of the ballot on your fellow citizens.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: The war on terror has been argued to death. Your dismissal of the other side doesn't win the argument.
I'd be VERY HAPPY if we'd build 400 nuclear plants. But, for the most part, the people who are keeping us from Drill Drill Drilling are the same people who shackled and continue to shackle the nuclear industry.
Incidentally, Obama has come out in favor of nuclear power. Admittedly, his endorsement of the idea is probably weaker than you'd like (he emphasizes "safe" nuclear power), but he supports it. He even mentioned it during his convention speech, and got some heat from liberal activists for it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Pixiest: "some people" != all people
But as you've noted, there are people which will factor in whether a candidate is black or a woman when voting. It is not a stretch that there are people which will factor in attractiveness.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"However, she DID veto a bill that would have denied domestic partner bennies for alaska state employees."
Not because she thought they should have them. Quite the opposite, actually. She vetoed it because it would be unconstitutional.From the Anchorage Daily News at the time:
quote:In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.
Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.
"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration Thursday night.
Now, someone who upholds the constitution over her personal beliefs does get points with me, but efforts to paint her as somehow moderate on homosexuals are wasted.
Both Obama and McCain have said they are against gay marriage. However, Obama is for civil unions, gay adoption and gay partner benefits, and against discrimination, the DOMA, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. (source, but Google "obama gay rights" and read the links) I think that's a little different than just saying they cancel out, yes?
Hell, Obama mentioned gay rights in his nomination acceptance speech last week:
quote:I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. (transcript)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Obama is running on the Clinton '92 play book.
"The Man From Hope" ran on change, just like Obama is today.
He promised a middle class tax cut with increased taxes only on the very wealthy.(Just like Obama is promising) We got the tax increase on the upper middle class and higher, and that middle class tax cut... well, that never happened.
Clinton promised gays in the military (that was the big thing back then) and instead, we got Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.
How many times will you people far for that baloney?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This makes, what, twice? Don't think that counts as a pattern yet. And Obama did work against workplace discrimination in Illinois, and spoke to churches about combating homophobia.
Look, if you don't like him, fine, nothing I say would change that. But why come down on him (or McCain) for something he hasn't done yet? Right now all we have to go on is what the candidates say they'll do and what they've already done. Obama has been very forthright about his beliefs: doesn't believe gay marriage works with his Christianity, but does support gay rights in every other particular, which is far better than you'll get from McCain.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: boots: likewise, why should pro-gay people be excited by an anti equal marriage rights candidate like The Obamanation?
When everyone running wants to keep you a second class citizen, it cancels out.
I get wanting to vote against Senator Obama - I don't agree obviously, but I understand how it makes sense. I don't get why Gov. Palin is a net positive.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
boots: Because I agree with her on other issues. Like Drilling, Guns and the War on Terror.
Chris: His Christianity shouldn't be running the country. One expects such crap from republicans, but when a democrat won't stand up for gay marriage who the hell will?
One would think that a black man, of all people would be sensitive to the heavy foot of the majority on the neck of a minority. I have little patience or forgiveness for someone who gets their own (relatively) equal rights (and with a black man as a presidential candidate for the largest party in America, can we say that black people have gotten their rights yet?) and then actively stands in the way of others getting their own equal rights.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: boots: Because I agree with her on other issues. Like Drilling, Guns and the War on Terror.
Senator McCain is for all of those, too.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
boots: McLame also has a history of getting in the way of tax cuts. Not to mention his revolting disregard of the first amendment (McCain-Feingold).
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Pix, just want to clarify. You're aware that Obama's "civil unions" would be for everybody - gay, straight, or other - and would be a contract with the state providing equal legal benefits - gay, straight, or other. Then, if a straight couple wanted to go get "married" in their church, they are free to do that, and if a gay couple wants to get "married" in their church they are free to do that (and I know there are at least a couple faiths, at least here in Canada, which will "marry" gay couples).
Of course, it's all just a bunch of silly terminology wrangling and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just allow "gay marriage", as it comes out to exactly the same thing. But if - due to the Republicans use of this as a wedge issue - it's the best way not to hurt people feelings about a word, why not go for it?
Also, if anyone's interested, this website (Palin-Digest) is a list of negatives on Palin. Heads up for people who need talking points/want to know what they're going to need to defend against.
Edit: For those who don't want to go to the link, the things's I find the most troubling:
quote: Palin Obtained $27 Million In Earmarks As Mayor Of Wasilla. As mayor of Wasilla, AK, Palin “hired a private lobbyist to help the tiny town secure earmarks from [Sen. Ted] Stevens.” “The town obtained 14 earmarks, totaling $27 million between 2000-2003.” [Associated Press, 9/3/08]
quote: Palin Supports Teaching Creationism In Public Schools. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Palin “said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public classrooms.” [Anchorage Daily News, 10/27/06]
quote: Palin Forced Top Wasilla Employees To Resign As Loyalty Test. As Mayor of Wasilla in 1998, “asked all of the city’s top managers to resign in order to test their loyalty to her administration.”[Daily Sitka Sentenial, 10/28/06]
quote: Palin Used Mayoral Office Resources For Campaigning. During her 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor, Palin ordered campaign materials from City Hall, had them delivered there, and used city employees on city-aid time to arrange campaign events. According to the Anchorage Daily News, there was “no indication she repaid the city for the incidental expenses the city incurred.” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/21/06]
quote: Palin Left Wasilla $20 Million In Debt. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin cut taxes while simultaneously expanding the town’s operating budget by almost $2 million. She ended her term in 2002 with Wasilla $20 million in debt. [Anchorage Daily News 10/23/06; the Politico, 8/29]
[ September 03, 2008, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: Palin Characterized Ron Paul As ‘Cool.’
OH MY GOD!
The scandals just keep on coming.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:One would think that a black man, of all people would be sensitive to the heavy foot of the majority on the neck of a minority. I have little patience or forgiveness for someone who gets their own (relatively) equal rights (and with a black man as a presidential candidate for the largest party in America, can we say that black people have gotten their rights yet?) and then actively stands in the way of others getting their own equal rights.
The wording is a little vindictive, but I agree. It amounts to higher standards for women and minority candidates. But if it's a decision between having higher standards for women and minorities, and having them lose, or lowering the standards to match the current white male general morality, and having them win, then I'll take my high-minded losers.
____
Apparently Romney is going to take some shots at Michelle Obama. I don't think highly of Romney, but that's not the issue. The Obama campaign does not get to say "Families are off limits" but then take shots at McCain's houses flowing from Cindy McCain's wealth.
[ September 03, 2008, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The Obama campaign does not get to say "Families are off limits" but then take shots at McCain's houses flowing from Cindy McCain's wealth.
Do they get to say "Families are off limits" but still take shots at Cindy McCain's husband?
Your definition of what counts as an attack on McCain's family sounds pretty expansive. Nobody's saying anything bad about Cindy. She's not the one who forgot about the houses.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
What's going on is that Palin (who has recently decided to refuse to testify for the Legislature's ethics violation probe) has launched a complaint against herself to the Personnel Board and asked that the Legislature stop its investigation.
Why would she do this? Well, the Legislature's investigation is being lead by a Democrat, while the Personnel Board is made up of people who were appointed by her.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
The more I see Palin the more I am feeling queesy. I don't like her God politics.
quote: Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
quote: Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets. "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
...ick.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
The problem with drilling is that it will not break the economic dependense on oil. The reason gas prices are so high is because there are only about five major countries producing oil. Also there are very few major pipelines supplying countries with oil. A few well placed terrorist bombs could destroy saudi arabia's ability to ship oil around the world. That could crush the economy of the US. Our economy is completely dependant on oil. Not just foreign oil, but oil. Although their could be greater reserves of oil out there that still will not help when the oil dries up and we enter a depression.
And can you tell me what McCains good points are I haven't heard 1.
[ September 03, 2008, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: T:man ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm going to agree with you on that one Dag. In my experience, curriculum decision should be made as close to the classroom as possible. The further the decision makers are from the actual classrooms, the worse the decisions tend to be.
Having had personal contact with "no child left behind," and the teachers who have to deal with it, I wholeheartedly agree with this. The government will never be able to create effective policy on education on a national level, if any part of their policy demands specific outcomes in specific areas of performance.
I'll add that, as it stands, NCLB is openly racist, gives no regard to social growth among children, and is a frustration to teachers who must teach toward the test.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Of course, it's all just a bunch of silly terminology wrangling and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just allow "gay marriage", as it comes out to exactly the same thing. But if - due to the Republicans use of this as a wedge issue - it's the best way not to hurt people feelings about a word, why not go for it?
I'm not sure it's simply a problem of semantics. One possible reading of the term "civil union" is that it can be seen as a term that must be applied to something that is less than love between gay males or females, and that, the love they share is not good enough for "marriage". In other words, "civil union" is a term that refers to the idea that we will give gay couples the exact rights that marriage does, since that is constitutional, but we will allow and institutionalize bias against homosexuals by calling it something less than "marriage".
quote:How many times will you people far for that baloney?
See, this is what I don't understand about you Pixiest. You make decent points that are reasoned and logical, and though I may disagree with you on those points, I look at what you said before this as the kind of political rhetoric that might actually be useful. And then you sound like Blayne when you say that. When Lisa said that he was a pig, she was right, and the whole "butch" thing is simply offensive and Blayne needs to be told that. It's not that you are sexist, it's that you are dismissive an extreme.
I don't understand why politics have to be this way. Maybe you can try to explain it to me Pixiest...
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
I can't think of words that will express how much I dislike Guliani right now. What a schmuck.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Obama is running on the Clinton '92 play book.
"The Man From Hope" ran on change, just like Obama is today. ...
How many times will you people far for that baloney?
I like your rhetoric. It seems almost to suggest that it's baloney to believe it's change if you swap out the GOP with the Dems in the white house.
Clever. Doesn't hold water, of course, but clever.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
--Enigmatic
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, nice!
Peggy Noonan. Peggy noonan saying
"It's over."
and
"The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullshit about narratives," she said. "Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it."
Murphy chimed in:
"The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical."
"And as you called it, gimmicky."
Noonan is going to get hammered for that. She's going to have to make a statement soon saying that 'no, that's not what I meant, it's not 'over' over, per se..'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay. Wait. Watching her speak.
Uh, what is .. everyone else's take on her qualities as a public speaker.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Anyone watching Palin right now?
I had to change the channel. Couldn't take her cookie-cutter conservative pandering crap anymore. To all you honest conservatives out there, I'm really sorry.
edit: Oh good. She's done.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Pixiest, I'm really stumped here. Obama has spoken more openly about gay equality than any other candidate, worked against discrimination in Illinois, and while he is personally against gay marriage he is against amendments that ban them, indicating that if the people want it he will not stand in the way.
How is this in any way equal to McCain, as you suggested earlier ("a wash"), who has said specifically that he is against gay maariage and would seek an amendment if his state voted for it? Who is against gay adoption or benefits for gay couples?
I don't understand the scorn, I really don't. He hasn't earned it yet, not on that issue. You're punishing him for what Clinton promised and failed to deliver, and I hardly see where that is fair.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Hmmm... Palin sounds like she would make a great conservative talk show host. Not sure how her skill at insulting Obama makes her more qualified for being in line for the presidency though... It reminded me a bit of Zell Miller's "spitball" speech.
[ September 03, 2008, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Of course, it's all just a bunch of silly terminology wrangling and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to just allow "gay marriage", as it comes out to exactly the same thing. But if - due to the Republicans use of this as a wedge issue - it's the best way not to hurt people feelings about a word, why not go for it?
I'm not sure it's simply a problem of semantics. One possible reading of the term "civil union" is that it can be seen as a term that must be applied to something that is less than love between gay males or females, and that, the love they share is not good enough for "marriage". In other words, "civil union" is a term that refers to the idea that we will give gay couples the exact rights that marriage does, since that is constitutional, but we will allow and institutionalize bias against homosexuals by calling it something less than "marriage".
quote:How many times will you people far for that baloney?
See, this is what I don't understand about you Pixiest. You make decent points that are reasoned and logical, and though I may disagree with you on those points, I look at what you said before this as the kind of political rhetoric that might actually be useful. And then you sound like Blayne when you say that. When Lisa said that he was a pig, she was right, and the whole "butch" thing is simply offensive and Blayne needs to be told that. It's not that you are sexist, it's that you are dismissive an extreme.
I don't understand why politics have to be this way. Maybe you can try to explain it to me Pixiest...
Except she wasn't right, I was commenting on the attractiveness on a political candidate she insulted my decency as a human being. I can be as offensive as I like towards someone who regularly takes a swipe at me.
Also her swipe was very stereotypical butch feminazi.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Blayne, you've probably heard this before but you strike me as the kind of person who says what he thinks and is constantly surprised that people take offense. You come off as insensitive and worse, stubbornly insensitive.
The MILF comment could be funny in the right crowd. Hatrack is a large enough crowd that such a joke will fall flat on most eyes. I believe you just don't see that.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Tonight sounded a lot like 2004. Obama wants to lose the war, Obama is an elitist, et cetera. When they talk about the Enemy sometimes I wonder if they mean Al Qaeda or the DNC.
And did I catch that line right? "'Islamic terrorist' is an insult to terrorists?"
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Hmmm... Palin sounds like she would make a great conservative talk show host. Not sure how her skill at insulting Obama makes her more qualified for being in line for the presidency though... It reminded me a bit of Zell Miller's "spitball" speech.
Honestly, I was surprised. I expected Biden to give this type of speech a week ago.
Tonight energized the base; I bet McCain will go after the independents tomorrow.
--j_k
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
How they haven't gone running already is beyond me though.
The Republicans really frustrated me tonight. It's like McCain suddenly realized he was going to lose the war for Hillary supporters and moderates and independents, and did a complete 180 in an attempt to bring back the base. Does he think he's going to win by rallying the base and letting the middle fall by the wayside? Or is it a last ditch effort by a sinking ship? The rhetoric and the insults had me fuming.
edit: though i admit some of my frustration could come from the bias of being a big Obama supporter. the question is how much. were any undecideds or even republicans turned off by how the Republicans handled themselves tonight?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: I bet McCain will go after the independents tomorrow.
But how? Palin pretty much abandoned 75% of them tonight. I just don't understand what the McCain strategy could possibly be. This isn't the primaries anymore. The American public may have a short-term memory, but it's not so short that you can abandon the people likely to decide this election one night and then pander to them the next.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I can be as offensive as I like towards someone who regularly takes a swipe at me.
Yes you certainly can. I could also insult people and be a jerk to everyone I meet. Doesn't mean that I should though. The difference between should and could is an important one Blayne--check it out, you might discover something useful about who you are.
In the meantime, no comment calls for you to call someone "butch", a "feminazi", or a MILF. Those words are insulting and you should never employ them in an argument.
And Pixiest, my challenge stands.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I listened to all of Mitt Romney and almost drove my car off the road. How he of all people can talk about eastern elitists is beyond me. Giuliani and he I think will backfire on McCain. For a guy who talks about being all bipartisan and mavericky and hugs and kittens for American togetherness, that was the most anti-bipartisan, hate filled anti-half the country night of television I've ever seen. It was a hate fest. It was we hate liberals, and we're more American than they are. How do you run as the bi-partisan fight my own party candidate when your party spews that kind of vile invective? I think it'll backfire.
As for Palin, wow, boring. I guess I missed the good stuff. After the first 20 or 30 minutes I turned it off. It sounded like she was giving a book report mixed with a stand up comedy routine. I'm guessing she'll get lambasted for the whole "I said no thanks" thing, since that's pretty much been solidly debunked across the board. But it was just boring. And it dragged on and on. I guess she came out swinging at the end, but as far as I could tell, this whole night was a "Liberals hate America and we're #1, so vote for us if you love your country."
The Democratic convention took their fair share of swings at the right, but it was never, NEVER this rancorous. I think they're probably doing a bang up job of firing up the base, and a bang up job of sending independents scurrying for the hills. So good job, you guys just secured Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc etc a bunch of states you were never going to lose anyway, and pushed a whole lot of swing votes in the midwest into Obama's camp. Any time McCain tries to run an ad saying he's a moderate, Obama can have a gleefilled pick of convention clips to show them as foaming at the mouth hardcore right wingers.
Also, the Daily Show tonight was hilarious. O'Reilly, Rove and some other woman, all conservatives, got nailed for changing their tunes when it comes to conservative candidates.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Does he think he's going to win by rallying the base and letting the middle fall by the wayside?
quote:But how? Palin pretty much abandoned 75% of them tonight. I just don't understand what the McCain strategy could possibly be.
By defining Obama as a cosmopolitan East-coast liberal the GOP tried to push him outside the mainstream. Tomorrow McCain will try to place himself close to the middle -- not necessarily by reaching leftward, but by claiming that the GOP is the middle, and that the Democrats have veered off to the left. As I said, this a lot like 2004. The GOP has kept the same tone because it worked four years ago.
On the other hand, it's a risky move because the political center may not be where the GOP needs it to be: look at the President's approval ratings since 2004, and how the Palin choice affected independents' views of the ticket. Four years ago, Kerry was having a lot of trouble holding on to the pale-blue states in the midwest. Now, Obama has a decent lead in most of them, and is competing out west. It's hard to define a candidate as "not one of Us" without simultaneously implying that he is "one of Them," and this year "They" may include enough independents to swing the election.
I guess we'll see how much of a bounce she gives the GOP in a few days.
--j_k
[ September 04, 2008, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: It's hard to define a candidate as "not one of Us" without simultaneously implying that he is "one of Them," and this year "They" may include enough independents to swing the election.
Exactly. What I don't understand is how McCain isn't aware of this seemingly inevitable backfire.
On a side note, I think I've said this before, but I'm just incredibly excited that Obama actually has a realistic chance of taking Georgia. Polls still seem to have McCain leading, but it's not by much.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Incidentally, Obama has come out in favor of nuclear power. Admittedly, his endorsement of the idea is probably weaker than you'd like (he emphasizes "safe" nuclear power), but he supports it. He even mentioned it during his convention speech, and got some heat from liberal activists for it.
It's so terribly ironic that the same people who are supposed to be fighting the oil industry and out awful dependence on foreign energy sources, which has cause SO MUCH suffering, are ignoring the most obvious and immediate solution to this issue. It isn't perfect, but it's much better than war.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: boots: likewise, why should pro-gay people be excited by an anti equal marriage rights candidate like The Obamanation?
When everyone running wants to keep you a second class citizen, it cancels out.
I get wanting to vote against Senator Obama - I don't agree obviously, but I understand how it makes sense. I don't get why Gov. Palin is a net positive.
The problem Pix, is that you don't really know the line between Obama's politics and his beliefs. He may want to not have you as a second-class citizen. He may be willing to allow you to be one, or he may have a plan that is different from the one he is running on. I understand that it's frustrating to be in a position where everybody is talking like you don't matter, but I hope you do matter to one of them, and I think that if you do, it's to Obama. Just a feeling.
Still, what a crock of you know what in general that we have a liberal candidate unwilling or unable to engage on basic rights like yours.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote: It's hard to define a candidate as "not one of Us" without simultaneously implying that he is "one of Them," and this year "They" may include enough independents to swing the election.
Exactly. What I don't understand is how McCain isn't aware of this seemingly inevitable backfire.
On a side note, I think I've said this before, but I'm just incredibly excited that Obama actually has a realistic chance of taking Georgia. Polls still seem to have McCain leading, but it's not by much.
I'm guessing Palin will give him a two or three point bounce in Georgia, but frankly, I think whatever Obama's number is in Georgia, you have to add three points to it automatically anyway. If Obama is going to win Georgia, it's for two reasons: 1. Bob Barr. 2a. Black voter turnout. 2b. New voter turnout.
Almost any support Barr gets is going to be leeched from McCain. Obama has signed up tens of thousands of new voters just in Georgia, plus the influx of voters from New Orleans and surrounding areas that vote Democratic and haven't left Atlanta for home yet. Obama has the largest operation Democrats have attempted to field, ever. He's built a massive voter registration drive there, and has retained names and numbers so he can make sure those people actually show up on election day. People who usually don't bother to vote are coming out of the woodworks to register and change their party affiliation for Obama. It could have the downticket effect of ousting Saxby Chambliss from his senate seat too, but that's slightly harder than him taking the electoral votes.
I don't think the polling data there (or anywhere really) is taking into account the turnout game, and taking into account the massive amount of new voters that Obama's team has been registering in key battleground states especially. I'm not sure yet how Palin will play in Georgia. It's one of those things there misogyny and racism might just go hand in hand, and the idea of voting for a woman is just as much a turnoff as voting for a black guy. My grandfather for example, after announcing he wasn't going to vote for Obama because we're not ready for a black president, and that he was planning to vote for McCain, has since said that he won't vote for McCain either, because we aren't ready for a woman. He votes in Texas, so it's not like it matters much anyway, but there's an example. If she were a man, I think they'd eat her up, and I think they still will, but not with the same kind of enthusiasm. Georgia is going to come down to the wire I think, and might be an election day surprise for a lot of people. It would be a huge coup for Obama. He's well on his way to winning every state that Gore won, and has several more in his pocket as well. Nationally the polls might be close, but electorally, Obama is way out in front right now, with a lot of options to put him over the top.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
This is going to make for a fascinating debate. I have a very hard time believing that, taken off script, Palin will have the facts at her command sufficient to beat down Biden logically.
On the other hand, she's young, attractive, and has boatloads of folksy charm. And if you don't think that's an advantage, ask anyone who thought Bush beat Gore in 2000.
I'm not ready to handicap it yet, but it may be a more interesting contest than I'd anticipated.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Almost any support Barr gets is going to be leeched from McCain.
I hate spoiler candidates. I wish we had IRV, so that nobodies like Barr weren't taking electability away from McCain for reasons that have nothing to do with merit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, in some states Nader will be a counterbalance, but he's not going to be on every state's ballot, but it looks like he'll be on most as an independent, and available as a write-in candidate on more. I don't think he'll even get the kind of numbers he did in 2000 however. His effects as a spoiler will be limited this time around. Further, I really only see Barr being a serious factor in Georgia. I don't know of any other state (though I haven't really looked) where Barr is polling above the margin of error of even existing. But then, if Georgia flips, that could very well be a deciding factor, and Barr would be the reason unless Obama totally blows him out of the water there (unlikely).
I agree that I too hate spoilers, but I hate the control of the two-party system just as much.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: How do you run as the bi-partisan fight my own party candidate when your party spews that kind of vile invective?
Cause he's the maverick. All the Republicans are saying what the hard-core party base wants to hear and McCain is free to go another route appealing to the center and showing folks he still doesn't toe the party line.
Republicans are usually pretty good at playing politics. If they think it's a viable strategy, it probably is.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I love spoiler candidates. What I hate is the feeling of entitlement the parties have, the false dichotomies they offer in every election, and the strategy that the best way to make me like a candidate is to make me hate his/her opponent.
I've voted for major party candidates, and I've voted for third-party candidates. I won't vote for a "spoiler" if McCain or Obama convince me that they deserve my vote. But if they can't manage that, I'm grateful that I have the option to vote against both of them.
Sometimes voting for the "spoiler" is the most powerful message I can send, and the most worthwhile use of my vote, and I don't want it taken off the table.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Except she wasn't right, I was commenting on the attractiveness on a political candidate she insulted my decency as a human being.
Actually, I insulted your lack of decency as a human being. And MILF is not a comment on attractiveness. It's a lewd and crude comment. Once which contains language that's not permitted on this board, I'd add.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can be as offensive as I like towards someone who regularly takes a swipe at me.
Also her swipe was very stereotypical butch feminazi.
You are such a child.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've been looking around for someone from the McCain campaign making the case for Gov Palin as suitable for the VP spot. So far, the best I've found was the CNN interview with Tucker Bounds, who pretty clearly doesn't believe that she is.
Has anyone seen any from the McCain people that does a better job?
I don't really know much about her, but when even the people supposed to be pushing you don't think you are qualified and one of the major points you're using to sell yourself (the bridge to nowhere thing) is actually a lie, I'm very doubtful that she's ready.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Pix, just want to clarify. You're aware that Obama's "civil unions" would be for everybody - gay, straight, or other - and would be a contract with the state providing equal legal benefits - gay, straight, or other. Then, if a straight couple wanted to go get "married" in their church, they are free to do that, and if a gay couple wants to get "married" in their church they are free to do that (and I know there are at least a couple faiths, at least here in Canada, which will "marry" gay couples).
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Except she wasn't right, I was commenting on the attractiveness on a political candidate she insulted my decency as a human being.
Actually, I insulted your lack of decency as a human being. And MILF is not a comment on attractiveness. It's a lewd and crude comment. Once which contains language that's not permitted on this board, I'd add.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can be as offensive as I like towards someone who regularly takes a swipe at me.
Also her swipe was very stereotypical butch feminazi.
You are such a child.
It seems more to the point that you insulted him after he made a joke and started your guys little argument. If you found his comment offensive you should have said something other than childish name-calling.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Pix, just want to clarify. You're aware that Obama's "civil unions" would be for everybody - gay, straight, or other - and would be a contract with the state providing equal legal benefits - gay, straight, or other. Then, if a straight couple wanted to go get "married" in their church, they are free to do that, and if a gay couple wants to get "married" in their church they are free to do that (and I know there are at least a couple faiths, at least here in Canada, which will "marry" gay couples).
I'm not an expert here, but I think there's a big difference between
1) The gov't says "we recognize marriages for straight folks and civil unions for homosexuals"
and
2) The gov't says "we recognize civil unions. period. if you want to get married, go see your church but we don't care".
#1 is "separate but equal" and I think it's a disservice to the homosexual community. #2 is equal and I think is the solution we really need.
I'm not sure what Obama is proposing, but it seemed like Lord Solar Macharius was saying it was #2...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: 2) The gov't says "we recognize civil unions. period. if you want to get married, go see your church but we don't care".
I'm unclear if this means a church can perform a 'meaningless to the law' marriage only or if a church can perform a civil union only or if a church can perform a civil union and 'meaningless to the law' ceremony called marriage?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
#2 is what I personally support, but frankly I'd be okay with #1 as well. I don't think the federal government should be in the marriage business at all. But I don't think that the government can mandate marriages for gay couples. So long as both sides have the same legal rights down to the last biologically possible detail, then I don't much care what they call it.
It's not like just because on paper it's a civil union gay couples aren't going to use the terms "married," "husband," and "wife." I'm more concerned about what it is than what they call it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: 2) The gov't says "we recognize civil unions. period. if you want to get married, go see your church but we don't care".
I'm unclear if this means a church can perform a 'meaningless to the law' marriage only or if a church can perform a civil union only or if a church can perform a civil union and 'meaningless to the law' ceremony called marriage?
It means that everyone gets the same legal rights and we call that a civil union on paper. If you want to go to your church and have any sort of ceremony for whatever reason, then go for it, but it won't have any legal effect. I believe the first description, that churches will perform "meaningless to the law" marriage services, but really, isn't that already the status quo? You don't currently HAVE to get married in a church to get married officially, you don't have to have a service of any kind, all you need is a marriage license.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: It seems more to the point that you insulted him after he made a joke
He didn't make a joke. He used an obnoxious and crude term. I don't care if it's been used on 30 Rock. It's still piggish. "Mom I'd Like to F***?" That's a joke? Grow up.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Last week, Palin had me worried that the Republicans pulled off a coup that could be very bad for Democrats down the stretch.
As more information came out about her, by Yesterday I was not so worried. I am not talking about her family issues. Those are not important to the election. I am referring to things like at her church she asked that the Evangelicals pray that her gas-pipeline goes through, like her possible one-time membership in the Alaskan Independence Party, like her Pro-Earmark stance when she was mayor, like her political machinations of troopergate proportions as governor, like her performance as governor being more finishing other leader's projects instead of creating her own.
More importantly it demonstrates the difference between the two real candidates.
The first big Executive decision that any candidate makes is the choice of VP.
Senator Obama went with a reliable, well vetted, almost conservative choice.
Senator McCain went with a wild, politically motivated, untested choice. The man who wanted to shout "Country over Party" went Party over Country. It was a most non-conservative, pandering to conservative choice.
I am reminded of the movie, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". The John Wayne character is a true American Archetype, proud, brave, direct,--a Maverick. Jimmy Stewart is the hard working, deep reading, intellectual. While it is John Wayne who is the hero of the picture, it is Jimmy Stewart who gets sent to Washington to work best there.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote: It means that everyone gets the same legal rights and we call that a civil union on paper. If you want to go to your church and have any sort of ceremony for whatever reason, then go for it, but it won't have any legal effect. I believe the first description, that churches will perform "meaningless to the law" marriage services, but really, isn't that already the status quo? You don't currently HAVE to get married in a church to get married officially, you don't have to have a service of any kind, all you need is a marriage license.
Yes, I know that but my question is more along the lines of removing the authority of a church to legally join people in a 'civil union'. Would it be acceptable to you or LSM or whoever to allow churches (and judges, mayors, captains of ships, and whoever else can currently perform marriages) to perform civil unions?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
OK, you'll have to tell me if I'm just biased. But the general messages I got from the conventions so far was this:
Dems: Our opponent is a patriot, but he's wrong about the issues. Here's what's been done wrong for the last eight years, and here's how we'll fix it.
GOP: Our opponent is an elitist East Coast snob, and you should fear the media, the liberals, Islam, and whatever else we can think of.
One appeals to reason, the other to emotion. Obviously that's overgeneralized; both conventions had a bit of both. But overall the messages seemed to be that the Democrats think the Republicans are wrong and the Republicans think the Democrats are actively out to destroy America. Maybe that's why the Dems keep losing national elections in what should have been walks. (Also why Stephen Colbert is so disturbingly funny)
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I went looking for it last night after Lyrhawn posted but it wasn't up yet.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I turned off the Democratic convention in disgust over every speech being a crappy, personal attack on various members of the GOP.
I'm fine with criticizing the GOP's negativity, but the Dems are not doing better. They are definitely, definitely not doing well.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I'm waiting until McCain's speech. I expect him to approach it like Obama did, with relatively specific reasons on why he's different and correct on policy. I didn't watch any of the other speechs in the DNC so I don't know if they were as attack-sharp as Palin's.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I turned off the Democratic convention in disgust over every speech being a crappy, personal attack on various members of the GOP.
The difference is that, for the most part, when Dems make a personal attack against a specific Republican they're usually targetting the Republican's policies, actions and opinions. They aren't making character attacks.
When Republicans go on the attack they are often making character attacks. And said attacks are often only vaguely based in reality. If at all.
At least that's what I remember seeing, but I could be biased in my read of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's not what I heard.
It is what I wish were true, but that's not the discussion.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Does anybody really want to pretend that either party doesn't go after the other party in every politically advantageous way it can?
Here's what happens.
Both parties say, to paraprhase Chris, "The other guy will destroy America." To that side, they feel they're being very specific, that they're criticizing on issues that matter.
To the other side, it feels like they're saying, the other side intends to destroy America. In reality, both sides are just saying that the other party would. Through bad information, incorrect motivations, dim worldviews, inexperience, or whatever.
They use attacks that the true believers of the other party have already found satisfactory answers for, so the other party feels such attacks are "only vaugely based on reality." But neither party would have used the attacks if they felt they'd had them answered fully--so to them, it still feels like valid criticism.
It ends up being a completely different experience depending on where your loyalties lie going in. That's not a criticism of anybody--that's just the nature of conflict and human nature.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:That's not what I heard.
It is what I wish were true, but that's not the discussion.
Can you give me an example of where you feel a Democrat speaking at the convention made a character attack on a Republican?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:That's the America that George Bush has left us, and that's the future John McCain will give us
. . . But John McCain doesn't get it
. . . John McCain is my friend. We've known each other for three decades. We've traveled the world together. It's a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me. But I profoundly disagree with the direction that John wants to take the country. For example, John thinks that during the Bush years "we've made great progress economically." I think it's been abysmal. And in the Senate, John sided with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Give me a break. When John McCain proposes $200 billion in new tax breaks for corporate America, $1 billion alone for just eight of the largest companies, but no relief for 100 million American families, that's not change; that's more of the same. Even today, as oil companies post the biggest profits in history--a half trillion dollars in the last five years--he wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks. But he voted time and again against incentives for renewable energy: solar, wind, biofuels. That's not change; that's more of the same. Millions of jobs have left our shores, yet John continues to support tax breaks for corporations that send them there. That's not change; that's more of the same. He voted 19 times against raising the minimum wage. For people who are struggling just to get to the next day, that's not change; that's more of the same. And when he says he will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq when Iraq is sitting on a surplus of nearly $80 billion, that's not change; that's more of the same.
. . . The Bush-McCain foreign policy has dug us into a very deep hole with very few friends to help us climb out. For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.
. . . Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he said only three years ago, "Afghanistan--we don't read about it anymore because it's succeeded"?
. . . Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he rejected talking with Iran and then asked: What is there to talk about?
. . . Should we trust John McCain's judgment when he says there can be no timelines to draw down our troops from Iraq--that we must stay indefinitely?
Sorry that was so long. That's just about every mention of McCain in his speech. Here's Palin's comments.
quote:I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening
. . . I've noticed a pattern with our opponent. Maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate. This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger, take more of your money, give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much he promises more. Taxes are too high he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.
. . . In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
. . . And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely. There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death and that man is John McCain.
Make your own decision. To me, the "actual responsibilities," "turning back the waters and healing the planet," "Styrofoam Greek columns," and "self-designed presidential seals" were kinda snarky and superficial. Otherwise, the rest of the speeches were basically pointing out how they see the other's policy as incorrect.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Neither Biden nor Obama attacked McCain (or even Bush) on a personal level to any significant degree. In fact, both went out of their way to distinguish that they thought McCain was an excellent person even though they thought his politics were awful. Obama pretty much called him a hero. The worst they said about him was that he was out of touch with non-rich Americans.
Palin, on the other hand, barely spoke about policies (though she spent a long time on her family), and instead focused the second half of her speech on attacking Obama as a person and asserting that McCain is a better person. At one point she declared sarcasticly that Obama's old role as a community organizer lacked "actual responsibilities". At another point she suggested he uses change solely to promote his own career.
This is what has been disappointing about McCain's candidacy. He has spent years acting like a "maverick" and keeping himself independent from the Republican establishment, yet now it seems like he's given all that up in hopes of winning. He spent years developing a reputation for "stright talk" and a better sort of politics, only to resort to all the traditional political negativity in this campaign. It seems like he wanted to reach across party lines, do something truly maverick and pick Joe Lieberman - but in the end he gave in to the more extreme conservatives and gave them the sort of negative, politically-useful VP candidate they wanted. Unless he does something drastic in the coming weeks, I think we can assume he has given in to doing the politically expedient thing.
And that is the last thing we need now. We've spent years in a political dynamic that pits liberals and conservatives shamefully against eachother in mudslinging, while our own government spins us and manipulates us. That's a message Lieberman was giving the other day at the RNC, when he said national pride is more important than party pride. I think it's also the reason Obama's message of "change" has caught on so well. McCain is the sort of candidate who could capture that same independent-minded spirit, and bring Republicans back to the high road. But instead of McCain changing the way the Republican Party has been doing business in the last decade, it seems like the Republican Party in this election has changed McCain.
What McCain says tonight might help clarify whether or not this is true. Will he appeal to reason and actual policies? Or will he just appeal to emotions and play politics against his opponent's character?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whoever the joker was on the night before Biden spoke that made me turn off the radio in disgust.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm trying to figure out who that would have been. Right before Sem BIden, there was a volunteer against domestic violence who nobody has heard of and Tammy Duckworth, who spoke about veterans issues. niether of their speeches was, IMO, disgusting in their partisan attacks.
Was it earlier than that?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The night before, not right before.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...misread. Sorry. I didn't hear anyone before Sen. Clinton. I'll read the speeches.
Hmmm...Gov. Schweitzer did make a joke in reference to Sen. McCain's many houses, but everything else was tied to policy.
Gov. Strickland was snarky with the sleeping bit which could be a sly way to refer to Sen. McCain's age.
Was it one of those?
Now I'll go read the Rep speeches.
[ September 04, 2008, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I honestly don't remember what exactly was said. I do remember my disappointment and disgusted reaction.
I am also not terribly interested in "My group is less biased and nasty than the other one." If people are identifying with a "my party", then I'll assume normal, tribal human nature is in play. Partisan blindness, demonization of the Other, and defensive justification of tactics is part of the territory.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I'll stop trying to argue actual facts with you, then.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Interesting read. Worth noting that you are obviously reading one person's perspective on Palin.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, please. I gave my impressions and you're waving away the attacks you found as nothing. You're not dealing in facts at all - you're defending your corner of the playground.
As if my impression of the convention were even up for debate.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I hate election speeches.
"But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."
Obama has written one memoir and one campaign book (as opposed to McCain's three memoirs). And sponsorship of 820 laws in Illinois, authorship of 152 bills and co-sponsorship of 427 in Washington, including the 2007 Ethics Reform bill... what would she consider "major"?
"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign."
Probably because he doesn't see the war on an abstract concept as one that can be won.
"But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan?"
Maybe to return the columns to Bush? They looked an awful lot like the columns behind Bush when he accepted the 2004 nomination, but I'm sure they meant something totally different then.
"What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?"
I'll give her this one; Obama's speech was far too messianic in his laundry list of miracles.
"The answer is to make government bigger,"
Than Bush did? How?
"...take more of your money..."
If you're making more than $250,000 a year, yes. The average voter would pay less.
"...give you more orders from Washington..."
Not sure what this means.
"...and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."
I assume this means pull troops out of Iraq. On the other hand, he wants to commit more to Afghanistan to finish what we started, and go into Pakistan to find al-Queda. According to Obama's website, he wants to "build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a more robust capacity to train, equip, and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats." He also plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops.
"America needs more energy our opponent is against producing it."
Obama is against oil dependency. He is very for alternative fuels, which would be renewable and help sever the hold that middle-eastern countries currently have over us.
"Victory in Iraq is finally in sight he wants to forfeit."
Is it? It looks more like Iraq is kicking us out, whereupon they will go back to their civil war as the government tries to kick out the Sunni militants we've been paying to help the surge. And a very large chunk of Americans want us out of the war.
"Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay he wants to meet them without preconditions."
Yep, he does. And I'll bet he won't be looking into their eyes and getting a sense of their souls, either.
"Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"
I believe he's worried, as I am, that ignoring our rule of law and using an "ends justify the means" attitude towards prisoners and towards the privacy of Americans will continue to erode our country's ideals and moral high ground.
"Government is too big he wants to grow it."
I assume this is the health care thing. Otherwise Bush has grown the government more than any other recent president, its hard to see what Obama could do more.
"Congress spends too much he promises more."
And he promises to use pay-as-you-go budget restrictions to make sure it's covered, unlike the last eight years when the national debt grew by 50%.
"Taxes are too high he wants to raise them."
He wants to let Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy drop as they're scheduled to in 2010, yes. Until fairly recently so did John McCain. But Obama wants to keep the tax breaks for anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
"His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
The line that McCain has been pushing for some time now. I love the fact that it's thoroughly debunked at snopes.com (as are some of Obama's claims about McCain's tax plans).
Come to think of it, maybe we should ask snopes.com to debunk all of the candidates' speeches. Maybe in a picture-in-picture thing...
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm not trying to speak for her, but I think kmbboots was just honestly trying to figure out what you found offensive. I could completely understand being disgusted by the examples she gave.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"I am also not terribly interested in "My group is less biased and nasty than the other one.""
I'm an Independent. I favor Obama, but until this summer or so I would have been nearly as content to see McCain in office as I considered him an honorable man. Now I see him turning into exactly the sort of candidate he once despised, and I'm saddened by it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No. I was trying to understand your impression. I didn't see all of the speeches, so, rather than being dismissive, I went and checked. Looking for the actual facts of what was said. I did find some snarky stuff - which I noted.
And then I asked if it was that or if there was something I missed, giving you an opportunity to tell me I needed to look further if I still had missed it.
You, on the other hand, were dismissive. You, beyond not wanting to explore what you actually heard (which is your right), assumed a negative motivation on my part. You even said so!
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It looked like boots was trying to determine which speech the comments that made you disgusted were from, kat. It's hard to find facts (the text of the speech) when you've basically said you can't remember any of the things said.
On the other hand, I posted excerpts from Palin and Biden, two people who ARE on the ballot and deserve to have their speeches discussed. Bring in other speeches from the conventions. But saying "every speech being a crappy, personal attack" then "I honestly don't remember what exactly was said" makes us do all the work to bolster your claim.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Neither Biden nor Obama attacked McCain (or even Bush) on a personal level to any significant degree.
See, when Obama said that McCain doesn't get it, I heard, "McCain is a war hero, he is just stupid."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:See, when Obama said that McCain doesn't get it, I heard, "McCain is a war hero, he is just stupid."
The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Being a war hero shouldn't be an effective shield against criticism of one's other attributes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I heard, "McCain doesn't understand that the economy isn't working for people who aren't wealth". He tied it to the Republican policies of trickle down economics which Sen. McCain does support.
I was disappointed that Sen. Obama mentioned the "$5 million a year" line. It goes to the issue, but it was out of context and cheap.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
When you disagree with someone there are limited routes to take in explaining why you disagree. He said explicitly that one way would be to say "You don't CARE" and that he wasn't taking that tactic. The method he took is "You don't understand."
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I am also not terribly interested in "My group is less biased and nasty than the other one." If people are identifying with a "my party", then I'll assume normal, tribal human nature is in play. Partisan blindness, demonization of the Other, and defensive justification of tactics is part of the territory.
Oh sure you are Katharina. You are part of the group that assumes that you are less biased and nasty than those who identify with "my party", the only exception being that you really don't have a name for that group. It's hard to look down on people without being inconsistent and hypocritical...
quote:As if my impression of the convention were even up for debate.
This is another thing that bothers me. If my impression of the Republican National Convention was that John McCain was a Nazi rapist who views women, Jews, and African Americans as little more than dogs, and that Sarah Palin is a Communist who wants to destroy America, then that is not up for debate?
See, every time someone says, "well that's my opinion" or "my perspective is not up for debate", it smacks of laziness and entitlement, which are two traits we do not and should NOT embrace.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I haven't been around this site in a while but last night I finally got around to watching the Obama acceptance speech and since this is just about the only place I can talk politics, I thought I'd join the conversation. Please excuse me if I end up rehashing something you've talked about already...there's no way I can go back through all these posts!
I really liked Obama's speech. Being an independent (politically speaking), there were parts I agreed with and parts I disagreed with, but I liked a lot of the broader messages, such as the idea that Americans have to work together to make the country great and that there are things the government can and can't do. Personal responsibility is one of the ideals of the Republican party that caused me to vote for GWB 8 years ago. (Sorry! I didn't vote for him 4 years ago, if that helps. )
I'm going to try to watch McCain's speech tonight.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was disappointed that Sen. Obama mentioned the "$5 million a year" line. It goes to the issue, but it was out of context and cheap.
Do you happen to know the context here? I was kind of wondering where that came from.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Humean316, I don't think we need to make assumptions about what group kat identifies with or speculate on her motives.
ETA: Sorry if that sounded like I was scolding you. I just know that it ticked me off when it happened to me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
For the record (as if anyone cares), what I've read about Palin has changed my mind about her. I don't think she's any more of a fiscal conservative than McCain is, and she's definitely no treat.
That said, she's still a Washington outsider, and that's a plus in my book. And since both the donkeys and the elephants are going to be disastrous for the US, I think I'm down to voting on the basis of which of them will be less bad for Israel. So even though Palin is no great shakes, and even though my vote doesn't count (thank you, Alexander Hamilton, for your idiotic electoral college), I'll probably wind up holding my nose and voting for McCain and Palin anyway.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Christine, the context of the $500 million quote was a response by Sen. McCain during the faith Forum. He was asked what he would consider to be a rich person and responded along the lines of someone who makes more than $500 million dollars a year. I think he was kidding.
Lisa, Even though you are still voting repubblican, I am glad that you checked into it. At least it makes sense to me (not that that was your goal) and gives me hope that other people won't be fooled.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lisa, just because she doesn't live in DC doesn't make her an outsider. The earmarks she got while Mayor and her mentoring under two great Alaskan Insiders has me worried on that count.
And she is all about the Oil. More oil = More energy in her speech last night. While Obama will be all over himself trying to prove he isn't anti-Isreal, Palin's oil first platform will keep the US dependent on oil imports--mostly from Isreal's enemies.
Just a thought.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
H, nothing you just said either made sense or had any substance. You don't know what you're talking about.
If you would like to a crack at establishing the facts of what, exactly, my impression was, I will be fascinated to see how you go about that.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
The context of the "$5 million" line was that, when questioned about what he considered to be sort of the cutoff for people being rich, he said $5 million in an obviously joking manner. Further, he said that he was sure it was going to be taken out of context.
He forgot to follow that up with a real answer, which would have stopped people commenting on it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'm an Independent.
The Innepenents were a bunch of inbred, cowardly pisspots shoulda been killed offa every world spinnin'.
But seriously,
quote:I favor Obama, but until this summer or so I would have been nearly as content to see McCain in office as I considered him an honorable man. Now I see him turning into exactly the sort of candidate he once despised, and I'm saddened by it.
I agree. At one point I felt like the country couldn't really lose this time around. I liked Obama best of the various potential presidents, but I felt like he, Clinton, Edwards, or McCain would have provided the country with at least decent leadership. My impressions of all of those people have been tarnished a fair amount, but my impression of Obama is less tarnished than the others. 2008 McCain almost seems to be a parody of what 2000 McCain stood against in his own party.
[ September 04, 2008, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, just because she doesn't live in DC doesn't make her an outsider. The earmarks she got while Mayor and her mentoring under two great Alaskan Insiders has me worried on that count.
If her relatively short time in politics is enough for her to be accused of being inexperienced, shouldn't it also apply here? How much of an insider can she be in such a short time?
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: And she is all about the Oil. More oil = More energy in her speech last night. While Obama will be all over himself trying to prove he isn't anti-Isreal, Palin's oil first platform will keep the US dependent on oil imports--mostly from Isreal's enemies.
See, I don't get that. Seems to me it's those who want to prevent us from digging for our own oil who are sticking us with Arab oil the most.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
kat, could you ignore Humean and address the very valid points that everyone else responding to you are making? kmbboots, dabbler, and Tresopax cited several speeches as a counterargument to your original claim that "every speech being a crappy, personal attack on various members of the GOP," which it seems now was based entirely on listening to part of only one speech. And it wasn't even one of the "big" ones (i.e. the ones that large numbers of people actually paid attention to, and are therefore likely to form the "take home" message of the convention).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that part of the problem is that one has to get elected in the system that exists before one can really make progress toward changing the system to what it should be. That is always going to bite reformers in the butt. People who want to reform finance, for example, are going to have to have funds to get into a position where they can reform finance.
This, I think, is why Democrats lose elections. I can't tell you how angry I get at activists who refuse to vote for someone who is not perfect even though he might be a thousand times closer than his opponent. This annoyed the heck out of me during ant-war rallies. For many of them, it was all or nothing.
I do think that the McCain/Palin ticket is sincere about wanting to change how things work in Washington. I think that despite them leaping onto the change bandwagon fairly late. I think, though, that what they mean by change is a "clean up this town" kind of change. Which is good, but it isn't the fundamental kind of change that Senator Obama is talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Combing speeches I didn't enjoy hearing the first time around is definitely not going to happen.
If the general thesis is that the GOP convention is out of line and the Dems were basically models of civic participation, then I'll just assume that it's impossible for those who have drunk the Kool-Aid to see themselves clearly.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, just because she doesn't live in DC doesn't make her an outsider. The earmarks she got while Mayor and her mentoring under two great Alaskan Insiders has me worried on that count.
If her relatively short time in politics is enough for her to be accused of being inexperienced, shouldn't it also apply here? How much of an insider can she be in such a short time?
I could turn the same argument back at you: if Obama is so "inexperienced," how could he be a Washington insider?
Regardless, the two are not necessarily mutually inexclusive in either case. Obama only has two full years in the Senate, but he could have spent those two years integrating into the Beltway mindset (thus adequately fulfilling the definitions of "inexperienced" AND "insider"). Similarly, Palin only has a single full year of gubernatorial experience, but she could have spent that year bringing in pork from Washington- again, both terms would be fitting.
Now, I would argue that the latter case far more closely matches reality than the former, but the point is that you can be both.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: And she is all about the Oil. More oil = More energy in her speech last night. While Obama will be all over himself trying to prove he isn't anti-Isreal, Palin's oil first platform will keep the US dependent on oil imports--mostly from Isreal's enemies.
See, I don't get that. Seems to me it's those who want to prevent us from digging for our own oil who are sticking us with Arab oil the most. [/qb]
Additional drilling is, at best, a stopgap measure that would support us for about a year, and this after several years first to set up the infrastructure to tap those new oil fields. "Drill, baby, drill" is a sop to the oil industry, nothing more, and is certainly not useful to the American people as a whole. Alternative fuels are the only way to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and yes, that can include nuclear power. Which, as I mentioned several pages back, Obama is open to exploring.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Combing speeches I didn't enjoy hearing the first time around is definitely not going to happen.
The whole point is that you didn't actually hear them the first time around. You heard one speech that included some nastily partisan comments, and assumed that meant that all of the other speeches were the same. The cites provided in this thread alone prove otherwise.
quote:If the general thesis is that the GOP convention is out of line and the Dems were basically models of civic participation, then I'll just assume that it's impossible for those who have drunk the Kool-Aid to see themselves clearly.
You should really check your own glass first.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:2008 McCain almost seems to be a parody of what 2000 McCain stood against in his own party.
I called this 2 years ago. It just took some pressure to bring it out so obviously.
I think it may have been easier to see how much he lost because I was such a feverent supporter in 2000.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
This is a great line: "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."
I like this section, too:
"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I think it may have been easier to see how much he lost because I was such a feverent supporter in 2000.
Could be (or it could be that he's in the spotlight more now, or that I'm just looking more carefully at him than I was a few years ago). I'd forgotten it when I wrote my post, but now that you mention it I think I remember your saying something to that effect.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Neither Biden nor Obama attacked McCain (or even Bush) on a personal level to any significant degree.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See, when Obama said that McCain doesn't get it, I heard, "McCain is a war hero, he is just stupid." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Being a war hero shouldn't be an effective shield against criticism of one's other attributes.
I agree. I just wanted to show that Obama was just as personal as the Republicans.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I honestly don't understand this generic experience argument either way - or at least not in the ways it's being presented. What does the average citizen care if Palin only has 18 months experience without getting into details the average citizen has even less experience with? It just seems obvious to me that what really matters is the candidates' actual record and current plans. You know, the tangible stuff. Not the ambiguity of "experience." But maybe I'm just oversimplifying things.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't think that saying someone does not get it is the same as being stupid.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, just because she doesn't live in DC doesn't make her an outsider. The earmarks she got while Mayor and her mentoring under two great Alaskan Insiders has me worried on that count.
If her relatively short time in politics is enough for her to be accused of being inexperienced, shouldn't it also apply here? How much of an insider can she be in such a short time?
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: And she is all about the Oil. More oil = More energy in her speech last night. While Obama will be all over himself trying to prove he isn't anti-Isreal, Palin's oil first platform will keep the US dependent on oil imports--mostly from Isreal's enemies.
See, I don't get that. Seems to me it's those who want to prevent us from digging for our own oil who are sticking us with Arab oil the most.
The nuance is that oil companies already have unused drilling licenses. They are asking for more, so that they can sit on them until the future, when it will be much more valuable to have these permits. The wrinkle is that they are asking for today's prices for the permits.
Now, I am sure, were these new permits given, some new drilling would occur, but not likely proportional to the number of new permits issued:
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: It seems more to the point that you insulted him after he made a joke
He didn't make a joke. He used an obnoxious and crude term. I don't care if it's been used on 30 Rock. It's still piggish. "Mom I'd Like to F***?" That's a joke? Grow up.
Either way i think that insulting a person who made a comment, which may have been offensive and starting an argument was probably the best policy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I could turn the same argument back at you: if Obama is so "inexperienced," how could he be a Washington insider?
I have never objected to Obama on the basis of inexperience. I opposed him when he ran for Senate. He's slick, and he's fake, and putting him in the Oval Office would be like putting any other Chicago politician in there. Imagine President Richard M. Daley.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
I'm glad to have been a part of it too. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Me, too.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't think that saying someone does not get it is the same as being stupid.
When you are talking about public business and public life to a massive crowd whose only shared expertise is that they are American voters, there seems to be a slim difference between not getting it and being stupid. "John McCain doesn't know what all you people here and everyone voting at home knows as a matter of common sense..."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that "out of touch" is more in line with the "theme" of the criticisms of Sen. McCain. "Out of touch" is not the same as stupid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I like how people keep trying to paint Palin as a moderate on gay issues because she vetoed one bill. You know, after the Supreme Court it was unconstitutional. And then she sponsored a referendum to make it constitutional. And she's anti gay marriage.
WELL SHUCKS SIGN ME UP
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I could turn the same argument back at you: if Obama is so "inexperienced," how could he be a Washington insider?
I have never objected to Obama on the basis of inexperience. I opposed him when he ran for Senate. He's slick, and he's fake, and putting him in the Oval Office would be like putting any other Chicago politician in there. Imagine President Richard M. Daley.
Fake? Slick? Wow, how cynical. Its funny how you keep saying these things with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Neither Biden nor Obama attacked McCain (or even Bush) on a personal level to any significant degree.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See, when Obama said that McCain doesn't get it, I heard, "McCain is a war hero, he is just stupid." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Being a war hero shouldn't be an effective shield against criticism of one's other attributes.
I agree. I just wanted to show that Obama was just as personal as the Republicans.
Completely ignorant, "doesn't get it" is an implication of being out of touch of lacking common sense, completely different from calling someone stupid I should know, my close personal friends think I am extremely intelligent but make alot of jokes about my common sense , walking into oncoming traffic... for example.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I could turn the same argument back at you: if Obama is so "inexperienced," how could he be a Washington insider?
I have never objected to Obama on the basis of inexperience. I opposed him when he ran for Senate. He's slick, and he's fake, and putting him in the Oval Office would be like putting any other Chicago politician in there. Imagine President Richard M. Daley.
Could you explain this? I've never gotten the impression that Obama is fake. As for slick, well, that could be a matter of semantics. He's definitely charismatic and a great orator.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
It's something about him being an undercover muslim-communist.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Fake? Slick? Wow, how cynical. Its funny how you keep saying these things with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Blayne. Go to a friend's house. Find a dictionary. Look up the word cynical.
Then pop down to the corner store and buy yourself a clue, annoying little boy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Me, too.
I made my contribution just before; do I count?
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: It's something about him being an undercover muslim-communist.
Now, now- we can't all be flinty, unsympathetic, and easily confused.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Fake? Slick? Wow, how cynical. Its funny how you keep saying these things with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Blayne. Go to a friend's house. Find a dictionary. Look up the word cynical.
Then pop down to the corner store and buy yourself a clue, annoying little boy.
Firstly I'm 21 and white, so unless your an old former President and I happen to be secretly black leave the boy comments at the door and while your leaving it there leave your deuchbag bitchy attitude there as well.
next, stop saying Barack Obama is some fake scary anti christ, you have not once provided any evidence to support the United States will somehow be worse off then it currently is.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Fake? Slick? Wow, how cynical. Its funny how you keep saying these things with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Blayne. Go to a friend's house. Find a dictionary. Look up the word cynical.
Then pop down to the corner store and buy yourself a clue, annoying little boy.
To be fair, the definition of cynical I grabbed was "believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity." It seems to me that calling a person 'fake' implies distrust of a person's sincerity or integrity.
That said, while I don't like the way Blayne asked it, I thought he brought up a very valid point that you didn't back up how Sen. Obama was slick or fake, and you have still ignored that request. If you don't wish to spend the time to back up your claim, I can understand that, you probably have more important things to do than get in an internet based argument. But I would ask that if you do attack Blayne, first let your attack be correct, and then try not to ignore his request... Or Christine's for that matter.
I bring this up because I am interested in seeing what makes you think he is slick and fake.
EDIT TO SAY:
And looking at what Blayne posted above me while I was writing this, please don't make the mistake of thinking that I am trying to defend his offensive remarks in the post above me. I am thoroughly disgusted.
I think both of you need to cool it against each other.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I went looking for it last night after Lyrhawn posted but it wasn't up yet.
Made me smile.
--j_k
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
not availiable in Canada, can I have a link to where it is at comedy central? thanks.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
thecomedynetwork.ca
Click around.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly I'm 21 and white, so unless your an old former President and I happen to be secretly black leave the boy comments at the door
Racist slime.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly I'm 21 and white, so unless your an old former President and I happen to be secretly black leave the boy comments at the door
Racist slime.
Agreed.
Wow Blayne, was *that* really necessary?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I am interested in seeing what makes you think he is slick and fake.
Yeah, me too.
*Just became another one of the many post-Palin donors to Obama for America.*
Anyway, better "slick and fake" than temperamental and mysogynist enough to call his wife the C-word. If I ever actually call a woman that, may god strike me dead.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly I'm 21 and white, so unless your an old former President and I happen to be secretly black leave the boy comments at the door
Racist slime.
Bitch.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Can we swerve away from this before PJ rightfully shuts the thread down?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
My initial reaction to McCain before reading others' analysis.
I didn't like the first half. I tend to nit-pick public speeches if there's something that doesn't sound good if I think the presenter is speaking half-heartedly. So I'd cringe when he'd stumble on his words, some of the lines I thought were poorly written. ("I will stand on your side, not in your way" There's a difference between standing BY someone's side, and standing ON it. ) But my biggest problem with the first half was that although he gave an idea of what he was proposing, he never came out and said how he would achieve it. He said he wants new energy. How? Investment? How much? He said we should be guaranteed choice in education. Does that mean he's proposing a national voucher program? Is he saying geographical confines shouldn't matter for public school attendence? What will he use to determine a poor teacher? What will it take to remove them?
I understand he couldn't provide all the details to these proposals due to time constraints, but answering some questions would have helped.
But then we came to the second half with him telling his PoW story. It was powerful, moving, and compelling. It made me remember why I liked John McCain a few years ago. And then his enthusiastic call to service was a big plus for me.
So as a whole, I guess I'd give this speech an average rating. Good at the end, bad at the beginning.
But remember, I'm biased. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
guys, cut it out. this is one of the few threads I regularly check, the last thing I need is for it be shut down.
But seriously...no positive purpose is being served here.
I'm reminded of this: http://xkcd.com/438/ Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Only once she stops picking fights with me and escalating them. I had a valid question, she insults me, wow Ron Paul would be SO PROUD of his ardent little warrior and all of her smearing disgusting filth.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
hah...they're both equally valid. you linked to the truth of the situation. I linked to the hope.
edit: Blayne, be better than this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: ... Made me smile.
Unfortunately, I cannot double-check for myself. However, if thats the dueling past/present clips segment, than that is indeed awesome.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
tis
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
My debate coach had many suggestions on how to have a 'good' argument.
One thing he said is that when your opponent starts go mean and use more ad hominens than issue discussion, it is your job to become nicer. Let your anger be manifest through how kind and courteous you become.
In other words, one of you be the better person and stop arguing here. We want this thread to stay unlocked. If you folks really have a problem with each other, exchange e-mail addresses and keep it off here. If it's not worth arguing off hatrack, then please don't argue it on hatrack.
Edit for clarity: I realized that my last sentence would suggest that if you two found it worth your time to argue through e-mail, it would justify you arguing in the forum. So let me just modify my last bit by saying simply this: Please stop.
Edit 2: Re-did a little at the top because of bad writing.
That said.
Impressions on McCain's speech?
[ September 04, 2008, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To be perfectly fair, I didn't watch all the little speeches, I didn't care about the little guys I've never heard of. I watched some of the heavy hitters like Richardson, Gore, the Clintons Biden, and Obama. Likewise on the Republican side I watched Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Giuliani and I'll be reading McCain's speech in a few minutes.
I'm sorry but, anyone who thinks they were on the same page didn't see the conventions that I saw. Democrats threw some thunderbolts, but they were policy differences. They didn't say that McCain didn't care, or that Republicans were evil, just that they were wrong and that it's the Democrats' turn to try their new ideas.
The Republican convention has thrown everything at the Democrats including the kitchen sink. Both of them were misleading in their facts, and both of them misrepresented the other side (though I think one side did it more, I'll leave that one be). But the Republicans didn't just hint, but flat out said that Obama doesn't care about America, he's only in this for himself, and that the left is full of elitist liberals that also don't care about America. Show me where the Democrats said similar things about McCain and Republicans.
Leave out the policy stuff and the lies and the facts and the positions. They were both all over that to varying degrees and both had their successes and problems. Just look at how they treat each other, how they frame the other side. The chasm between the language they used to describe each other is vast.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: My debate coach had many good philosophies on how to have a good argument.
One thing he said is that when you opponent starts go mean and use more ad hominens than issue discussion, it is your job to become nicer. Let your anger be manifest through how kind and courteous you become.
In other words, one of you be the better person and stop arguing here. We want this thread to stay unlocked. If you folks really have a problem with each other, exchange e-mail addresses and keep it off here. If it's not worth arguing off hatrack, then please don't argue it on hatrack.
I tried that once with someone unrelated to Hatrack on one of my pdox forums he did something that pissed me off, I took it up with him completely off forum on msn, blocked each and then he started taking every opportunity to make the game we were both in miserable for me, it was even apparent to the others he had it in for me.
It only ended when he quit in disgust that everyone else weren't seeing him eye to eye.
But anyways, goes to show it doesn't work, doesn't resolve issues.
Also, whats wrong with suggesting a duel? Its how they worked out feuds in the past. Pistols at dawn, 30 paces.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
we're supposed to learn from history. not repeat it.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: But anyways, goes to show it doesn't work, doesn't resolve issues.
If you ignored the posts you had a problem with then the issue would have been resolved.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I am under no obligation to ignore verbal abuse.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I didn't say you were. I was assuming that you wanted to "resolve issues."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
She's a hardcore Libertarian, I'm a staunch Communist, she's female, I'm male, she's faithful, I'm secular, she's American I'm Canadian, everything we are is opposite to each other. No Common ground, fight to the death!
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
You're right, there is no obligation for you to ignore it. But sometimes it's the better thing to do. I think this is a case where that's true. Politics is inherently a hot topic with people, and I think we've done a pretty good job in this thread of not beating our chests and throwing mud at each other. Can we please get back on topic?
Here, I'll start.
I took a similar approach as Lyrhawn. I watched the major speeches. And I saw pretty much the same thing. I agree that both sides misrepresented the other, but that's to be expected. But I do think that the RNC was far more... vicious than the DNC. I grew weary of hearing how 'liberals are destroying this country' or that Obama and other dems aren't putting their country first. We do put our country before ourselves, we just have a different approach on how to help our country. I felt as though the very fact that I disagree with the policies of the GOP makes it so that I'm less a patriot than they are. I hate that line of thinking.
I don't know, I'm probably viewing this from my limited, biased perspective.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"I am under no obligation to ignore verbal abuse."
No, you're not. But the more you respond to it in kind, the more the rest of us get tired of hearing it and just start ignoring everyone involved, and that's a shame as we'll miss anything useful that's said. Right now, to be frank, I'm skimming over posts from both you and Lisa because I'd rather talk about the election.
And politeness to abuse does work. It's one of the few effective things that can be done against a troll who is determined to stay around and bug people. I've done it here, I've done it many times in the old forum at my work website. It's a form of verbal judo: you treat the troll as a respected member of the forum and only respond to actual talking points in their abuse (the "best" trolls use incendiary statements to rile people up, and the most effective declarations have enough truth in them to hurt). Keep at it and you can draw them out until they realize they're in an actual conversation. Some leave. Some laugh. I've even been complimented before ("Well played, sir.") It can be done, but you have to really be polite and not just cover your own abuse with friendly looking words.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
woah, apparently Sarah Palin would veto abortion even in the case of rape.
IS SHE STONKING BONKERS!?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: woah, apparently Sarah Palin would veto abortion even in the case of rape.
IS SHE STONKING BONKERS!?
Although I disagree with Palin's stance on abortion, I don't think it's fair to outright call her bonkers. There are those who feel that abortion is not a right in any circumstance because they uphold the right to life to be paramount to any possibility. Abortion is another of those hot-button issues, and I'd suggest you treat her stance with a little more understanding and respect so as not to offend people who might share Palin's belief.
That said, it is a valid point to bring up on Palin for those who hold abortion as a key voting issue. What was the source on that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: My initial reaction to McCain before reading others' analysis.
I didn't like the first half. I tend to nit-pick public speeches if there's something that doesn't sound good if I think the presenter is speaking half-heartedly. So I'd cringe when he'd stumble on his words, some of the lines I thought were poorly written. ("I will stand on your side, not in your way" There's a difference between standing BY someone's side, and standing ON it. ) But my biggest problem with the first half was that although he gave an idea of what he was proposing, he never came out and said how he would achieve it. He said he wants new energy. How? Investment? How much? He said we should be guaranteed choice in education. Does that mean he's proposing a national voucher program? Is he saying geographical confines shouldn't matter for public school attendence? What will he use to determine a poor teacher? What will it take to remove them?
I understand he couldn't provide all the details to these proposals due to time constraints, but answering some questions would have helped.
But then we came to the second half with him telling his PoW story. It was powerful, moving, and compelling. It made me remember why I liked John McCain a few years ago. And then his enthusiastic call to service was a big plus for me.
So as a whole, I guess I'd give this speech an average rating. Good at the end, bad at the beginning.
But remember, I'm biased.
I didn't watch, but I read his speech. I'm glad that, like Obama, he left the rancor out of his speech. And I think both of them kept the blatent misrepresentations of the other's policies to a minimum. Seemed like a lot less specifics than Obama's speech though. He says drill here and drill now, but how and where? There are already dozens of leases not being drilled on, and the drills themselves, the actual ships that have the drilling equipment that do the drilling, are on a multiyear backorder. Even if we wanted to we literally couldn't drill right now. So I'll take it to mean that he wants to get the ball rolling on some of this stuff, okay, what else? How is he going to push nuclear? You can't do it without big time federal support, so how much will he allocate? How much will he allocate for renewables? Obama at least gives numbers. He doesn't have plans for Afghanistan or Iraq other than "victory." That's reassuring, believe me, but how do you get there? He wants to lower taxes? Lovely, what programs will you cut to pay for it? (To be fair, Obama needs to step up on that one too).
Some of this stuff is on his website, but for a speech like this (in which is monotone droning speaking voice can already make hard to listen to), I really thought he'd skip the kind of rhetoric he lambasts Obama for and get to the specifics. I could have done without the biography. Is there anyone left who DOESN'T know his personal history? All in all it was a nice speech I guess, but nothing special. I certainly appreciated the lack of viciousness that his surrogates portrayed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Vadon -> Jon Stewart on the Daily Show as he was interviewing Newt Gringich,
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Some of this stuff is on his website, but for a speech like this (in which is monotone droning speaking voice can already make hard to listen to), I really thought he'd skip the kind of rhetoric he lambasts Obama for and get to the specifics. I could have done without the biography. Is there anyone left who DOESN'T know his personal history? All in all it was a nice speech I guess, but nothing special. I certainly appreciated the lack of viciousness that his surrogates portrayed.
I had that thought exactly. A reason I really hoped McCain would go into more specifics was so that I could actually see an overall policy platform come out of McCain. Obama gave some pretty good specifics on tax policy(though yes, needs to be better explained.), energy, and I thought adequately on trade. All I really got from McCain was that they were going to lower taxes for all, give health care, and bring peace. But because he didn't provide specifics in policy, it sounds more like empty promises and rhetoric (which is an irony to be coming from McCain but not Obama) than substantive proposals. So in the end, all I really feel from the RNC is that McCain is the Not-Obama candidate, because for the most part, all the convention did was attack Obama.
Mind you, I know McCain does provide more specifics on how he'll achieve these objectives through his website. But from the perspective of a speech that would be seen by millions, he needed to do more than he gave us. That's why I still hold this speech as average.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Can we swerve away from this before PJ rightfully shuts the thread down?
Wait, wait- isn't this the part of the movie where they suddenly throw themselves into each others' arms? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, it starts with fighting, then the fighting turns sexual... then to prolong the tension, it turns back to violence... then they start kissing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: But my biggest problem with the first half was that although he gave an idea of what he was proposing, he never came out and said how he would achieve it.
I'm also very much against some of the things he *might* be proposing in these parts of his speech. It sure sounded like he was talking about a voucher program, which is a deeply flawed measure, in my opinion.
He also again equated "health insurance" with "healthcare," which as Dag pointed out, is a dubious way of dealing with the healthcare issue. He also equates "bureaucrat" with "useless," which seems to me a rather cynical dismissal of any governmental oversight of healthcare whatsoever being feasible.
I mean, really, are you telling us that simply creating 300 million different insurance policies with for-profit companies is going to make the healthcare of the entire country manageable? Really? Because it seems to me that if the health insurance business could have profited from selling a policy to every single American that benefited every single one of them, then they would have been on that a long time ago, and it would never have become a campaign issue. When people are asking the government to adress a problem, I don't think they're hoping the government pledges not to try and fix it.
Edit: And what exactly is the philosophical leap between publicly education and National Healthcare? There's nothing that says you MUST ATTEND a public school, but there are requirements in the law that you are educated in some fashion. There should be a similar spirit in the law in regards to healthcare- it should be free and public, not for profit, and the market should provide alternatives in the private sector. This works relatively well in England, and its certainly a whole hell of a lot better than providing millions of people with no official right to care.
And again, it's "healthcare," and that isn't the same thing as "sickcare." We could all do with waking up and realizing that for the cost of improving public health in this country with universal access, we could hope to be spending LESS, not more, on sickcare. And god only knows what a real sea change in public health care might do for the economy in other ways.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: We could all do with waking up and realizing that for the cost of improving public health in this country with universal access, we could hope to be spending LESS, not more, on sickcare.
I'm not sure I agree with that statement without seeing some kind of pilot program first. After all, people with chronic problems will need to see specialists, get frequent check ups, and probably take a host of medications. I'm not sure that's cheaper than once in a while going to the emergency room to have the immediate symptoms alleviated.
Now, on the moral side, I'm all for some amount of universal health care. I'd just like to be a bit pickier about than "everything anybody needs ever". If you have the flu, nothing but time off resting is going to make it better. I don't want to pay for your antibiotics so you can create new resistant bacteria strains because you can't afford another day off.
Now, PTO reform is an issue I can get behind. Why isn't there a federal law stating that companies must allow employees to take time off in one hour increments? People shouldn't have to decide if they're sick enough to justify taking the whole day because they need to go to the doctor's for a couple hours. Why companies don't see the benefit of only having people out for a few hours instead of the whole day I'll never understand, but a rule of that nature I'd support. People should be able to get to the doctor when they need to - even if I don't want to pay for it.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I'm not sure I agree with that statement without seeing some kind of pilot program first. After all, people with chronic problems will need to see specialists, get frequent check ups, and probably take a host of medications. I'm not sure that's cheaper than once in a while going to the emergency room to have the immediate symptoms alleviated.
There are many non-chronic problems that can develop in to serious problems if left untreated. For example, an ingrown toenail can develop into blood poisoning if left untreated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: woah, apparently Sarah Palin would veto abortion even in the case of rape.
IS SHE STONKING BONKERS!?
Blayne, would you consider it acceptable for the mother of an infant to kill that infant because s/he was the product of rape?
If not, then you share one premise upon which Palin's (and my) conclusion that abortion should not be permitted because the child is a product of rape: that the killing of one human being is not justified because of the criminal act of another.
There are a whole lot of other premises* needed to justify Paln's (and my) conclusion. It's clear you don't share them. Fine. But even a slight attempt to reign in your outrage and try to understand those you disagree with would be in order before SHOUTING TO CALL SOMEONE STONKING BONKERS!
*Here's the rough sketch of the argument. I don't intend to argue the specifics of this, but rather to highlight a logical basis to believe that abortions based solely on the fact that the pregnancy is a product of rape should be illegal and demonstrate that someone does not need to be STONKING BONKERS to support enacting such a law.
1.) An unborn child is a human being (or person, if you prefer).
2.) Government has a moral duty to protect human beings from the purposeful taking of their life by private actors lacking sufficient justification. (That is, to secure these rights...)
3.) Being the product of rape is not sufficient justification for the legal killing of that human being.
4.) Being inside the womb of another in and of itself is not sufficient justification for the legal killing of that human being.
That said, I would vote in a heartbeat for a law that allowed abortion only in the cases of rape and danger to the physical health of the mother, simply because I'll take what I can get on this issue.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
All in all, I think the two conventions proved that the Republicans and Democrats seem to think this election is about two very different things.
To Democrats, it was all about changing the way things are done. Their convention was all about how Bush's policies failed and laid out specific plans to do things in a different (and more liberal) way. They cast the election, like Obama said, as all about "us".
To Republicans, it was all about which candidate is a better person. Their convention was all about McCain's background as a war hero, about his character, about Palin's family and small-town background, and about how Obama is fake. They cast the election as about the candidates and a contest of their personal character.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To Democrats, it was all about changing the way things are done. Their convention was all about how failed Bush's policies are and laid out specific plans to do things in a different (and more liberal) way. They cast the election, like Obama said, as all about "us".
Obama is running for president. His claims that he's better for "us" are still claims about himself. His claims that he will change the way things are done are still claims about the way people in power now do things and the way he will do things.
He's still talking about himself and his opponents.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was alittle taken aback to see McCain NOW state that his administration will use people from both parties, and that partisanship should be kept in check. Apparently McCain is like Jesus in that he died, his dead corpse campaigned for a time, and now he's - back?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody see Obama on O'Reilly? I didn't, and I'm not seeing any stories about it on the news sites yet.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Obama is running for president. His claims that he's better for "us" are still claims about himself. His claims that he will change the way things are done are still claims about the way people in power now do things and the way he will do things.
Yes, but they are mostly not direct claims about his own personal character or personal story. They are claims about how he would act as the leader of the country. He casts the campaign as a movement driven by changes that we the people wanted, and casts himself as someone who was drafted to lead it. He does mention his own personal story and character traits he thinks are important, but the Democrats clearly placed the character issue as a sidenote rather than the focus of their convention. It was focused on how good of a president Obama would be, rather than how good of a person he is.
McCain's convention, in contrast, seemed to have the central argument that we know McCain would make a good president because he's a great person. There was plenty of talk about policy too, but the focus was on what sort of a person McCain was.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He casts the campaign as a movement driven by changes that we the people wanted, and casts himself as someone who was drafted to lead it.
And you find that to be a good thing? I certainly didn't draft him, and many of the changes he supports are not wanted by me.
So when he talks about "us" he's not talking about me. Why people find this to be "unifying" still perplexes me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you think that when Senator McCain and Gov. Palin talk about "us" they are talking about me?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you think that when Senator McCain and Gov. Palin talk about "us" they are talking about me?
Did I give you any indication that I thought that, Kate?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm struggling with McCain's speech. I'm about halfway through it and it's just not doing what I think it should do. Like so many others, I'm upset by the past 8 years and I want to know how things will be different in the next 8 years. (Actually, I don't think anything will be, but that's just my cynicism that neither major party is very good for this country.)
The whole speech seemed to be about empty words, restating the ideals of the Republican party that they've spouted for years. I believe that the Republican voters believe in those ideals. I'm with them on many of them, especially small government and personal responsibility. Trouble is, I haven't seen the actual elected republicans acting on these beliefs.
OK, I found a transcript, which is actually a bit easier to follow anyway because it's not being constantly interrupted by cheers.
There was one part of the speech that I really liked:
quote:I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Sen. Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.
I got excited when I heard this part. This is the kind of thing I wanted him to keep going with. The Republicans are supposed to be about small government but they haven't been. They're supposed to be about personal responsibility and instead they've been giving out welfare checks to huge corporations. In fact, this is one of the things that bothered me about Obama -- that he seems to be in favor of some of these corporate welfare bills. He mentioned bailing out car companies in his own speech.
But after that, it just fell into pretty words that can swell hearts but didn't get past my "political nonsense" filter.
quote:We believe in low taxes, spending discipline and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.
Yes, that's what the Republicans have been saying for quite some time and I'm with you! But that's not what's been happening for the past 8 years. I mean, companies are getting tax breaks to send American jobs overseas. I didn't want to just hear the same ideals that have become a lie -- I wanted to know specifics.
quote:We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans. Government that doesn't make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself.
Then why is the Republican party also against any kind of civil union for gays? This is actually a problem with the entire Republican platform, IMO. They say they are for personal freedoms and responsibilities and yet they want to legislate our personal family lives.
Unfortunately, this is also why I'm still undecided on this. I'm leaning heavily towards Obama but I know that a large part of that is reaction to the past 8 years. I've seen the worst of the Republicans while they've been in power. If the Democrats take power, I'll see the worst of them. And the pendulum swings...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did I say that you had?
I was asking a question.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, it starts with fighting, then the fighting turns sexual... then to prolong the tension, it turns back to violence... then they start kissing.
I'd sooner kiss a pig. Though I'm not sure how I'd tell the difference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Did I say that you had? I was asking a question.
It seems like a pretty random question if you don't think I thought that.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Doesn't seem random to me. You made a statement about one campaign, so she asked the parallel question of the other major campaign running. Is it that one side is different from the other side in this respect, or are both sides equally fake.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought it was a fairly natural way to move the conversation forward. You stated that the democrats weren't talking about you. Okay. So I asked what I thought was a natural question. A follow-up question. because you hadn't said and I didn't know. The answer could have been either yes or no and either (I thought) could have led to an interesting discussion on (possibly) the divisiveness of partisan politics or how to find common ground or any number of things.
You seem to want to either throw a comment out there and not have a conversation about it or to endlessly parse what you did and did not say.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Is it that one side is different from the other side in this respect, or are both sides equally fake.
Are those really the only two possibilities you can come up with? I haven't asserted anything about the McCain campaign in this regard. I have disagreed with a particular assertion about the Obama campaign.
For Kate to have a good faith basis to ask that question, she would need to believe that I thought she drafted McCain, or that many of the changes McCain supports are wanted by her. I can't think of any credible reason she would have for thinking that I think that.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
How McCain can claim, with a straight face, to be the candidate of ending "partisan rancor" after the personal attacks and misrepresentations of the previous night's speeches (including those by his VP pick) is beyond me.
But then, I have trouble seeing how a candidate who spent years working with poor and disadvantaged families rather than taking a plum, well-paying Wall Street job or Supreme Court clerkship is some sort of power-hungry monster. Or how the candidate who repeatedly refers to this election as being "about you, not about me" (a sentiment stated on the title bar of his website, for frak's sake) is an egomaniacal elitist.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Doesn't seem random to me. You made a statement about one campaign, so she asked the parallel question of the other major campaign running. Is it that one side is different from the other side in this respect, or are both sides equally fake.
I think it would be more correctly stated that each side is speaking to a different group of people and not trying to appeal to all people
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"I got excited when I heard this part. This is the kind of thing I wanted him to keep going with."
Me, too. For a brief moment I thought that maybe McCain the candidate has reverted back to McCain the Senator, the guy who ran in 2004 blasting all the idiocies of the administration. That guy, I'd vote for.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So I asked what I thought was a natural question.
I don't see how it's natural, because I don't see any possible way you could think that I think McCain speaks for you.
quote:You seem to want to either throw a comment out there and not have a conversation about it or to endlessly parse what you did and did not say.
Kate, the way you quiz me does not express to me "I want to have a conversation with Dagonee."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'll remember not to try in the future. Sorry.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I really liked parts of the speech last night. Like others I was reminded of why I liked McCain so much in 2000, and for a moment was given a vision of what this years election could have been like. Two great likable candidates, talking about the issues.
Then I remembered the reality of the situation, and that one good speech wasn't enough to make up for how they've been running their campaign, and the fact that McCain is no longer the man he was.
Also, watching McCain try to use a teleprompter is almost as embarrassing as watching Bush speak. I had to turn away, and just listen a few times so I wouldn't be influenced by his fake smiles and awkward hand gestures.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I watched McCain's speech and then immediately jumped on my webcam and gave my first impressions.
Not a horrible speech, but not what he could have done to help his case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'll remember not to try in the future. Sorry.
If you mean try not to quiz me instead of starting a conversation, thank you.
If you mean not to try to start a conversation at all, in response to my comment about a particular method for starting one, then you have missed my point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If by "quiz", you mean asking a question about what you think then please do indicate the specific method for engaging in conversation with you.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Also, watching McCain try to use a teleprompter is almost as embarrassing as watching Bush speak. I had to turn away, and just listen a few times so I wouldn't be influenced by his fake smiles and awkward hand gestures.
it's just like listening to Obama stumble and 'uh' his way through when he is not on a teleprompter or spouting one of his rehearsed lines
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
that's the first time i've ever heard someone say something negative about Obama's speaking skills.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Also, watching McCain try to use a teleprompter is almost as embarrassing as watching Bush speak. I had to turn away, and just listen a few times so I wouldn't be influenced by his fake smiles and awkward hand gestures.
it's just like listening to Obama stumble and 'uh' his way through when he is not on a teleprompter or spouting one of his rehearsed lines
I like Obama's 'uhs' when not giving a speech. It tells me he's thinking and not just spouting some well-rehearsed sound bite.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If by "quiz", you mean asking a question about what you think then please do indicate the specific method for engaging in conversation with you.
You could, for example, simply have stated that you don't think McCain represents you. Or you could have asked what I think about McCain vis-a-vis you, without inserting a particular version of what I might think.
I still don't understand the basis for your question - that is, why you thought there was a possibility that I thought that McCain is talking about you when he uses "us," given the conversations we have had about McCain.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm just glad they finally got the sound and video feeds synched so people's lips weren't moving half a beat ahead of their words. It was almost painful to watch the previous two nights.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I like Obama's 'uhs' when not giving a speech. It tells me he's thinking and not just spouting some well-rehearsed sound bite.
To me it sounds like he is struggling to figure out what to do, like a puppet with his strings cut
It would if his answers weren't any good. But they are, or at least I think they are. If you don't support him obviously you feel differently.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
sure, there were some humorous videos. and I'm not denying he pauses and says "uh" a lot. But like Javert, to me it comes off as a man thinking about what he's saying and looking for the right words toe express that.
Barack Obama is a puppet now? I missed the memo. Is it the Muslim group who are financing his campaign that pulls his strings? Or someone else? I forget.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow this thread is really moving, and this early in the morning too.
quote:From AvidReader: I'm not sure I agree with that statement without seeing some kind of pilot program first. After all, people with chronic problems will need to see specialists, get frequent check ups, and probably take a host of medications. I'm not sure that's cheaper than once in a while going to the emergency room to have the immediate symptoms alleviated.
I've seen a few studies (I don't have links handy, sorry) from various pilot programs like you suggest (one of them was in New York) where hospitals enacted programs to bring in diabetes patients to help them manage their blood sugar and their weight to keep their condition under control. Every single patient in the program was doing well, but the program ended because the hospital couldn't afford it. Several of the people in that program ended up having to have amputations, which cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, on which the hospital itself made a profit on. The amputations cost more than the care, but the hospitals make a profit off the amputations, and they don't off of the chronic care. Like I think Orincoro said, we have sickcare, not healthcare. Get everyone healthy and keep them there, and it'll be cheaper. I think Democrats are just starting to come around to this idea on a national level. The Republican solution is to offer tax breaks so people can pay for their own health insurance, which does nothing for the poor who don't pay taxes to begin with and who need it the most, and who are the biggest burden on the national healthcare apparatus because they use expensive er services instead of a personal physician. I'm all for personal responsibility in most respects, but sometimes you need a wider lens.
quote:From Dagonee: Obama is running for president. His claims that he's better for "us" are still claims about himself. His claims that he will change the way things are done are still claims about the way people in power now do things and the way he will do things.
I agree and disagree, but I'm closer to Tresopax on this one. Saying what "he" will do policy wise is an extension of policy, not personality. The difference is between saying: "I Barack Obama as president would push for new spending on renewable energy, my opponent, John McCain, says he supports renewable energy but keeps voting against it," and saying "Barack Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election because he's an elistist and a celebrity who's all about himself."
Yeah, they're both talking about each other, but one is talking about the other person in light of his policy plans, and the other is talking about his opponent in light of his personality and assumed personal motivations.
Clearly when he talks about "us" he isn't talking about all 300million and change Americans who live in this country, because I think there are few policy things in this country, if any, that we ALL agree on. I think when he says "we" and "us" he means anyone that agrees with his positions and the positions of his supporters and wants to get on board. I don't see anything wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with saying "we" in reference to a campaign's supporters than saying "I" in reference to oneself.
quote:From Noemon: Anybody see Obama on O'Reilly? I didn't, and I'm not seeing any stories about it on the news sites yet.
I haven't seen it, but let me know if you find it. Talk about walking into the enemy's camp...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Saying what "he" will do policy wise is an extension of policy, not personality. The difference is between saying: "I Barack Obama as president would push for new spending on renewable energy, my opponent, John McCain, says he supports renewable energy but keeps voting against it," and saying "Barack Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election because he's an elistist and a celebrity who's all about himself."
Sure there's a difference - th biggest one being the former is a fair summary of Obama's position, and the latter is an unfair summary of McCain's.
quote:Clearly when he talks about "us" he isn't talking about all 300million and change Americans who live in this country
I think that's clear. Tresopax, to whom I initially responded, apparently doesn't think so.
quote:There's nothing wrong with saying "we" in reference to a campaign's supporters than saying "I" in reference to oneself.
Of course there's nothing wrong with it. But there is something strange in thinking that Obama is somehow unique or different for doing so.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: that's the first time i've ever heard someone say something negative about Obama's speaking skills.
I've said it several times before. But I still agree with Javert. When he's on the prompter, he's fantastic. When he's off the cuff, he takes what looks like a long time to get a sentence out because you can see the wheels turning in his head, that he's trying to find the right words and the right answer before actually speaking. I think part of that is a defense mechanism against saying the wrong thing so no one can use it against him later, and I think part of it is just plain thinking before speaking and coming up with the best answer he can rather than rattling off a stump speech non-answer answer.
McCain is better off the cuff, lately anyway, because he has his lines rehearsed, and when you ask him a question he sticks to the text. Check out that awful TIME magazine interview if you want an example of what he's like when someone tries to take him off prepared remarks. He was pissed and short. But that's if you're going for style over substance.
He has gotten MUCH better since January though. His debates with Clinton really improved his skills.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote: I like Obama's 'uhs' when not giving a speech. It tells me he's thinking and not just spouting some well-rehearsed sound bite.
To me it sounds like he is struggling to figure out what to do, like a puppet with his strings cut
DarkKnight, to what degree do you mean your simile? If you really do feel that Obama is a puppet, who do you think is pulling his strings?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I should clarify I was talking more about his orating skills than his debating skills. There are valid complaints about the latter, though he has gotten a lot better.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Sure there's a difference - th biggest one being the former is a fair summary of Obama's position, and the latter is an unfair summary of McCain's.
Considering I used almost direct quotes from McCain, I really don't think so. He's the one who said 'Obama would rather lose a war than an election.' He's the one who has been using the celebrity and elitism mantra in his ads and speeches.
Even when Obama does go on the attack, such as saying that McCain is "more of the same" from 8 years of Bush, I think he's talking about the POLICY of Bush and McCain, as evidenced by his real proof being McCain's senate voting record on legislative issues, policy issues.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:He also made an unmistakable reference to his own campaign’s narrative that Obama is a celebrity, saying, “I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need.”
At least some people are reading it that way. I'd probably take out the elitist remark, but it's clear that McCain campaign generally attributes celebrity to Obama. Most obviously in their commercial. In the acceptance speech it was subtle but clearly pointed out by Fox that some see it as such.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:He also made an unmistakable reference to his own campaign’s narrative that Obama is a celebrity, saying, “I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need.”
At least some people are reading it that way. I'd probably take out the elitist remark, but it's clear that McCain campaign generally attributes celebrity to Obama. Most obviously in their commercial. In the acceptance speech it was subtle but clearly pointed out by Fox that some see it as such.
And yet the video intro specifically stated that the "stars are aligned" in reference to McCain. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:To Democrats, it was all about changing the way things are done. Their convention was all about how Bush's policies failed and laid out specific plans to do things in a different (and more liberal) way. They cast the election, like Obama said, as all about "us".
To Republicans, it was all about which candidate is a better person. Their convention was all about McCain's background as a war hero, about his character, about Palin's family and small-town background, and about how Obama is fake. They cast the election as about the candidates and a contest of their personal character.
I agree, in general. As a voter, I'd rather Obama change what is done than the way things are done. Here is my fear: You know how in a bureaucracy, the system takes over and there is a rule of no-one. I worry that Obama, in taking orders from over a hundred million disparate Americans, won't be accountable to anyone, in his effort to please everyone. At least with divisive politics, people take responsibility for their decisions.
The end result of Obama's campaign is that I start to feel like Dagonee:
quote:I certainly didn't draft him, and many of the changes he supports are not wanted by me.
So when he talks about "us" he's not talking about me. Why people find this to be "unifying" still perplexes me.
[ September 05, 2008, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think that's clear. Tresopax, to whom I initially responded, apparently doesn't think so.
I think that when he says this is about "us" or "you" he is referring to his grassroots supporters. The narrative is that change began with average individuals across the country deciding to get together and make something happen. - not EVERY individual (and perhaps not you), but many individuals.
quote:Of course there's nothing wrong with it. But there is something strange in thinking that Obama is somehow unique or different for doing so.
He's definitely not unique in that regard. I think Ron Paul has a similar dynamic with his supporters. But McCain's campaign definitely doesn't share that narrative. Instead he's being billed as a maverick.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I have to admit I'm lookng much more forward to the VP debate compared to the Presidential debates, for the sheer entertainment value.
I do think seeing McCain and Obama together answering similar questions will help me decide who I'm actually going to vote for.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:He's definitely not unique in that regard. I think Ron Paul has a similar dynamic with his supporters. But McCain's campaign definitely doesn't share that narrative. Instead he's being billed as a maverick.
This sounds right to me. Also explains why Ron Paul was the candidate, besides Obama, who captured my interest the most in the primaries.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually I think Ron Paul is the pefect example of a campaign of people more than a person. The problem is that Paul seemed to have little control over his own campaign, and a lot of the footsoldiers of his campaign I don't think really support the full depth of his positions.
Obama is more of a hybrid. He NEVER would have gotten to where he is without an army of grassroots support, and he wouldn't have had nearly as much money as he's had and still has without an army of small donations from millions of supporters. But once they got him where he is, he took total command of his own campaign. I see Obama's campaign as more of a partnership with the people who got him there. I see Ron Paul's campaign as more of a movement with a figurehead.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Just out of curiosity, who here is undecided? What are you looking for to make your decision?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, it starts with fighting, then the fighting turns sexual... then to prolong the tension, it turns back to violence... then they start kissing.
I'd sooner kiss a pig. Though I'm not sure how I'd tell the difference.
I'd turn you straight.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ick, Blayne.
::whistled::
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wasn't a bad interview actually. If anything, Bill is the best guy to interview Obama for a couple reasons. 1. He's certainly not going to lob a softball, and everyone knows it. Obama handled himself well, and it's to his credit. No one can claim he got a leg up from O'Reilly. 2. He looks tough in an aggressive interview. It's not some puff piece, but rather an aggressive interview with a rather combative 'journalist' who can allow Obama not only to state his position, but force him to defend them.
I hope they go more into Iraq, but I doubt it, because Obama didn't really push the political angle as much as I would've liked. To hear O'Reilly tell it, the war is all over and we won just because of the surge. O'Reilly managed to reduce but not eliminate his douchebag factor a couple levels for this interview, which is nice.
I won't say the parts of the interview that I disliked, most of which stem from O'Reilly's behavior, but I'll finish by saying I think Obama was smart to do the interview.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
There's one difference among the candidates I noticed watching the primaries that I'm surprised no one else has covered yet. As far as the candidates themeselves, they both have some strengths and weaknesses. But after hearing their wives speak, it seems that Obama has a huge advantage.
I don't mean to imply anything about the character of either woman, as I don't know enough to make a decision. But watching Cindy McCain speak last night made me cringe. Between the scary post-cosmetic-surgery face, the terrible bleach job, and the painfully awkward delivery, the only good thing about that speech is that it made Mr. McCain look smooth and natural in comparison.
Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is at least as good a speaker as Barack, if not better. I've heard her read speeches, and in unscripted interviews, and she's always natural, powerful and inspiring. And it's more than just the fact that she was a lawyer. Hilary Clinton was a lawyer, and on her best day she's never been anywhere near as good a speaker as Michelle Obama.
Again, it's not a matter of Mrs. Obama being a better person than Mrs. McCain. But having a wife that's that good a speaker has to be an incredible advantage in a campaign. Michelle Obama is taking interviews and doing rallys. It's almost as good as if Barack could be in two places at once. In some cases, maybe it's better.
I hadn't heard Cindy McCain speak before last night, and I'll be surprised if I ever do again. But from what I saw then, it looks like the odds continue to tip in Obama's favor.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Ick, Blayne.
::whistled::
You whistle me and not her when she started the attacks? Your a real jerk you know that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks, Lyrhawn. The video is blocked at my work, but I'll watch it tonight. The article was interesting.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I imagine there have already been several whistles in this thread and that PJ is just not around at the moment. It would be nice if you folks could take this elsewhere.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Ick, Blayne.
::whistled::
You whistle me and not her when she started the attacks? Your a real jerk you know that.
Actually I was pretty explicit in my whistle that both of you were either treading close to the line or going over it. Your post, though, had a quality to it that I found revolting, and it was that that tipped me toward actually clicking the whistle button instead of just wishing that you guys would take it somewhere else.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I imagine there have already been several whistles in this thread and that PJ is just not around at the moment. It would be nice if you folks could take this elsewhere.
Seconded.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Part I of IV - O'Reilly interviews Obama about national security.
Wasn't a bad interview actually. If anything, Bill is the best guy to interview Obama for a couple reasons. 1. He's certainly not going to lob a softball, and everyone knows it. Obama handled himself well, and it's to his credit. No one can claim he got a leg up from O'Reilly. 2. He looks tough in an aggressive interview. It's not some puff piece, but rather an aggressive interview with a rather combative 'journalist' who can allow Obama not only to state his position, but force him to defend them.
I thought Obama handled himself very well. I'll be interested in watching the rest of the interview.
Blayne, both you and Lisa deserve a whistle. And I hope that both of you *have* been whistled.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't see how what I said could concievably have been worst then being called racist slime, my comment at the least could be interpret as friendly or at least whimsical banter "It's so on!" as if responding to a challenge, she might as well had call me Hitler and claimed I was responsible for murdering 6 million Jews.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The racism was you assuming that the term "boy" applies to black people.
You were disgusting to begin with by using a crass and crude term for Palin. I'm really disappointed at the other folks here for not coming down on you like a ton of bricks for it. And then when I criticized your courseness, you called me a feminazi. You don't belong with other people, Blayne.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Ok, I was kind of hoping to discuss politics here. I really couldn't care less who started what or said what or any of the rest of it. If it matters that much to others then please start a new thread and take it over there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I should have mentioned before, that the next three parts of the interview will air on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Blayne/Lisa -
Anytime now, one of you can choose to be the adult here and just drop it. I'd hoped that by now one of you would have realized how silly you both look and just let it go. If neither of you respect each other, I'd at least hope you'd respect every other person who reads and posts in this thread enough to not get it locked because of your bickering.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Yes, I was away, taking care of my children.
Both of you stop. I would prefer if you refrain from addressing one another directly, since evidence shows that you haven't chosen to do so reasonably. If you feel you cannot participate in this thread without taking one another on, then stay out of the thread. I'd hate to lock the topic even beyond my normal desire not to do so, because this is an enormously relevant topic to at least the majority of people on this forum, and could directly or indirectly affect all of them. Ending that because of the squabbles of two people would strike me as very wrong, and I'd prefer to come up with other options.
--PJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I read this article, and I thought that it's not about the issues. Issues change. It's about how much we can trust and anticipate the President's judgment. I think that's why Obama's myopic one world vision (a vision which, btw, doesn't include me or Jeremiah Wright) disturbs me as much as Sarah "abstinence only" Palin's vision. What I appreciate about the openly divisive talk of the Republicans, as opposed to the Obama campaign, is that at least they admit that their views are controversial.
[ September 06, 2008, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Clearly when he talks about "us" he isn't talking about all 300million and change Americans who live in this country, because I think there are few policy things in this country, if any, that we ALL agree on. I think when he says "we" and "us" he means anyone that agrees with his positions and the positions of his supporters and wants to get on board. I don't see anything wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with saying "we" in reference to a campaign's supporters than saying "I" in reference to oneself.
I don't know; in some ways it seems perfectly appropriate. When he references health care, he's clearly referring to a bigger "us". And it seems rather likely that his tax plan will directly affect more of "us" than McCain's. And while not all of "us" might agree with withdrawal from Iraq or dialogue with Iran, the policy of a President would clearly represent all of "us" on the world stage by doing so, whether we'd agree with such a decision or not.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, Americans.
quote: Palin Power: Fresh Face Now More Popular Than Obama, McCain
A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.
The figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Palin and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view. Before her acceptance speech, Palin was viewed favorably by 52%. A week ago, 67% had never heard of her.
The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden.
Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.
There is a strong partisan gap when it comes to perceptions of Palin. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans give her favorable reviews along with 33% of Democrats and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women.
Post all the candidates' policies, blind, on a website and print them in newspapers.
Let the electorate go and vote for the ones that most closely match the voters' preferences and values.
Reveal the identities after the election.
I can't remember the last election where, by the time the day rolled around, I wasn't heartily sick and disappointed in both candidates. I'm not sure it's ever happened.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Her popularity will balance out when people learn more about her and hear more from her.
She still has that new candidate smell.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I can't remember the last election where, by the time the day rolled around, I wasn't heartily sick and disappointed in both candidates. I'm not sure it's ever happened.
Well, we have a culture of scapegoating that is encouraged by the media to end every election cycle in this manner. That way, no matter who loses, it will be clear that they lost because they were bad people, and not because good people can lose an election.
Now, I've long advocated among my personal groups of friends that they hold themselves back from the "lesser of two evils" nonsense that everyone starts pouting about at just about this time in an election. I think both candidates really really think and believe that they know what's best, and as McCain did note last night, the differences between the two men in this case are not as great as the media would like them to appear. I really do think that these two guys are both good hearted people, and I just sense something about both of them, that they are both trustworthy, but also troubled and distorted in this process.
We should keep our minds on the fact of this process, and remember what it does to people, and try to reconcile it with our personal experiences. Have you ever become the supervisor at your job, and your relationships with others changed? Maybe you didn't like the way that *you* started to act- I've had that experience. Or maybe you beat a friend at a game, and he/she didn't take it well, or maybe you fell in love with someone, or they with you, and the relationship couldn't bear the difference. These are phenomena that don't seem so different from the process of an election.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So when he talks about "us" he's not talking about me. Why people find this to be "unifying" still perplexes me.
That's an interesting point. How would one go about unifying *without* invoking such a rhetorical stance? I mean, if a person never talks about "us" in any capacity that doesn't include everyone then how does a person unify? All of the appeals to "us" would have no points of contention in them, right?
I see where you're going, but I'd like to know how you think a candidate would actually accomplish "unity" in whatever fashion you define it, in what is set up as an oppositional system. I can't think of a way to wrap my head around it- won't there always be divisions and an "us" and "them" as long there are any issues?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Thing about this election is, while I support Obama, I for once have respect and acknowledge the intelligence and good intentions of both candidates. I sense that McCain really cares about our future and thinks he has a plan that's gonna help our country in several ways. While I disagree with several of his policies, I'm not voting against McCain this year. I'm voting for Obama.
I will tell you though, while I've been independent ever since I first got into politics, I'm beginning to dislike the Republican Party more with time. I still feel the Democratic Party can be spineless and lack a lot of common sense sometimes, but right now I'm more annoyed with fear-mongering and ridiculous attacks on character or values.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If by "quiz", you mean asking a question about what you think then please do indicate the specific method for engaging in conversation with you.
You could, for example, simply have stated that you don't think McCain represents you. Or you could have asked what I think about McCain vis-a-vis you, without inserting a particular version of what I might think.
Dag, for whatever my two cents are worth here, I find it difficult to try and engage with you even when I am being completely straightforward, and when not trying to argue, I spend a lot of time trying to look neutral. In these cases, you often seem to treat my questions or comments either truculently, or more often dismissively. That is to say, if there is not much content for you to be offended about or for you to argue against, you seem uninterested in non-conflicted discussion. Now, that's between you and me, so any other situations is different (because maybe I'm that way too), but I think you should know that this is at least my feeling.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saephon:
I will tell you though, while I've been independent ever since I first got into politics, I'm beginning to dislike the Republican Party more with time. I still feel the Democratic Party can be spineless and lack a lot of common sense sometimes, but right now I'm more annoyed with fear-mongering and ridiculous attacks on character or values.
I've seen some improvement here though. Did you ever see the collection of clips from the early primary season on the daily show, in which every single republican party said "wmd" "9/11" "terrorist" and so on over and over and over again? Someone at least got the message for McCain's speech, because he didn't invoke a lot of the same buzzwords from earlier in the process. To a great degree, it seemed that he kept fear-mongering out of it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Unlike Giuliani.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Saephon:
I will tell you though, while I've been independent ever since I first got into politics, I'm beginning to dislike the Republican Party more with time. I still feel the Democratic Party can be spineless and lack a lot of common sense sometimes, but right now I'm more annoyed with fear-mongering and ridiculous attacks on character or values.
I've seen some improvement here though. Did you ever see the collection of clips from the early primary season on the daily show, in which every single republican party said "wmd" "9/11" "terrorist" and so on over and over and over again? Someone at least got the message for McCain's speech, because he didn't invoke a lot of the same buzzwords from earlier in the process. To a great degree, it seemed that he kept fear-mongering out of it.
I think he was talking more about the parties in general, not McCain or Obama. I mean, outside of McCain's speech there was still a lot of fear-mongering. Always saying how Obama wants us to lose this war and Romney's attacks on liberals and 'eastern elites' destroying the country. But you're right, I did notice the inflammatory rhetoric was dialed down significantly in McCain's speech.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: Thing about this election is, while I support Obama, I for once have respect and acknowledge the intelligence and good intentions of both candidates. I sense that McCain really cares about our future and thinks he has a plan that's gonna help our country in several ways. While I disagree with several of his policies, I'm not voting against McCain this year. I'm voting for Obama.
I will tell you though, while I've been independent ever since I first got into politics, I'm beginning to dislike the Republican Party more with time. I still feel the Democratic Party can be spineless and lack a lot of common sense sometimes, but right now I'm more annoyed with fear-mongering and ridiculous attacks on character or values.
This is a very good summary of how I feel, although at the moment I am leaning heavily towards Obama rather than definitely supporting him. I reserve the right to change my mind.
The biggest problem I have with McCain is the Republican Party. They say they support individual freedom and choice yet they have been crossing lines in the name of security. They say they are fiscally conservative and yet the United States is terribly in debt and they've been spending at least as much money as they ever accused the Democrats of doing. Not to mention that they really do seem to be pro-business. Corporate welfare drives me up the wall.
I agree that McCain means well. It is at least nice that we don't have to choose between two evils.
My biggest problem with the Democrats is that I am traditionally a small, hands-off government person and the Democrats never even pretend to be that. The reason I'm leaning for Obama is largely because whatever the Republicans want us to think, they are not the party for small government. The only party left for true small government people is the libertarian party but, IMO, they take it too far. Besides, the country doesn't seem quite ready for a third party yet. I'm not sure if/when it will be...
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
One of the reasons I hope for Obama is that he seems to have a better than usual ability to engage with people and issues on an individual level; the "I'm fighting for so and so of Small Town, USA" speeches have become de rigeur, but reading Obama's speeches and biographies has given me the sense that he's only succeeded to the degree he has by engaging with people; without that, many people would be prone to see him as a blank slate with a funny name (or, if certain activists have their way, a Muslim with pro-terrorist sympathies.)
To go out on a limb, I don't think most people have a problem with government, per se; they have a problem with massive bureaucracies that squander their time and money and don't accomplish the functions they promise, or worse, hinder people in doing what they would otherwise manage perfectly well for themselves. The two don't have to be one and the same. We can neither throw money at a problem at expect it to solve itself, nor can we cut money that has been allocated to a problem and pretend that by "starving a cold", we're solving the problem. We need solutions that work at a non-sound bite level. And I think Obama is the better person to acknowledge the reality of those problems, and the better person to seek out individual solutions.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ohhhh pwned. In 2000 apparently GWB's platform was to "Change Washington".
I wonder how that worked out.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"In 2000 apparently GWB's platform was to "Change Washington".
I wonder how that worked out."
With Dick Cheney as the VP who calls the president "the Apprentice"? Ish, maybe not so well. LOL
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
huh, was McCain 980th place in the naval academy?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Ohhhh pwned. In 2000 apparently GWB's platform was to "Change Washington".
I wonder how that worked out.
I think there has been a lot of change over the past 8 years. Change isn't always a good thing.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think there has been a lot of change over the past 8 years. Change isn't always a good thing.
I remember Bush running on tax cuts, school testing, and faith-based initiatives in 2000. He got all three of them done. The results are lower taxes/higher deficit/weaker dollar, an education system that is so focused on increasing scores we've forgotten the purpose of education, and another government bureaucracy nominally intent on handing money to some churches. Indeed, all change is not good change.
The problem is that Obama is such a companyman technocrat, he isn't going to actually take the steps necessary to strengthen the dollar, increase the quality of educational discourse, or scrap the faith-based intitiative program. The guy is a conservative democrat. Instead, he'll make little changes in all three so that they'll run just a bit better than they do now. That's it. He'll make fundamentally misguided programs a bit more efficient and managable. The new program to allow college students a chance to work of 4,000 dollars in school debt through community service could yield interesting consequences.
McCain is a wild card. Who knows what he'll do with domestic policy. It could be fantastic, or at worse, the exact same.
[ September 07, 2008, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"The guy is a conservative democrat."
I thought I was the only person who thought that. However, I make no assumptions about what he would/will do in office. Why do you think he's such a known quantity? Unless I get to hear him say, "OK, here's what such-and-such did right and wrong while in office", I won't think he's at all a known quantity in much of any sense.
I hear you on McCain being a wild card, domestically.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Why do you think he's such a known quantity? Unless I get to hear him say, "OK, here's what such-and-such did right and wrong while in office", I won't think he's at all a known quantity in much of any sense.
If you listen to the speech he gave at the DNC and go to his webpage, there is a lot of high rhetoric that's not terribly deep advocating itty-bitty policy changes. It's almost as if his election is his biggest policy issue. That's not all bad. Bush's oil man presence sucks all of the air out of the room with respect to energy and environmental policy. I expect that Obama's presidency would at least open up space for some of the braver Senators to talk about healthcare and alternative energy. Obama, himself and his handlers, don't have the political will to initiate anything other than a conservative Democratic initiative. He'll take what's already there and make it a little better and sound great doing it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: McCain is a wild card. Who knows what he'll do with domestic policy. It could be fantastic, or at worse, the exact same.
I think they're both wild cards, to be honest.
IMO, McCain could make things worse. I don't think that at worst, things would be the same under him, but perhaps that's because I think heading down the same road we're on would be quite bad .I am particularly skeptical of his environmental policies and plans for reducing dependency on foreign oil.
As for Obama, I'm not sure about the wisdom of a national health care initiative (although I'm not as opposed to it as I once was). A lot of the changes he propose sound measured and small but drastic change can't come in a few years. It takes time, effort, and a nationwide will. The fact that Obama seems to understand this is one reason that I am leaning heavily in his direction.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Why do you think he's such a known quantity? Unless I get to hear him say, "OK, here's what such-and-such did right and wrong while in office", I won't think he's at all a known quantity in much of any sense.
If you listen to the speech he gave at the DNC and go to his webpage, there is a lot of high rhetoric that's not terribly deep advocating itty-bitty policy changes. It's almost as if his election is his biggest policy issue. That's not all bad. Bush's oil man presence sucks all of the air out of the room with respect to energy and environmental policy. I expect that Obama's presidency would at least open up space for some of the braver Senators to talk about healthcare and alternative energy. Obama, himself and his handlers, don't have the political will to initiate anything other than a conservative Democratic initiative. He'll take what's already there and make it a little better and sound great doing it.
Crock, he's repeatedly stated going to make the initiative of gaining energy independence by ten years, "making a few things better" is the worst case scenario and completely unsubstantiated, quotes man, give us quotes for us to take this cynical pessimism seriously.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: As for Obama, I'm not sure about the wisdom of a national health care initiative (although I'm not as opposed to it as I once was). A lot of the changes he propose sound measured and small but drastic change can't come in a few years. It takes time, effort, and a nationwide will. The fact that Obama seems to understand this is one reason that I am leaning heavily in his direction.
I disagree. I think it takes someone saying, "This is what we are going to do, and this is why we are going to do it." Bush wanted NLCB, tax cuts, a War and Iraq, the Patriot Act, and he got them. If Clinton had been half as aggressive on gays in the military, the services would be fully integrated and the service people would have shut up and dealt with it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I call foul there, DADT was extremely controversial and was probably the only politically viable way (in the midst of other failed reforms) of getting it in in any way at all.
The fact that it was an Executive Order should have strongly implied how difficult that even this as you put it "half measure" to get through.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:he's repeatedly stated going to make the initiative of gaining energy independence by ten years, "making a few things better" is the worst case scenario and completely unsubstantiated, quotes man, give us quotes for us to take this cynical pessimism seriously.
Blayne, he talked about independence from mideast oil, which isn't the same as energy independence because the problem isn't US consumption of mideast oil in particular, as much as the fact that Mideast oil stabilizes and controls the global market. We don't need to wean the US off of Mideast oil, we need to design viable technology to wean the world off of oil.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne said: "In 2000 apparently GWB's platform was to 'Change Washington'.
"I wonder how that worked out."
Well, early in his first term, Pres. Bush II had both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans. Now Dems control both houses of Congress. That is change, isn't it?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:We don't need to wean the US off of Mideast oil, we need to design viable technology to wean the world off of oil.
Sounds like a job for a technocrat to me...
quote:McCain is a wild card. Who knows what he'll do with domestic policy. It could be fantastic, or at worse, the exact same.
Bad news: it's going to be the exact same. You think McCain is going to change anything about No Child Left Behind?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:You think McCain is going to change anything about No Child Left Behind?
No, and I think Obama is just going to try to put more money into it, which is a black hole as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Since the teachers' unions help pay Obama's bills, he might also try to ease up some of the awful "accountability" measures in NCLB.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
This is the kind of issue it would be good to see addressed in the debates.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: IMO, McCain could make things worse. I don't think that at worst, things would be the same under him, but perhaps that's because I think heading down the same road we're on would be quite bad .I am particularly skeptical of his environmental policies and plans for reducing dependency on foreign oil.
What things is McCain going to do that will cause our country's path under him to be significantly different than under Bush?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:he's repeatedly stated going to make the initiative of gaining energy independence by ten years, "making a few things better" is the worst case scenario and completely unsubstantiated, quotes man, give us quotes for us to take this cynical pessimism seriously.
Blayne, he talked about independence from mideast oil, which isn't the same as energy independence because the problem isn't US consumption of mideast oil in particular, as much as the fact that Mideast oil stabilizes and controls the global market. We don't need to wean the US off of Mideast oil, we need to design viable technology to wean the world off of oil.
And.... for some reason you think if the US can wean itself of the mideast it won't somehow help to wean the WORLD off of oil? Last I checked new technologies have a habit of spreading.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"This is the kind of issue it would be good to see addressed in the debates."
It'd be nice. They'll probably just, on McCain's/Palin's side, brag about their war record/make silly cracks about Obama, and on Obama/Biden's side, do exactly what Irami has said, talk about tiny little changes. My hope is that a President Obama would either reveal himself to be a tremendous champion of alternative energy research as well as of tax cuts for using current alternative energy tech, or be extremely permissive toward Congressmen/women who are pretty fanatical about those alternative energy issues. Seriously, it's time to stop spending money on feeding Muslims and then dropping bombs on them (because they overpopulated as a result of having too much money and food, and therefore are feeling all fundamentalist and warlike, therefore needing their butts whipped), and start spending it on alternative energy. It's cheaper in the long run. Bombs and planes are expensive, forever, because you keep needing new ones. At a certain point, alternative energy is simply cheaper than fossil fuels, once you've put enough money into R & D, and then, you're done with the cost, and can spend money on whatever you want. Personally, I'd spend it on education, but whatever.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tax cuts for using current alternative energy tech would be a colossal mistake. Fund research, sure, but subsidizing implementation makes no sense.
If there's a serious intent to make using alternative energy relatively more cost effective, the way to do that is with a carbon tax (or cap and trade).
McCain's come out strongly (and concretely in Congress) in favor of cap and trade programs. Obama has voiced support for them, too. It is pretty likely that we'll see such an effort under either administration.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: IMO, McCain could make things worse. I don't think that at worst, things would be the same under him, but perhaps that's because I think heading down the same road we're on would be quite bad .I am particularly skeptical of his environmental policies and plans for reducing dependency on foreign oil.
What things is McCain going to do that will cause our country's path under him to be significantly different than under Bush?
Nothing. Guess I wasn't clear. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Has either candidate said anything specific about undoing NCLB? Because I'd love to see that go away.
I'd also like to see the end of corporate welfare but alas, I think both candidates support at least some bail out programs.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Overlooking NCLB and I have to say that it doesn't in theory look that bad, it means well but is terribly terribly poorly exeucted as far as I can tell.
It needs substantial reforms but the idea of reforming the education system, tightening standards, and improving the education budget overall isn't that bad of an idea.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Tax cuts for using current alternative energy tech would be a colossal mistake. Fund research, sure, but subsidizing implementation makes no sense.
If there's a serious intent to make using alternative energy relatively more cost effective, the way to do that is with a carbon tax (or cap and trade).
Or at least stop giving the petroleum companies massive tax breaks... And stop vetoing anything that the petroleum companies lobby against...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Overlooking NCLB and I have to say that it doesn't in theory look that bad, it means well but is terribly terribly poorly exeucted as far as I can tell."
This is my thought. Generally, it's a good idea to provide some kind of across-the-board scorecard. However, when teachers start teaching to the test, that means things have started to go awry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Tax cuts for using current alternative energy tech would be a colossal mistake. Fund research, sure, but subsidizing implementation makes no sense.
If there's a serious intent to make using alternative energy relatively more cost effective, the way to do that is with a carbon tax (or cap and trade).
McCain's come out strongly (and concretely in Congress) in favor of cap and trade programs. Obama has voiced support for them, too. It is pretty likely that we'll see such an effort under either administration.
I disagree only in that I think pulling the rug out from underneath the renewable energy industry would be a huge, huge setback. The one exception being I think tax breaks for corn ethanol are a gigantic waste of money. We should be funnelling money into R&D for all of them so they can get their costs down, and at the same time the carbon tax will raise the price of coal and oil, likely bringing them to either parity, or an advantage for some renewables. It'll also allow the best technologies to rise to the top more easily than with a production tax credit.
I'm prefer the carbon cap and trade system, as it would also spur massive spending on efficiency upgrades that were desperately need, but until it comes into being I think the production tax credit for renewables needs to stay in place. Otherwise the entire industry will suffer a partial collapse.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A carbon tax and cap and trade would cause almost exactly the same spending on efficiency upgrades. They're effectively the same thing, the only variations being in who captures the surplus and in how they are enforced.
Any parts of the renewable energy industry that can't survive without a tax credit specifically targeted at them shouldn't exist.
edit: and since there are still huge profit opportunities abounding, especially with a carbon tax or cap and trade, I'm not particularly worried about the renewable energy industry. Expanding a bit on my position, just because the inefficiencies and perverse incentives generated by ethanol are the ones you notice doesn't mean the industries that can't survive without credits aren't causing many of the same problems, and wouldn't be a huge barrier to adoption of better technologies if they continued to be preferred over alternatives that hadn't been come up with yet.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Tax cuts for using current alternative energy tech would be a colossal mistake. Fund research, sure, but subsidizing implementation makes no sense.
Oil sands projects have been heavily subsidized in Canada during both the research and implementation phases.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: A carbon tax and cap and trade would cause almost exactly the same spending on efficiency upgrades. They're effectively the same thing, the only variations being in who captures the surplus and in how they are enforced.
Any parts of the renewable energy industry that can't survive without a tax credit specifically targeted at them shouldn't exist.
edit: and since there are still huge profit opportunities abounding, especially with a carbon tax or cap and trade, I'm not particularly worried about the renewable energy industry. Expanding a bit on my position, just because the inefficiencies and perverse incentives generated by ethanol are the ones you notice doesn't mean the industries that can't survive without credits aren't causing many of the same problems, and wouldn't be a huge barrier to adoption of better technologies if they continued to be preferred over alternatives that hadn't been come up with yet.
I meant I'd prefer cap and trade to the production tax credits, not to a carbon tax. I'd be okay with either a carbon tax or a cap and trade system.
On the part in italics up there, I guess that's a matter of opinion, but a lot of that opportunity will dry up without the tax credit. I've read at least two reports, one from the US government and one from the renewable energy industry that state the loss of the production tax credit would mean a loss of billions in investments, 100,000 jobs, and whole companies leaving for Europe where there are friendlier rules/laws for renewables.
I think it's a roll of the dice, but it would be silly to throw a relatively young industry into disarray when a carbon tax of some sort is probably only a couple years away. Democrats in Congress are going to push it, and either Obama or McCain will sign it into law. That's the only reason companies are spending so much on renewables right now. I'm all for ending the tax credit, as soon as it's replaced with a carbon tax/cap and trade system. Generally I agree with you, that if a company can't survive on its own, it probably shouldn't exist, but I think there are exceptions to every rule, and this is one of those exceptions, temporarily. I wouldn't support an endless tax credit. Several companies are nearing parity with fossil fuels even without tax credits, mostly in solar, with several more in the wings with fantastic potential technology. I just don't see the point in stunting their growth for a year or two. Let the tax credit run its course and then transition them into the new system, at which point the best technology will rise to the top, like it is now. I know we won't agree on this one, but that's my opinion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
twinky: and it was probably a mistake to fund said implementation.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I saw just a bit of the headlines on the 24-hour news stations when they were reporting that McCain is leading Obama in the polls now. But that's all I saw.
Anyone care to analyze the polls? Opinions?
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Convention bounce. It was expected.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, they both had conventions very close. Was it just because the Republican one was last?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Well, they both had conventions very close. Was it just because the Republican one was last?
Yes, There was also a bounce for the democrats following their convention but it was very short lived because the republican convention followed immediately on its heels.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Almost half of voters in 2004 voted for Bush, and that's when he was a known quantity. I'm shocked that the Obama campaign thinks they can win this campaign by attacking Bush. It's an insult to over 55 million Americans. You can talk about Bush's unfavorable polling numbers, but I don't know if that matters. Millions of people voted for him, and there is a reason they did so. I think the Obama campaign would be better served by thinking about that reason than attacking Bush. ____
Obama's is trying to make a big stink about middle-class tax cuts. I don't know anyone who gets excited about middle class tax cuts. I'm part of the working poor, so it's not a big issue for me. I want better schools. I want to know that the schools in my neighborhood are teaching kids how to be good people so that I don't have to worry about getting jumped at night. I guess I'm a value voter.
[ September 08, 2008, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Not all 55 million. Some of us regret it. And some of us regret that the democratic party didn't offer someone better than Kerry four years ago. So it's not an insult to all of us.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sidebar:
The oil sands may be the only thing that saves the asphalt industry.
Asphalt plants are having an extremely hard time at the moment, because the high sulfur bottoms product that they used to get from the refineries, has skyrocketed in price. The price of oil is high enough that it is worth it to the refineries to recycle that stream and reprocess it through the system. This has significantly changed the amount and substance of this bottoms product, making it virtually unusable for asphalt tar.
Asphalt plants around the country are in a quandary. It isn't just that the price of the bottoms product goes up, it is that there really isn't anymore useable product available to them at all. The refineries have zero incentive to leave the product in form useable for asphalt, because the price of the additional oil they extract during the reprocessing is worth thousands of times more than what the asphalt plants could ever afford to pay.
The oil sands are so tarry to begin with, that they may just save the asphalt industry. The asphalt producers have hired consultants to figure out what to do. I've seen the reports, and other than the oil sands, there are no other additional tar streams possible.
It won't matter if they make alternatively fueled vehicles, if roads don't exist to run them on. We may be going to all concrete roads in the next 50 years. But concrete is sooooo much more expensive than asphalt, I don't know how small towns and villages will be able to afford to keep their basic residential roads in repair, particularly in areas with regular freeze-thaw cycles.
So this is the long way around, to say that "infrastructure building" should be a HUGE priority in conjunction with an energy policy because the two are far more codependent than you might think. Infrastructure policy (and whether it makes sense compared to proposed energy policies) will probably be the key issue that decides my vote.
Does either canidate even *have* an explicit infrastructure policy at this point? I really haven't heard anything.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
How explicit? I'm sure they both have something on their websites, but I doubt it's the explicit you mean.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama has thrown up some numbers one what he'd like to spend on infrastructure, and has said that he wants to get together some sort of task force to begin looking at projects. I think what he wants to do is establish some sort of fund from which states can request money for a specific project that needs to be done. Other than that I haven't heard anything specific.
I've heard nothing from McCain, but to be honest I haven't looked, so I too am curious as to his position.
It's two and a half weeks to the first debate. I wouldn't be surprised if you started to see some more policy oriented things hitting the news soon. At the very least, the subject of offshore drilling is going to come to a head in the next couple weeks. It's starting to look more and more likely that Congress will pass some sort of compromise legislation on lifting the ban on a few southeastern states for offshore drilling.
I'm not sure how it will effect the election, but I'm betting it'll allow Democrats to blunt the ad campaign the GOP is putting out against them blaming Democrats for high gas prices.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: twinky: and it was probably a mistake to fund said implementation.
By what metric?
I probably agree with you in the oil sands case, but I'm curious as to your reasoning.
Added: AJ, I was wondering how the asphalt industry was doing in light of the shifts in refineries' supply and operation in the last couple of years. Thanks for the summary.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Not all 55 million. Some of us regret it. And some of us regret that the democratic party didn't offer someone better than Kerry four years ago. So it's not an insult to all of us.
God bless you. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Bok, what I've found on Obama is stuff about his "Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank"
Neither "transportation" nor "infrastructure" is in the pull down menu on obama's campaign site. You have to go to "addtional topics" to find more details.
He's saying 60 billion over 10 years. While it is better than nothing, it's still a jokingly small amount IMO. In major cities, a single reconstruction project for a relatively short stretch of highway can cost over a billion dollars.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
cool, my last post was 11,111!
To be fair I'm attempting to find similar things for McCain. I have been much less successful so far. One thing I that I know that will screw transoprtation revenues, is a gas tax holiday. A lot of gas taxes are earmarked directly for highway funding, I believe at both the federal and state levels.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Suspension of the gas tax would bankrupt the national highway trust fund. He'd have to either vastly increase deficit spending, or come up with huge cuts elsewhere to make up for it, all while increasing spending on the military, as he has promised to do, which already stands at $600 billion plus.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Almost half of voters in 2004 voted for Bush, and that's when he was a known quantity. I'm shocked that the Obama campaign thinks they can win this campaign by attacking Bush. It's an insult to over 55 million Americans. You can talk about Bush's unfavorable polling numbers, but I don't know if that matters. Millions of people voted for him, and there is a reason they did so. I think the Obama campaign would be better served by thinking about that reason than attacking Bush. ____
Obama's is trying to make a big stink about middle-class tax cuts. I don't know anyone who gets excited about middle class tax cuts. I'm part of the working poor, so it's not a big issue for me. I want better schools. I want to know that the schools in my neighborhood are teaching kids how to be good people so that I don't have to worry about getting jumped at night. I guess I'm a value voter.
Firstly: I would like to point out that only a fraction of your population actually bothered to vote at all, saying its insulting is like throwing the word "rape" around expecting to win the argument, it doesn't. Essentially the idea is that President Bush has managed over the last 4 years especially and in the last 8 years overall to so significantly and massively harm the country politically, socially, economically and militarily with easily verifiable facts that you don't even have to research them at this point that he can easily make the argument that Bush == Bad President so vote Democrat this year instead of Bush's Third Term.
55 million may or may not have voted for him, whether or not that still want to keep their choice, go out to vote for McCain or just stay home or in the case of many many MANY republicans Susan Eisenhower in particular switch to Democrat to vote for Obama.
The values you want instituted cannot under any amount of federal funding, enforcement or encouragement achieve, that is something that the society as a whole needs to work towards together.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly: I would like to point out that only a fraction of your population actually bothered to vote at all, saying its insulting is like throwing the word "rape" around expecting to win the argument, it doesn't. Essentially the idea is that President Bush has managed over the last 4 years especially and in the last 8 years overall to so significantly and massively harm the country politically, socially, economically and militarily with easily verifiable facts that you don't even have to research them at this point that he can easily make the argument that Bush == Bad President so vote Democrat this year instead of Bush's Third Term.
Proving that Bush was a bad president(which you post doesn't do)hardly refutes Irami's point that it's not a wise decision that Obama's campaign is attacking Bush. He's saying it's an ineffective tactic, not that Bush wasn't a bad president. I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Proving that Bush was a bad president(which you post doesn't do)hardly refutes Irami's point that it's not a wise decision that Obama's campaign is attacking Bush. He's saying it's an ineffective tactic, not that Bush wasn't a bad president. I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at.
I think it goes something like this:
1. Bush is bad for America. 2. McCain is Bush. 3. Since McCain is Bush, he will do the same things Bush did, and thus, McCain will be just as bad for America. 4. We need change from those same policies.
So, by attacking Bush, Obama is effectively attacking McCain (whom it is harder to attack).
ETA: Whether that is effective or not is not entirely clear yet. If McCain can break from Bush, then Obama's mantle of change is much less effective, and even worse for Obama is if things actually do get better in America (that's a horrible thing to say but true). For instance, the reason the economy is Obama's campaign stump these days is because he cannot talk about change in Iraq because the situation has gotten much better.
What's even more interesting is McCain's strategy. I think what has been happening is interesting, McCain went negative before the convention and Obama did not answer him until the conventions and now after. And yet, the night Obama accepted the nomination, McCain ran an ad that did nothing but congratulate him on the nomination. Then McCain nominated Palin and took on the mantle of change/maverick. Basically, what happened then is that McCain went negative before the conventions to get Obama to do so, and then after the conventions, when everyone is paying attention, McCain laid off the negative attacks and Obama's retorts against McCain now look negative. Now, Obama is the negative politician and McCain is the maverick who hijacks Obama's change message after Obama gave it up to attack McCain.
[ September 09, 2008, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I understand that Humean, I wasn't questioning if the claims of the Obama camp are valid or not, just whether their the correct ones to make.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Since we were brining up the differences between the two conventions, and how our own eyes filter based on our previous beliefs, I thought I'd link to this blog post by non-inflammatory right wing political commentator Dennis Prager:
Really, we should say the McCain-Palin ticket is up by these margins over the Obama-Biden ticket, since the addition of Gov. Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, has had a major effect. It is not just a "convention bounce."
Obama had at best a six-point bounce after the Dem Convention, and now McCain has not only caused Obama's convention bounce to evaporate, he has gone up ten points over Obama among likely voters, meaning he has actually gained 16 points. This is far more than can be explained by any typical convention bounce.
This is the "Palin bounce," pure and simple. And the Dems know it, which is why most of their attacks are now directed at her. The Obama campaign staffers have reportedly been calling up the outspoken liberal media people who have been using over-the-top attacks against Palin that most people see as blatantly sexist and invasive of their family, and asking them to pull back. They know that such attacks have been helping the McCain-Palin ticket get even more favor among voters as a backlash against the liberal press.
It was interesting to learn in recent days that two MSNBC anchorpersons Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann will no longer act as anchors of the network's election coverage. This came in response to the severe criticism the network has received over being so openly and obviously biased. Matthews stated some time ago that when Obama came into the room, he felt "a tingling sensation up his leg," a statement that has made Matthews a laughing stock ever since.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I does appear that I have once again overestimated the American electorate.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I am disappointed with the US that Palin has gotten McCain this much of a jump. And I don't need to attack her personally -- her record has enough bad stuff in it that there's just no need to go there. What amazes me is that Americans don't seem to be looking at her record. As near as I can tell, they're looking at her breasts.
I mean I'm as eager for a woman in a position of power as anyone, but can't we have a qualified *person* who just happens to be a woman rather than someone with no national experience and no foreign experience? Is she really the best the Republicans have?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
538 (fivethirtyeight.com) has some interesting analysis of the recent poll numbers.
538 is just awesome in general, too.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Really, we should say the McCain-Palin ticket is up by these margins over the Obama-Biden ticket, since the addition of Gov. Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, has had a major effect. It is not just a "convention bounce."
Why should we say it is not just a "convention bounce" when the one poll you are referring to was taken immediately after the convention?
The interesting thing about Palin is the degree to which the Republicans have extended a sort of artificial Palin bounce by hiding her from the public. But eventually she's going to have to talk with the press, give positions on issues, defend her claims, etc. When that happens, over time my guess is moderates will be increasingly turned off by her lack of experience and her more extreme conservative views.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
See, while you might be amazed at how many people like her (which I don't find that hard to believe at all--like Obama, she's charismatic, but unlike Hillary, even when's on the offensive she seems optimistic and happy), I can't believe how anxius people are to find all kinds of crazy, untrue reasons to revile her. It's not enough that she just dissagrees with people, politically--it's like they're desperate for her to be vile.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Some of the rumors are false.
Some are not.
On the true list:
She decided that rape victims in Wasilla would pay for their own rape kits. So, on top of being assaulted, any woman brave enough to face the police department and report it would be slapped with a $1200 bill for the kit.
She charged the state for her children's travel.
She charged the state for per diem travel stipend on days she never left her home town.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
doc, claiming that liberals are "tone-deaf to patriotic symbols" is not "non-inflammatory". His way of refuting the Democrats' charge that the extra flags were taken mistakenly rather than thrown out is essentially a schoolyard defense: "I just don't believe them."
With rhetoric like that, how can anyone bridge the gap if they wanted to?
Anyway, when people (who I claim with as much credibility as Prager, are largely conservatives) stop disrespecting the flag by wearing prints of it, or putting a print of it on the back window of their vehicle, then I will lend greater weight to the argument that liberals are the ones that are tone-deaf [EDIT: see section (d)].
Patriotism means more then "my country, love it or leave it." [EDIT: Or it ought to.] --
That all said, I respect his observations insofar that I believe he is sincere. I just disagree with his rationale on various conclusions he makes.
-Bok
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Bok: I wasn't posting his article as irrefutable logic.
I was posting his article in response to the observations made earlier, by Chris Bridges and others, about the differences between the various conventions.
I was showing it as further proof about the different filters people see the same events through--in other words, I was posting it more as an "anthropological" observation of conservatives, rather than as an arguement.
As for "non-inflamatory" I was trying to come up with a good euphamism for "not like Michael Savage." Prager is one of the calmer mainstream Republican voices out there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Those Gallup poll numbers are hyperinflated. They'll come back down to earth in a week or two, and then the whole thing will probably shift as undecideds begin to pick their candidates after the first debate in two and a half weeks. I don't for a minute really believe that Palin has altered things that dramatically. People still vote top of the ticket, and Palin will drive away independents en masse.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:She decided that rape victims in Wasilla would pay for their own rape kits. So, on top of being assaulted, any woman brave enough to face the police department and report it would be slapped with a $1200 bill for the kit.
See, this is a good example of what I'm talking about. This story was broken by a blog called Stop All Monsters, which proclaims her, "one of the worst human beings, ever," and, "a demon."
The story makes it sound like a peice of paper with the words "Rape Kit" crossed the Mayor's desk, and she checked the "victim pays" box.
The actual story seems to be that the city law enforcement had a policy of the victim paying for any type of forensic kit in instances where there was no prosecution. This policy was on the books prior to Palin taking over as Mayor, but when the state signed a bill to mandate that the city foot the bill, the police chief she appointed was quoted in the article about it citing concern for the taxpayers.
So the question is actually how unsympathetic her police cheif was to rape victims, and how sympatheic she was to his unsympathic views.
In other words, this is all more complicated than simple reports make it sound.
I absolutely acknowledge that not having rape victims pay for their own kits is a good idea. I disagree with the idea that anything that anyone shows has happened actually suggests that Palin is unsympathtic to rape victims.
But it's this need to have her be a "demon" that motivates the push to make all the connections.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course it is more complicated.
On the other hand, she gets away with the uncomplicated, "Thanks but no thanks" on the bridge to nowhere without the nuance of explaining that she campaigned for it and, after it became an albatross, kept the money for it anyway.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But it's this need to have her be a "demon" that motivates the push to make all the connections.
Yes, but isn't this something that happens to all political candidates, in particular new and unfamiliar ones? For instance, it seems pretty clear that Obama doesn't secretly agree with the crazy rantings of Reverent Wright, yet many who wanted to find a reason to hate Obama somehow made themselves believe it to be true. Or, for that matter, I think it's pretty obvious that Bush did not secretly plan 9/11, yet there are quite a few people who have someone convinced themselves that there exists proof he did. John Kerry was a war hero, but many became convinced it was a lie. The list goes on... People seem inclined to demonize the political opposition - at some point it becomes more about winning than getting to the actual truth.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:On the other hand, she gets away with the uncomplicated, "Thanks but no thanks" on the bridge to nowhere without the nuance of explaining that she campaigned for it and, after it became an albatross, kept the money for it anyway.
Do you happen to know the names of any Senators who voted for that bridge? But never had a "come-to-Jesus" moment on earmarks later?
Don't you think there's a certain "lack of nuance" on two senators attacking her for having a change of heart on something they were both in on?
Again, notice the nuance in this post. I did not defend Palin's line about "Thanks, but no thanks." To me, the quote where she said, "You're not nowhere to me," is the most condmning one, and I'm suprised it's not cited more.
And I'd hardly say she's "gotten away with it." For someone who's being as scrutinized as she is, do you think that maybe her real history on the bridge has gotten out there?
But she eventually did come around, and she has been more careful on earmarks since, and especially on state spending. Her reputation as a pork cutter has been earned, and it's as unneccesarry for her to keep citing the "Bridge to Nowhere" as proof of that as it is for her opponents to try to make her into the spawn of Satan.
That doesn't mean that she's stopped all spending or that there are absolutely zero bad policies in the city she came from or the state she governed.
There are probably far more incriminating things that are going to come out in the next few weeks, and she'll have to deal with them.
And she is going to deal with them--I'm pleased to see she's agreed to a no-topic-off-limits conversation with ABC's Charlie Gibson. I think Gibson will force her to confront the nuance on some of these issues, and if he doesn't, then I'm sure Joe Biden will.
It's going to be interesting.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Vote obama.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know that she is campaigning on the bridge thing.
I wish that all voters bothered to look into the complications of particular votes and issues and really looked at how and why candidates took particular positions and what positions they would be likely to take in the future.
Sadly they don't.
Edit to change. Some do. Just not enough of them.
[ September 09, 2008, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She charged the state for her children's travel.
She charged the state for per diem travel stipend on days she never left her home town.
I wish the article I read on this subject had included the text of the relevant regulations. There's a very good chance one or both of these are fully in accord with the rules on travel reimbursement. It seems like that is obviously relevant to the issue at hand.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm reading this biography on FDR, and it reminds me of what one would say of Obama,
quote:"The art of carrying water on both shoulders is highly developed in American politics, and Mr. Roosevelt has learned it," Lippmann declared. Roosevelt's feat, Lippmann explained, consisted in attacking and defending the status quo simultaneously, declaring the need for fundamental reforms even while disclaiming any such intent. Lippmann had to admire Roosevelt's ingenuity, but he was at a loss as to what the governor actually stood for. "It is not easy to say with certainty whether his left-wing or right-wing supporters are the more deceived. The reason is that Mr. Roosevelt is a highly impressionable person, without a firm grasp of public affairs and without very strong convictions." Certain of Roosevelt's supporters called him a dangerous enemy of those malign forces that currently afflicted America; Lippmann dismissed such descriptions as laughable. "Franklin D. Roosevelt is an amiable man with many philanthropic influences, but he is not the dangerous enemy of anything. The notion, which seems to prevail in the West and South, that Wall Street fears him, is preposterous...Wall Street does not like some of his supporters. Wall Street does not like his vagueness and the uncertainty as to what he does think, but if any Western Progressive thinks the Governor has challenged directly or indirectly the wealth concentrated in New York City, he is mightily mistaken." Roosevelt's record as governor revealed a penchant for brave words rather than bold deeds. "I doubt whether anyone can point to a single act of his which involved any political risk." The keepers of the status quo needn't worry about Roosevelt. "Franklin D. Roosevelt is no crusader. He is no tribune of the people. He is no enemy of entrenched privilege. He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President."
Lippmann wrote this of FDR before Roosevelt pledged his new deal for American at the DNC. Roosevelt ended up following through, aggressively adjusting public sensibilities concerning the role of government and the economy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So your saying that Obama will follow through with his plans for change then? That would appear to be the implication.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
08ama
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:So your saying that Obama will follow through with his plans for change then?
Roosevelt's new deal turned the United States into a planned economy with a myriad of safety nets and an eye towards increasing the purchasing power of the poor.
Obama wants middle class tax cuts, to move troops from one part of the middle east to another, for us to get serious about dabbling our feet into alternative energy, and to throw money at NCLB. That's not a plan for change. That's thinking about a plan for change, or at best, helping more people participate in the same. There isn't a profound conversation about the fundamental inadequacies in Bush's current approach to government. Obama's change would swap out a few parts, and put a new coat of paint on the same.
[ September 09, 2008, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:So your saying that Obama will follow through with his plans for change then?
Roosevelt's new deal turned the United States into a planned economy with a myriad of safety nets and an eye towards increasing the purchasing power of the poor.
Obama wants middle class tax cuts, to move troops from one part of the middle east to another, for us to get serious about dabbling our feet into alternative energy, and to throw money at NCLB. That's not a plan for change. That's thinking about a plan for change, or at best, helping more people participate in the same. There isn't a profound conversation about the fundamental inadequacies in Bush's current approach to government. Obama's change would swap out a few parts, and put a new coat of paint on the same.
First of all, his alternative energy initiatives, if he can make it happen, would bring real change.
He also wants national health care. Something I'm not sure I agree with, but definitely different.
As for comparing FDR to Obama...that's not fair. FDR was an idolized 4-term president with 60 years of history to help put what he said and did into perspective. Obama is a candidate trying to earn our trust and a chance to make change. Only history can judge if he follows through on that promise...assuming we give him that chance.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
--Enigmatic
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I understand why people don't want to vote for Obama, what I don't understand is how people can support McCain. With Palin's fundamental belief in oil, even if she has a problem with some aspects of the oil industry, and the talk of drilling and scattershot approach to alternative energy, I can't imagine they'll get serious about any one alternative plan. He is going to try to cut the budget, that's a given, but military spending isn't going to be touched, which means slying cutting domestic programs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Or an even more massive deficit than we're already running, and a vastly increased national debt.
Neither of them is going to be able to have everything they are promising. Prioritizing is going to be key. I already know that the budget isn't going to be balanced, likely not even by the end of their first terms, regardless of what they are promising. There's just too many things demanding funds and not enough funds for them.
Considering the MASSIVE increase in the deficit that was just reported, the next guy will have a HUGE problem on his desk as soon as he gets there. But a lot of our problems are going to require some sort of money to fix them. Tough choices are ahead. I see McCain and the Dems getting together on a cap and trade bill and probably some alternative energy stuff. Dems will hammer it home and McCain would likely sign it, but I'm curious as to what the Dems and Obama would come up with. Republicans had total control for six years and spending exploded, and seemingly we got nothing for it. I'm curious as to what the Dems would come up with.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm curious as to what the Dems would come up with.
Even with both houses, I'm curious to see if the Democrats know how to take initiative and get legislation through with a Republican President.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Remember how earlier I said that I wouldn't be terribly unhappy if either candidate won? I favored Obama, but respected McCain.
Never mind.
McCain's latest ad follows some McCain and Obama back-and-forths on education, and suggests that Obama wants to teach kindergartners how to have sex. Here's the ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nagb3exhNvQ
Here's the script:
quote:Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education.”That he’s “elusive” on accountability.“A staunch defender on the existing public school monopoly.”
Obama’s one accomplishment: Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education – to kindergarteners.
Learning about sex before learning to read?
Barack Obama: wrong for education, wrong for your family.
McCain: I’m John McCain, and I approve this message."
Alan Keyes tried to use this tactic in the 2004 Senate race. It was made clear that the lesson plan was age-appropriate, not an explicit how-to as this ad strongly implies. At that age, the course was intended to teach children how to recognize and avoid child molesters.
That's it, I'm done defending McCain and I absolutely do not want him in office. Is Obama attacking McCain's policies? Hell, yes. Are some of his claims against McCain biased or worded to be half-truths? Yes. I think he's done better than average, but he's still a politician.
But John McCain has embraced far-right religious leaders he previously shunned, chosen an unprepared running mate solely to win the election, flipped on several opinions to match the opinions of the base, and has accepted the Rovian style of political advertising devoted to winning no matter what the cost to personal integrity or the country. He has become what he spent the last few decades fighting against. I no longer believe John McCain to be an honorable man, no matter how many years he was in a box.
Obama's camp responded:
quote:"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why."
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I see McCain and the Dems getting together on a cap and trade bill and probably some alternative energy stuff. Dems will hammer it home and McCain would likely sign it, but I'm curious as to what the Dems and Obama would come up with.
Actually, I would bet that the deal with both houses of congress and McCain would be that he gets to do what he wants in Iraq and they get to do all the other stuff. In that case, passing bills will not be a problem (and the Republicans cannot filibuster or face the same threat they gave to the Democrats), but Iraq and foreign policy will.
Of course, that assumes Obama loses, and though there is alot of election to go, it is 50/50 whether he wins.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Well, Chris, this came out of Obama's mouth:
quote:“John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out George Bush – except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics – we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington,’” Obama said.
“That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
I'm pretty sure he called McCain old and Palin a pig.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure he called McCain old and Palin a pig.
If you really believe that, I question your reading comprehension. The lipstick comment has NOTHING to do with Palin. It's talking about trying to dress up something to disguise it's true nature. The next comment about the old fish just reinforces the purpose of the first metaphor.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
No he didn't. That was an analogy.
EDIT: What Xavier said.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Even if it was, is it anywhere NEAR the same level of slander and misinformation the Republicans are throwing back?
I cannot understand the logic behind deficit spending, SURE spend money to make money, I can understand how IN THEORY trying to make the economy grow faster in relation to the debt may be plausible under careful control and discipline, but with American politics its like playing Russian roulette with a few extra bullets just to make it interestin'
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
OK, give me an analogy about dressing something tired and worn to look superficially bright and new without using such terms.
But please note that he addressed his comments about McCain's policies. He did not address McCain's character. He did not suggest that McCain wants to pervert children.
I expect politicians to joke about their opponents, to paint them in a bad light, to describe their achievements and aspirations in ways that make them seem to be less than sterling. I have no respect for any politicians who rely on fear and sleazy innuendo to get votes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Obama camp response:
quote:Enough is enough. The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy – the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I'm pretty sure he called McCain old and Palin a pig.
If you really believe that, I question your reading comprehension. The lipstick comment has NOTHING to do with Palin. It's talking about trying to dress up something to disguise it's true nature. The next comment about the old fish just reinforces the purpose of the first metaphor.
I would give the benefit of the doubt on that one and assume he's kidding. If he's not, then what's there to respond to anyway?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oy.
I'm staying away from the back and forth crap until the first debate rolls around. I'll still check polls or what not to see how the Senate races are going, but this is just plain childish. Two more months of this and NO ONE will want to vote.
When one or both of them decides to be grown ups, I'll start paying attention again.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I'm curious as to what the Dems would come up with.
Even with both houses, I'm curious to see if the Democrats know how to take initiative and get legislation through with a Republican President.
If this gentleman is correct, the GOP hung up a renewable energy tax credit bill largely just so the Democrats couldn't claim a victory on the issue. (around 21:54)
It takes more than just initiative.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Make that McCain torpedoed renewable energy. The Senate votes were 59for&40against (cloture of debate) with McCain being the absentee.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Obama was exactly saying that lipstick on pig is a reference to Palin, and the old fish is McCain. Palin just used a lipstick comment in her acceptance speech so Obama knew exactly what he was saying and exactly how it would be taken. Is he really that dumb or did the teleprompter make him say it? If McCain made a comment about shining a light of truth into the blackness I am sure the Democrats would erupt into huge charges of racism.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Obama has used the phrase several times before. So has McCain. So have many other politicians and political commentators. Google "lipstick on a pig -palin" and see how many hits you get.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Yes McCain used it in reference to Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan and the press skewered him for it. Obama did not just make one analogy, he made two. One aimed at Palin and one aimed at McCain. He cannot be so dumb as to think this would not perceived as personal slams against them.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But the thing is, it will bring up McCain using it against Hillary. So, it makes McCain look like a hypocrit and Obama still has plausible deniability.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lipstick on a pig is a pretty classical phrase. It's an insulting phrase, but it's not actually meant to imply that the thing being referenced is literally a pig; it just means that the thing being referenced is not made more fundamentally suitable for a given task by being given makeup.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I have no issue at all with people saying McCain said it with respect to Hillary Clinton. It was not right for him to say and McCain did immediately apologize for his remark. Obama should not get a 'pass' for trying to appear tough and letting his supporters defend his actions under the guise of plausible denialbility. McCain is not a 'hypocrit' as he did not defend his remark, he apologized.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
People keep glossing over that Obama made two remarks, one for Palin and one for McCain. He didn't make just the lipstick remark.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It wasn't one remark for Palin and one for McCain. It was two separate metaphors for THE SAME THING.
Both were metaphors for "That’s just calling something the same thing something different." It's even in the quoted comment!
Either those who are saying the line is about Palin are stupid, or they are dishonest. This is basic junior high English comprehension.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Yes McCain used it in reference to Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan and the press skewered him for it.
Link? I don't remember there being something that he was skewered over by the press.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I don't even know what part of his comment they find sexist. That ad makes no sense to me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: It wasn't one remark for Palin and one for McCain. It was two separate metaphors for THE SAME THING.
Both were metaphors for "That’s just calling something the same thing something different." It's even in the quoted comment!
Either those who are saying the line is about Palin are stupid, or they are dishonest. This is basic junior high English comprehension.
I think its fairly obviosu that certain people haven't yet managed to pass that particular speed bump.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Reporters quickly unearthed evidence that Obama had said the same thing about Iraq policy, pointing to a reference the Illinois senator made last year: "George Bush has given a mission to General Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig."
Later, it turned out that McCain himself used the phrase more than once, including last year, when he was talking about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 1990s health care plan.
He said last October, "I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
Speaking about opponents of President Bush's Iraq strategy last year, McCain criticized their reasoning.
"It gets down to whether you support what is being done in this new strategy or you don't," McCain said. "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig, in my view."
The phrase is a common one, so much so that Torie Clarke, the former Pentagon communications director in the Bush administration -- a Republican and a woman -- named her book "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in a No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game."
The McCain campaign makes me angrier every day with their new attacks. They lie about Obama raising taxes. They lie about Palin's political record. Now they are just completely making stuff up in an attempt to smear Obama. There's absolutely no basis for the claim that Obama's comment was sexist. He used a common idiom that has no relation to gender.
EDIT: Toned down...
[ September 10, 2008, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think 1) the metaphors were relatively innocuous but 2) they were specifically chosen for the subtext.
Obama can pretend he didn't mean anything by it, but I can't imagine he didn't realize how it would be taken. Just like I think McCain knew exactly what fears he was playing on when he put Obama in a commercial juxtaposed with Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton (rather than, say two white male celebrities).
I find both the practice of sliming via subtext and the umbrage taking for sliming via subtext rather jejune.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
This is where we in the deep gaming sectors of the blogosphere would say: QQ more. Or something in regards to a Whaaaaambulance.
Wake me on election day.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Look, I believe he didn't realize what he was saying--believed it since I first saw the clip yesterday.
But I have two questions:
1. Do you think the audience, when they cheered, thought that he meant it as an attack on Palin?
2. Do you think this was a gaffe that, had he thought about it, he would have realized would inevitably lead to this reaction?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
1. Yes they did. 2. I think the Obama people planned this out so Obama could get away with the comments and be able to say "The common analogy is “the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run,” said Obama campaign senior adviser Anita Dunn." This way Obama can make his personal attacks and not have to answer for it yet at the same time be able to say "No I didn't do it, he is doing it". I think the Obama camp has learned how to handle the press quite well
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Are we seriously caught up on the meaning of a metaphor here? Wow, I'm sure about a million similar metaphors showed up on every standardized test I ever took. The meaning is pretty, well, standard.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you scroll down in the link that Threads posted, Sen. Obama is criticized for his sexist imagery for using the word "periodically" with regard to Sen. Clinton.
That is just hilarious. Or really sad.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The Washington Post has a pretty good article on the reinforcement of political lies: Palin being against the bridge to nowhere, Obama bringing up McCain's 100-year comment, McCain claiming Obama will raise taxes for all Americans, Obama quoting McCain's "economy is pretty good" comment even though McCain has talked about the troubled economy since, etc. And now McCain's accusation that Obama wants to teach little kids about sex.
Say it loud and long enough and no matter how false it is or easily disproven, people will remember it and internalize it as part of their opinion of the candidate.
Were the same people running Obama's campaign that are running McCain's, we'd be seeing ads that asked why McCain wanted to help child molesters, or why he and Palin hated the Constitution (re: Palin's reference to prisoner rights in her acceptance speech), or why Palin is against comprehensive sex ed when her daughter could plainly have used it. None of those are fair or accurate, but they would accomplish just what the McCain ads are intended to do: rile up the base both with the attacks and against the media outrage that would erupt from them. And some poor "uneducated voter" would believe them.
However, Obama's camp continues to run against policies and not personalities, and I am very afraid the attack ads will ultimately win the election.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: 1. Do you think the audience, when they cheered, thought that he meant it as an attack on Palin?
I don't know since I didn't watch the whole speech and can't really judge the atmosphere in the room at the time. My problem is that I don't understand how it's sexist even if it were an attack on Palin. Instead of a pitbull he called her a pig? I don't get it. It doesn't seem to make sense if it is interpreted as a sexist remark.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Tell you what: no more metaphors in political speeches. No more claims about the opponent at all, in fact. Not about his or her policies, personality, motivations, history, nothing. You can say what you'll do and how you'll do it, you can talk about your own life and career, and that's it. The only time you can mention your opponent is during the debates, when your opponent is right there to rebut. Otherwise, the opponent is completely off-limits. Run that way, and see how it works.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:1. Do you think the audience, when they cheered, thought that he meant it as an attack on Palin?
A personal attack on Palin? No, I don't think so. I think -- or at least, I hope -- the American electorate knows what a metaphor is when it hears one.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: A personal attack on Palin? No, I don't think so. I think -- or at least, I hope -- the American electorate knows what a metaphor is when it hears one.
They did believe he was speaking about Palin specifically because of Palin's own self depracting joke about a hockey Mom and a pitbull
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Response to what Irami feels:
quote:My kids have gone to the University of Chicago Lab School, a private school, because I taught there, and it was five minutes from our house. So it was the best option for our kids.
But the fact is that there are some terrific public schools in Chicago that they could be going to. The problem is, is that we don't have good schools, public schools, for all kids.
A U.S. senator can get his kid into a terrific public school. That's not the question. The question is whether or not ordinary parents, who can't work the system, are able to get their kids into a decent school, and that's what I need to fight for and will fight for as president of the United States.
quote: A personal attack on Palin? No, I don't think so. I think -- or at least, I hope -- the American electorate knows what a metaphor is when it hears one.
They did believe he was speaking about Palin specifically because of Palin's own self depracting joke about a hockey Mom and a pitbull
Huh? A pit bull isn't a pig. I don't see how that follows at all, let alone follows clearly enough that you can be so certain of the thoughts of everyone in the audience.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Isn't the "lipstick on a pig", just the more modern restatement of "silk purse out of a sow's ear"?
Wasn't there some sort of fable about that?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not the pitbull-- it's the lipstick that's the important ingredient.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Huh? A pit bull isn't a pig. I don't see how that follows at all, let alone follows clearly enough that you can be so certain of the thoughts of everyone in the audience.
Lipstick is more the key to equate the two. Palin made the joke about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull being lipstick. Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:But the fact is that there are some terrific public schools in Chicago that they could be going to. The problem is, is that we don't have good schools, public schools, for all kids.
The first step is him sending his kids to the local public school as an example.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And Obama told you this when, DarkKnight?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
Maybe.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Look, this sort of thing happens on both sides of the aisle.
Right now, the governer of New York is claiming that the refrences in Palin's speech to Obama being a "Community Orgainzer" were coded refrences to his being black.
That's just silly.
I do not believe that Obama intended his comments as sexist. I do not believe that Palin intended her comments as racist. To believe that your opponent would be that dumb in a presidential election is to wish for unicorns to dance on your lawn.
But in the case of the attack on Palin as a racist, that's grasping at straws. In the case of Obama's comment--honestly, if he'd have thought about it for two seconds, he'd have known how it would be taken.
It was a gaffe. Anyone who pretends otherwise is being silly.
ETA: And I mean that towards both sides. Anyone who is acting like Obama would intentionally make a sexist remark, and anybody who pretends they don't know how people could take it that way.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Then, maybe. Right now he'd be insane to send his kids to a public school. Were I him I'd be worrying less about my children's education and more about their safety and privacy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron Paul had decided not to endorse any candidate, and instead will be urging his supporters to vote third party. Not sure what effect that will have on the election. Generally Libertarians like Paul would suck votes away from Republicans, so I'm wondering if this will increase Bob Barr's potentcy in being a spoiler. Hard to say. If Paul lends his name and fundraising to Barr, that could make him a serious factor (though he still has zero chance of winning).
quote:It was a gaffe. Anyone who pretends otherwise is being silly.
I don't think it was a gaffe, but I don't think he meant it in the way some people are taking it. I think he meant for the full force of the phrase to be used, with a subtle reference to who he was talking about. In other words, I think he was calling her a liar, and nothing else, and I think that's perfectly fair, though people can still wrangle with how strong the wording is. I don't think it was sexist, and I don't think he was calling her a pig specifically.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Huh? A pit bull isn't a pig. I don't see how that follows at all, let alone follows clearly enough that you can be so certain of the thoughts of everyone in the audience.
Lipstick is more the key to equate the two. Palin made the joke about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull being lipstick. Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
But what about the lipstick makes it sexist? What about it implies that women are inferior to men?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Please, docmagik, stop being reasonable. There are two wars going on, our economy is tanking, several time-honored financial institutions are failing, our national reputation is being ruined, the rule of law is being undermined, the balance of power in our government is being tilted... We have to stop and argue about meaningless media distractions! Don't you understand?
I mean, if we stuck to the facts, the Republicans might lose. Can't have that.
Chris, is it your contention that Obama, whose rise to popularity is mostly based on speeches given by him, would not realize how those two comments, lipstick on a pig after Palin's joke, and old fish referencing McCain's age would be viewed as completely innocent? Do you honestly believe Obama is that naive?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't have a problem with a politician sending his kids to a private school is it's the best place for his kids -- which it often is. I would think less of a man who would send his children to a bad school for his own political ends.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: But what about the lipstick makes it sexist? What about it implies that women are inferior to men?
I never claimed it was sexist. It is a personal insult against Palin as well as the old fish is against McCain. People keep dropping the old fish remark.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Shared Sacrifice, Christine. It means that sometimes you don't do what's in the immediate best interest of your children.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Huh? A pit bull isn't a pig. I don't see how that follows at all, let alone follows clearly enough that you can be so certain of the thoughts of everyone in the audience.
Lipstick is more the key to equate the two. Palin made the joke about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull being lipstick. Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
In context, the pig and the fish both correspond to the policies of the Bush Administration. A shared noun between one of the metaphors and Palin's joke last week doesn't change that.
As far as I can tell, in order to take Obama's paragraph as direct comparison of McCain and Palin to a fish and a pig, you have to misinterpret it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually, I would be more willing to believe that he thought better of his audience. More to the point I don't know why he chose those words, and neither do you. Maybe he did choose those words for that reason, and I'll think less of him if he did. Still a ways to go before he sinks as low as McCain has this campaign.
But you're right. He should drop the metaphors completely and just say outright that McCain is just Bush with a military record and Palin was added solely as a stunt to get the women and religious right voters. Would that work?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: i don't think it was a gaffe, but I don't think he meant it in the way some people are taking it. I think he meant for the full force of the phrase to be used, with a subtle reference to who he was talking about. In other words, I think he was calling her a liar, and nothing else, and I think that's perfectly fair, though people can still wrangle with how strong the wording is. I don't think it was sexist, and I don't think he was calling her a pig specifically.
Had this been a different analogy against Obama I do believe you would be strongly denouncing McCain and the Republicans instead of providing an excuse for them. I do not believe you have been so generous for people who have implied Obama is a liar.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Lipstick is more the key to equate the two. Palin made the joke about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull being lipstick. Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
That's a huge stretch.
Google: "lipstick on a pig -Obama".
Number of hits: 167,000
Including this gem:
quote:Nov 2, 2004 ... "As we say in Wyoming, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," quipped Vice President Dick Cheney in a stump speech yesterday, ...
AND
quote:In Iowa last October, McCain drew comparisons between Hillary Clinton's current health care plan and the one she championed in 1993: "I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." He used roughly the same line in May, after effectively claiming the Republican nomination.
Why, if I were less charitable, I might suggest certain people were trying to play the sexism card...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: i don't think it was a gaffe, but I don't think he meant it in the way some people are taking it. I think he meant for the full force of the phrase to be used, with a subtle reference to who he was talking about. In other words, I think he was calling her a liar, and nothing else, and I think that's perfectly fair, though people can still wrangle with how strong the wording is. I don't think it was sexist, and I don't think he was calling her a pig specifically.
Had this been a different analogy against Obama I do believe you would be strongly denouncing McCain and the Republicans instead of providing an excuse for them. I do not believe you have been so generous for people who have implied Obama is a liar.
Specificity matters, so it's hard to answer a non-specific hypothetical, but I think you're wrong. I've called out Obama on what I think are some misleading statements before. Generally I give people some latitude on poetic license. My bigger aims are policy, and fact versus lies, rather than he said/she said. On the goofy hypothetical you came up with earlier: I probably wouldn't have said much about it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you scroll down in the link that Threads posted, Sen. Obama is criticized for his sexist imagery for using the word "periodically" with regard to Sen. Clinton.
That is just hilarious. Or really sad.
There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness"). The level of sensitivity about subtext is off the charts, no matter where you look. In the campaigns, in the media, everywhere. People are just aching to take offense.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: If Paul lends his name and fundraising to Barr, that could make him a serious factor (though he still has zero chance of winning).
I am listening to the national press club release. It seems categorical that he will NOT endorse any particular candidate, however he is supporting third party candidates. He doesn't care who you/we vote(s) for as long as we start the process of breaking up the two party system.
The focus seemed to urge his supporters (and anyone else listening) to pick anyone but the two party candidates. He wants more debates for the third party candidates.
I will have to re-listen to the broadcast since I couldn't focus while I was at work. I am waiting for a downloadable mp3. There was a neat little section on how debates should be moderated--very anti parallel interviews by news anchors. I can't remember the specifics, as I was distracted.
Bob Barr didn't go to the press conference and went so far as to say it "just wasn't worth it." A lot of the third party supporters, particularly Ron Paul supporters, are disappointed in Barr and are denouncing him.
Overall the press release seemed to be VERY ANTI TWO PARTY SYSTEM. I am not sure if there was a specific plan or strategy, as I missed most of the re-broadcast.
EDIT: Ironically Paul said he was staying Republican since he has been elected a republican 10 times. He also joked that this time around (so far he is unopposed) he will probably get a third party contender he has urged his voters to vote for.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness").
Wow. That's incredible.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The main problem I have with claiming the old fish is McCain is that it says it will stink after 8 years. What about McCain is he referencing with the the 8 years. Much more likely he is referencing Bush's policies.
Also, McCain used the line twice, once in October and then again in May.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness").
Wow. That's incredible.
It was a bit more specific than what I remembered, since it was actually about a single article, but I remembered it because my boss came to my office the next day talking about how reasonable it was. He also pointed out the subtext of the "Celebrity" commercial as further evidence that subtext was being used against Obama.
I think it's true that a focus on physical appearance may equate to "blackness" on some subcognitive level, or that simply using the word "old" (or "pig") may be prejudicial, but the effect is so small as to be unimportant. For a campaign to expend the effort to introduce subtext or to take umbrage when the other side does it, is simply silly IMO.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
With the lipstick comment, I'm not sure if Obama intended for this storm of media attention or not. Either way, I think he did make a good answer to the controversy. Video with his response.
The complaints we're making about how we ignore the issues to talk about distractions (Chris' comic comment) is exactly what Obama talks about. I don't know if seeing the video makes the case that he intended this so he could make this statement or if it was an accident.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What I think: Did Obama pick that Lipstick reference because of Palin's reference at the convention--Yes.
Did he do it to imply that she was a pig, no. Why on earth would he? The sub-text is supposed to connect her to what he considers a failing strategy.
Did he try to connect McCain to and Old Fish? I didn't see it until some McCain defenders brought it up.
What about the 8 Year reference? Its a reference to Bush, who's been in office for 8 years and who Obama wants to blame for the problem. The subtext is saying McCain is just 4 more years of Bush corruption, mistakes, and bad policy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness").
Wow. That's incredible.
I wonder if this could be unpacked a little bit. This is kind of a pilot case for a black politician with a real national profile that is transcending the "race issue" in many ways.
We are exposed to few high profile black people in popular culture that don't attempt to identify themselves with black culture or black stereotyping. I can't off the top of my head think of a single black person, in fact, who isn't involved in the national discussion of race in some way, either through his/her portrayals of racially charged characters in movies, or involvement in music that is specific to black culture. I have known a greater number of not-nationally known black people who are not called upon as "representatives" of black culture, but I can't think of a national figure that isn't, either voluntarily, or by sheer momentum.
So, when our news media, and all media generally, as so accustomed to physical or character or taste descriptions that are "black owned" if you will, that are specific to black people or uniquely colored (to use a literary and not a racial term) by a person's blackness, how can we describe any black person without calling on the stereotypes and cliches that are embedded in the culture?
What I could say about Obama, white or black: He's educated, he's articulate, he's a leader, he's well-read, he's tall, he's thin, or he's skinny, he's smart, he's ambitious, he's ethical, he's artistic, he's shy, he's friendly, etc.
Of those, "articulate," "educated," "well-read" and "skinny," are probably the most racially charged. I didn't add "clean," as Joe Biden was censured for saying, but I did say "ethical." It would seem that some of these imply a negative opposite: if not well-read, then "illiterate," if not "clean" then dirty, if not skinny, then "well-fed," if not "educated," then maybe dangerous, or a burden to society, or unemployable. These are all associated with black stereotypes, so using the positive is still an implication of the underlying negative.
I think the press should conscientiously avoid the evocation of negative stereotypes by using less racially charged descriptions. I would say, do this whether or not you believe in them, out of simple sensitivity to those who do. There are still legions of words untainted by a history of rhetorical use by both white and black people.
I will say, that my uncle (who has two master's degrees and is black, and works in government) and I will joke about being "articulate," and "clean" following the hubub about Biden. His living for so long within a white extended family in San Francisco gives him an interesting view of racial issues, since he was born and raised in black neighborhoods in New York, and went to school in Chicago.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you scroll down in the link that Threads posted, Sen. Obama is criticized for his sexist imagery for using the word "periodically" with regard to Sen. Clinton.
That is just hilarious. Or really sad.
There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness"). The level of sensitivity about subtext is off the charts, no matter where you look. In the campaigns, in the media, everywhere. People are just aching to take offense.
Agreed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Interesting global survey:
quote: All Countries in BBC Poll Prefer Obama to McCain
All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama elected US president instead of his Republican rival John McCain. Obama is preferred by a four to one margin on average across the 22,000 people polled.
...
The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations are America's NATO allies - Canada (69%), France (62%), Germany (61%), United Kingdom (54%), Italy (64%) - as well as Australia (62%) and the African countries Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).
...
GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller comments, "Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents.
"Given how negative America's international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the Bush Administration's relations with the world."
One odd tidbit that might be interesting to explain, why are (non-NATO allies) China and India among the few that think McCain would improve relations?
quote: In no country do most people think that a McCain presidency would worsen relations. But the view that he would actually improve relations is the most common view in only three countries and in all of them it is by a modest margin: in China (31%) feel this way, India (35%), and Nigeria (31%).
Of course, this international popularity may bode badly for Obama's chances
quote: A similar poll conducted for BBC World Service by GlobeScan ahead of the 2004 US presidential election found that, of 35 countries polled, 30 preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry, rather than incumbent George Bush, elected president. At the time, the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland were among the few countries to favour Bush's re-election. All three now favour Barack Obama over John McCain.
A friend suggested today that McCain's campaign strategy now is just to hold Palin in front of him while saying "You wouldn't hit a girl, would you?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ha! That's about right.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: A friend suggested today that McCain's campaign strategy now is just to hold Palin in front of him while saying "You wouldn't hit a girl, would you?"
*resist temptation*
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Regarding Ron Paul's press conference today.
I just read the statement that Paul, Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader signed.
quote: We Agree - Paul, Baldwin, McKinney, Nader Statement
The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.
We Agree
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
It will be interesting to see if this siphons off any of McCain's independent votes, ensuring a victory for Obama. I hope it does because I hope the power and influence of third party candidates grow. It feels good to no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I am one republican that isn't voting for McCain.
I don't think it will take as many votes from Obama because most of the frustration I see is from democrats against the republicans or republicans from the republicans. However I don't know any Hillary supporters, so I missed that drama with Obama.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
They should be in the debates. There are three debates, maybe we should invite one to each.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Hooray for Ron Paul. I'm another Republican that will be voting third party this election. I wish Ron Paul were running third party, but I appreciate his integrity for sticking by his promise not to.
I'm not a big fan of Bob Barr, and if I thought there was any chance he would win I might reconsider which third party to vote for. But Libertarian is my traditional third-party of choice, and it's a good voting block to join, as a way to collectively send a message to the major parties and the rest of the country.
I've noticed since moving to a swing state that most people here are less likely to vote third-party, even if they don't really like any of the major party candidates, because not voting for the lesser of two evils is considered "throwing your vote away."
I, however, am more excited to vote third party here than I was back in my red state. If I wanted McCain to win, I'd vote for him. But I don't and hopefully if New Mexico tips in Obama's favor because of a small block of angry Republicans, the party will take notice. Better still, if enough elections are changed by a third party, maybe the "throwing your vote away" mindset will be changed, critical mass will be achieved, and the political cartel will crumble. That's a movement I'd be proud to be part of.
I'm sure it won't happen this time around, but maybe we can make a step in the right direction.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Living in a fairly red state, I would be willing to vote third party if someone in a toss up state would vote for Obama for me.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Speaking of third parties, I'd have been way more likely to vote for McCain if he had run as an independant (and consequently not spent the last year or two reaching out to the far right and fundamentalist parts of the republican party). And actually, that makes me the kind of voter his campaign seems to be going for now. All of his "Maverick" and "I've bucked my own party" seems to be a way of trying to say "Hey, I'm not really a republican."
--Enigmatic
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Enigmatic, I think you're spot on. Even his Palin pick was meant to reinforce that--he was trying to pick someone who had taken on Republicans. An actual history of it.
His message was meant to be, "Do you want to vote for someone who talks about change, or do you want to vote for people who go out and try to change things, not matter whose toes they step on."
McCain is hated by the conservatives for the Gang of 14, the immigration reform bill, and some other stuff in his history, where he put finding solutions above party loyalty. The question has always been whether he did it out of a sense of self-promotion or a genuine desire to do the right thing, but nobody can argue he hasn't done it.
He meant for the Palin pick to emphasize that divide, since she'd taken on the Republican establishment in her state, but instead, red state America is just looking at her and seeing someone after their own heart.
She's not succeeding for the reasons he intended her to, but we'll see if his original intentions end up swinging some independents who don't necessarily identify with her as much, personally.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Hurray for the showing of third parties!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Show is all it is. Third parties will never be major political players without a fundamental change in American democracy. Historically, third parties have only been able to get into Congress as either a single issue oriented party, like the various incarnations of Know Nothings in the 1850's, or as a precursor to a major political shift, like when the Whigs collapsed and were replaced by the Republicans in the 1850's. The only way they've had a shot at the presidency is when a major political player from an established party has broken ranks to form his own party, of which only one I can think of has had a serious shot, and that was Teddy Roosevelt when he broke with I think the Republicans to form the Bull Moose party, in an attempt to unseat his own handpicked successor. But even he failed, and in fact handed victory to the Democrats by splitting the vote more dramatically than anything we've ever seen.
But we haven't seen anything even close to that historical standard in nearly the last 100 years. I do however think that we could be coming back around again, and the reason is the internet. Part of the reason, though not nearly all of it, that the 1820-1850 timeframe had a window in which new groups could crop up quite easily was the rapid and incredible increase in printing technology. Presses were coming out that could ever faster produce more and more material, and at the same time, paper was cheaper and more accessible than ever. I don't have the numbers handy (I'm at school right now, but I can get them later), but the number of newspapers in some states went from the hundreds to the tens of thousands in just a decade. Anyone could start their own newspaper with relatively little capital. This allowed for an incredible diffusion of ideas across the population.
Over the next hundred years however this trend greatly reversed itself, and eventually the power of the press largely reverted to the control of a relatively small group of people, and thus the ability to disseminate information to the masses was also restricted. Ever since, the two party system has had an iron grip on politics.
However, the reason I see this possibly (theoretically) changing over the next couple decades is the internet, and an increasingly net literate society. American 20 somethings and everyone born from now on will be internet literate and will probably be avid users, even if it's just for email and checking the news. As time goes on, the percentage of our population that regularly uses the internet will only increase as older Americans die off. Combine that with 2008, which I think will go down in history as a landmark year for how the internet can be used to spread information, organize support and gather funds, and you've got the beginnings of what could be national grassroots campaigns to elect relatively unknown candidates to office. That kind of organization got Obama the ticket of a major party, and vaulted Ron Paul into national stardom, despite his eventual failure. If we look at 2008 as just the beginning of what the years to come have to offer, and look at the increasing number of people who will pay attention to the medium, I think you have the makings of a window similar to that in the 1850's for what could be a chance for third parties to gain access to the national political stage.
Just a theory.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think you have a sound theory Lyrhawn. I do dread the onslaught of craziness from both parties when or if they attempt to hold onto their power.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The biggest problem with a third party is that the majority of Americans refuse to get their news from any but a small number of outlets, most of which are controlled by the same people. I think the media is one of the biggest problems with democracy today. The internet may or may not prove to be a vehicle for change in the coming decades, but I see one serious problem with it: participation. Most people would rather just sit in their dark holes and let the world shout at them from a few very loud sources. In order to get information about third parties you have to seek it out. That involves work.
I know we're all here chatting politics but I think we're an exception, not a rule. Most of the time when I hear people talking politics in the real world all I get is feedback noise from NBC, Fox, or CNN.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:All of his "Maverick" and "I've bucked my own party" seems to be a way of trying to say "Hey, I'm not really a republican."
The trouble is, even though he used to have a record of acting like a maverick, he's pretty much thrown that out the window in the past few months. If he was really independent of the Republican establishment, he'd have picked Joe Lieberman to be VP, who seemed to be the candidate McCain wanted and fit the criteria of "Ready to become President" that McCain had previously said was important. Instead, he picked someone extremely unexperienced, very conservative, and with a borderline unethical history in her brief time in office - all things that conflict with what McCain had previously seemed to value. That's a pretty strong indicator that he's no longer following his own personal compass.
Similarly, just look at the sort of campaign he is running now compared to his previous "straight talk" campaign in 2004. Instead of straight talk, it's all about spinning the public - his campaign has rarely mentioned real political issues since the convention ended. It is all very reminiscient of the way the Bush team played politics over the past eight years. It's all so un-McCain-like.
So, while I'd like to see an independent-minded McCain, everything he's doing (or at least allowing his campaign to do on his behalf) contradicts that message.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: The biggest problem with a third party is that the majority of Americans refuse to get their news from any but a small number of outlets, most of which are controlled by the same people. I think the media is one of the biggest problems with democracy today. The internet may or may not prove to be a vehicle for change in the coming decades, but I see one serious problem with it: participation. Most people would rather just sit in their dark holes and let the world shout at them from a few very loud sources. In order to get information about third parties you have to seek it out. That involves work.
I know we're all here chatting politics but I think we're an exception, not a rule. Most of the time when I hear people talking politics in the real world all I get is feedback noise from NBC, Fox, or CNN.
Well, keep in mind just how new the internet really is, especially in its current format. The major news networks have had a monopoly on media in this country for 100 years. You don't break that kind of hold overnight. Independent news, be it blogs or actual investigative journalism being performed independently and posted online, is in its infancy as far as the internet goes. But I think already you can see a sort of 21st century muckraking going on in the online news community. I think the problem has more to do with the percentage of the population looking for the information that is out there than with the number of people providing it. The internet is a boon to accessibility, but a lot of people don't take advantage of it, and choose to look through whatever narrow lens that the national media services portray national and world events.
Again though, I think this will change as time goes on. Younger generations are far more likely to surf the internet and find information independently, rather than watch the nightly news and get all their news there. We're talking about a shift in information gathering mediums that's dramatically different across generations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:All of his "Maverick" and "I've bucked my own party" seems to be a way of trying to say "Hey, I'm not really a republican."
The trouble is, even though he used to have a record of acting like a maverick, he's pretty much thrown that out the window in the past few months. If he was really independent of the Republican establishment, he'd have picked Joe Lieberman to be VP, who seemed to be the candidate McCain wanted and fit the criteria of "Ready to become President" that McCain had previously said was important. Instead, he picked someone extremely unexperienced, very conservative, and with a borderline unethical history in her brief time in office - all things that conflict with what McCain had previously seemed to value. That's a pretty strong indicator that he's no longer following his own personal compass.
Similarly, just look at the sort of campaign he is running now compared to his previous "straight talk" campaign in 2004. Instead of straight talk, it's all about spinning the public - his campaign has rarely mentioned real political issues since the convention ended. It is all very reminiscient of the way the Bush team played politics over the past eight years. It's all so un-McCain-like.
So, while I'd like to see an independent-minded McCain, everything he's doing (or at least allowing his campaign to do on his behalf) contradicts that message.
Exactly. It is astonishing to me that more people don't seem to notice this.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
after the last two elections my ability to be astonished has deteriorated.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I wonder if either "Troopergate" or the "Bridge to Nowhere" fiasco will stick. It seems- understandably- that Obama's camp is trying to take some of the bloom off the rose of Palin's pick, but I wonder if it's just too soon. People are seeing in her what they want to see, not necessarily what's there. (An assertion I recognize could be made of Obama as well.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Didn't Lieberman turn down McCain as far as a V.P. spot went? Or was that just rumor?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I realize McCain is moving right because he perceives he *has* to in order to get elected. This is ticking off some people and encouraging others.
In one sense we may view it as hypcritical, but in another sense pragmatic political compromise is almost inherent in the job description of a Congressperson and President. Some do it better than others. Obama is probably the only person who can claim he hasn't on a national scale, and let's face it, it's partially because his time in the U.S. Senate hasn't been long enough to necessitate it in "greater-good" type legislation.
I guess with this "waffling" of McCain we don't really know where he stands. Yes, he chose Palin as a running mate. It was a very pragmatic political decision. Old age clearly played a part,he obvously knows that after this election cycle he probably doesn't have a chance due to his advancing age. Some postulate that the beginning of senility is why he is making these pragmatic compromises and if he had his full faculties he'd never do what he is doing now. It is possible.
I'm theorizing that if McCain does get elected he will be a 1-term president. I think he will tick off the Right-wing base that he knows he needs to get elected and they will abandon him like they never did with Bush. They already have more doubts about him. If he doesn't tick of his right-wing base, the moderates that lean his direction now, because they think he is just making these pragmatic compromises to get elected, and will be back to his "former self" if he gets elected, are going to be disappointed, and they will vote for Obama in the next election.
I think Obama, if he is defeated in this election will run for president again in 4 years, and unlike Gore, he will win next time. He's always been a far more palatable vote than Gore. I believe that a significant portion of the previous Bush voters disliked him but figured the known loathesome was better than risking the country on Gore. Even then, Gore nearly won.
By comparison, I don't think that Palin stands a chance against Obama, head to head, even if she is V.P. for the next four years, because I don't believe she can ever capture the moderate vote on her own merits, even if she is female.
[ September 11, 2008, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I think Obama, if he is defeated in this election will run for president again in 4 years, and unlike Gore, he will win next time. He's always been a far more palatable vote than Gore. I believe that a significant portion of the previous Bush voters disliked him but figured the known loathesome was better than risking the country on Gore. And even then, Gore did nearly won.
I doubt that he would run again, actually. Neither major political party is prone to rerun candidates who have previously lost elections.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
They did with Gore. I think they are more likely to go with a 1-time loser a) when attempting to unseat an incumbent president and b)when the vote in the previous election is extremely close. Remember the Hanging Chads?? I expect Obama to meet those criteria, if he loses.
Obama's political star is still on the rise even if he loses this election. He's still a freshman senator. Given IL voters, he's probably got decades in the Senate to look forward to, and even 16 years from now he could possibly be a viable presidential canidate if he doesn't screw up too much in the mean time.
If he lost, I could see him personally choosing not to run again in 4 years, but I suspect he would in 8-12 years.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Yes, he chose Palin as a running mate. It was a very pragmatic political decision. Old age clearly played a part,he obvously knows that after this election cycle he probably doesn't have a chance due to his advancing age. Some postulate that the beginning of senility, is why he is making these pragmatic compromises if he had his full faculties he'd never do what he is doing now. It is possible.
I think the Palin pick is independence rather than senility. I think McCain is his own man, and that's kind of endearing. I think he caved on MLK day twenty five years ago, and decided not to do that again. He is unpredictable. His lone, decent stance on immigration set him apart from all of the other Republicans during the debate. Romney saw cheap labor, Giuliani saw ineluctable fact, and everyone else saw a problem, McCain was the only one who understood immigrants as simply people. McCain may not be as pure a politician as he appears, he changes his mind sometimes with the polls, but he strikes me as a hard guy to corrupt. In the places we disagree, and they are legion, I'm confident we simply disagree, it's not as if some influence peddler has threatened him or bought him. While McCain bows sometimes to popular pressure, I feel that he doesn't bow to internal pressure as easily as most politicians who want to be liked.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Uh, by all insider accounts, McCain wanted his best bud Lieberman as VP, but the new staff convinced him of Palin.
I don't think that's independence.
-Bok
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I want to agree with you Irami. McCain's verbal faux pas have been blown way out of proportion in the press. But, personally, the actual content of a few of those, is enough to cause me concern about his mental faculties given his advancing age. Nitpicky or not, I don't percieve him to be someone who previously made those kinds of mistakes on a similar scale.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Uh, by all insider accounts, McCain wanted his best bud Lieberman as VP, but the new staff convinced him of Palin.
I don't trust those insider accounts. Talking heads say a lot of things. I don't think he knew her very well, but I wouldn't be surprised if he made a snap decision and stuck with it, damn the advisers. I really can't see any of the handlers being happy with Palin until after the fact, then they would love her, of course.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Those who know aren't telling and those who tell don't know.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Talking heads say a lot of things.
I know what you mean. Like remember that time they were talking about some ordinary guy burning down a house. Or about living in a shotgun shack in another part of the world, even though it's not their beautiful house, or their beautiful wife.
Screw those guys, man, I don't believe a word they say.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I guess I just can't imagine any group of wonks finessing McCain into doing something he already doesn't want to do. It's one of the perks of being old, among other things.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I realize McCain is moving right because he perceives he *has* to in order to get elected. This is ticking off some people and encouraging others.
In one sense we may view it as hypcritical, but in another sense pragmatic political compromise is almost inherent in the job description of a Congressperson and President. Some do it better than others. Obama is probably the only person who can claim he hasn't on a national scale, and let's face it, it's partially because his time in the U.S. Senate hasn't been long enough to necessitate it in "greater-good" type legislation.
He may not have had the opportunity to sponsor legislation to the effect, but Obama has shown a significant amount of this sort of political pragmatism on the campaign trail so far. And generally I would say his presidential persona today is remarkably different than his persona was in 2004 when he addressed the DNC. His politics first moved toward the core of the national Democratic party during his two years in the Senate, and during the primary, then dramatically shifted toward the center immediately after he secured the nomination.
quote: They did with Gore.
I thought Gore was only the nominee in 2000. When else did he run (as the nominee; I know he challenged Clinton in 1992, but he wasn't the eventual nominee, obviously)?
However, the reluctance to run previous nominees, if it exists at all, is at best a recent phenomenon. Certainly examples like Adlai Stevensen and Thomas Dewey demonstrate that as recently as the 1950s neither party was averse to running previous losers.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You are right. I stand corrected. Did Gore run against Kerry in the primaries? That may be what I'm remembering. (or I could be going senile )
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
deleted...oops, wrong thread.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I guess I just can't imagine any group of wonks finessing McCain into doing something he already doesn't want to do. It's one of the perks of being old, among other things.
Uh, McCain wants to win the presidency. His campaign was languishing. In early August he signs up some Karl Rove proteges, and his campaign turns around.
Heck, there's a bunch of stuff that McCain has switched his position on in the last few years, as the campaign geared up.
You seem to think that McCain wants to win on his terms; I think he did but now he just wants to win.
To be fair, Obama wants to win this thing too. He held out longer as far as the "on his terms" part, IMO. Some of the bits about 527s and the like show that he may be dropping that last clause too.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by: BannaOJ: I think Obama, if he is defeated in this election will run for president again in 4 years, and unlike Gore, he will win next time.
If he were smart he'd run for the governorship of Illinois. The current guy, who is extremely unpopular, is term limited and the election is in 2010, which would be the end of his first senate term. Obama would likely win in a landslide. He could then either run again in 2012, or wait for 2016, depending on what the status of the country is. I think if someone ELSE ran in 2012, he might be a perfect choice for VP, and then run for president himself 8 years after that. Being governor, even for a short period of time, would blunt a great many of the arguments Republicans are using against him, namely, the experience argument. If Republicans are all arguing that Palin has the experience to be president, they'd be hard pressed to argue that Obama, with everything to date PLUS a few years in charge of a major industrial state doesn't have the necessary experience. He won't have gotten very far away from that argument in four years in the Senate. If being president is his ultimate goal, I think that's his best bet if he loses this time around.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If Obama wants any shot at the Presidency, ever he should *never* be the governor of Illinois. The IL governor's office is way too corrupt. Do you know how many former IL governors are convicted felons? It is looking like the current one is probably going to go the way of the previous one. The question isn't if the Feds are going to get him, it's "how soon"?
Even if Obama ran on a "clean up corruption" platform I don't think he could do it, and run for the presidency later. He's managed to stay clean so far, at the state legislature level, and stay out of the Rezko affair, but there are simply too many people with pull, that can influence the governors office. Even if he stayed completely clean, someone would get to somebody in his staff, and it would totally wreck any presidential aspirations later on.
I looked it up... 3 out of the most recent 8 governors of IL (including the present one) arec onvicted felons. Blago is going to be extremely lucky if he escapes the same fate.
It averaged 1 felon than two non-felons, although if Blago gets convicted that would be two in a row. It isn't like the in betweens were generally pure as driven snow either. They just managed to stay out of jail.
Of the non felons, one had the U.S. Supreme Court overthrow the hiring practices that he initiated on grounds of patronage, and another, even though he wasn't convicted himself, had a major scandal where lots of other people in his administration ended up in the Federal Penitentiary because of 20 million in fraudulent charges.
Also, after my last error with regards to Gore, I did quite a bit of googling, about IL term limits. I can't find anywhere that an Illinois governor has term limits. (I'm in IL so I was curious) There is an on-going joke that the answer is 2 in office and 1 in prison, but I don't think it is anything legal.
[ September 11, 2008, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My bad, you're right, there aren't term limits. Still, I don't think he'd have a problem unseating Blagovich. I still think he should do it and totally clean house. Fire EVERYONE and start from scratch. It'd be a major thing to run on later, and he'll win bipartisan points by working against an entrenched Democratic power base there in order to get things done. He'll be the guy who came in after decades of failed Republican and Democratic rule and really cleaned house, and if he CAN'T clean it up, then frankly I wonder if he's really as good as I thought he was. It might be a gamble, but then, so would be staying in the Senate and hoping the second time around is better. There are lots of rising stars in the Republican party too.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: if he CAN'T clean it up, then frankly I wonder if he's really as good as I thought he was
I don't think it's possible for anyone, simply because he can't do anything about the rest of the elected state officials or the legislature, or the Chicago Machine.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
I was under the impression Saakashvili lobbed bombs into South Ossetia first? Either way, Palin is talking about putting Georgia in NATO, and that seems like a great way to court a war.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Georgia provoked the conflict irregardless of the political statuses of SO and Abkazia at the time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
I was under the impression Saakashvili lobbed bombs into South Ossetia first? Either way, Palin is talking about putting Georgia in NATO, and that seems like a great way to court a war.
Well that's interesting. Do you have a link to the rest of the interview?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I doubt that spreading falsehoods about the Georgia crisis will hurt Palin at all with her uninformed target constituency. Another good tactical move on her part.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The next couple segments are on the Fox News website from the O'Reilly/Obama interview.
On segment two: I wish Obama would have gone into why O'Reilly was wrong about the whole "tax cuts really increase revenue" thing. That's been debunked before, several times over, and he sort of brushed it aside.
On segment three: O'Reilly is a dick. Apparently knowing anyone who says/does anything bad means that you take the mantle of every mistake that person has made upon yourself. Give me a break.
On segment four: Did a great job of defending renewable energy, and of showing his position on nuclear power. They were pretty funny when they were BSing at the end there. It's weird to see O'Reilly seem friendly.
I SERIOUSLY wish I could have an on air conversation with O'Reilly. I'm not running for anything. I wouldn't be afraid to let loose. Also, I think Obama will do fine in a debate format. So long as some jerk isn't interrupting him all the time, he'll be quite good.
In other news - In her interview with Charles Gibson, Palin said that she'd be okay with sending troops into Pakistan to fight terrorists. Apparently Obama, Palin, and Bush disagree with McCain on that one.
quote:Palin on military incursions into Pakistan: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
To be fair, she said as a last resort (which puts her and Obama closer together than with Bush).
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If Republicans are all arguing that Palin has the experience to be president, they'd be hard pressed to argue that Obama, with everything to date PLUS a few years in charge of a major industrial state doesn't have the necessary experience."
The last few weeks, plus 2004, have convinced me that republicans will argue anything, as long as it brings down the other guy. It doesn't have to be true, reasonable, thoughtful, or have any grounding in reality whatsoever... republicans will argue it if doing so hurts democrats.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I should have said "they'll be hard pressed to argue it without them looking stupid."
I'm sure they'd come up with something else, but it'd give Obama hours and hours of clips to play of the Republicans saying she's ready to lead because of her gubanatorial experience. They're setting the standard right now. They can't have it both ways, and if they try to, he can eat 'em up.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
"It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day to day challenges that people have."
McCain in the Columbia University and TIME forum.
That's an attack ad waiting to happen.
That said, I haven't watched the forum in its entirety. I was just sent that clip by my brother who was watching it live. It's focus is on service, and you can watch clips of it on CNN.
Edit: Added the somewhat I missed to the quote to get it word perfect. It's only fair as it is a defense that he can use.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
I'm particularly amused by this part of Palin's interview:
quote:GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
Did she forget whose running mate she is?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think there are a lot of either troubling, or at least near gaffe statements in her interview. It'll be interesting to see the whole thing.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
I was under the impression Saakashvili lobbed bombs into South Ossetia first? Either way, Palin is talking about putting Georgia in NATO, and that seems like a great way to court a war.
This is something I've been wondering about. At this point, is the rest of NATO really willing to admit (and defend) Georgia?
--j_k
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Something that bugs me about Palin being picked as VP is that McCain's supposed to have only met or talked to her once or twice before he picked her.
Granted that VP choices are mostly about what it takes to get elected. Still, recent VPs have been way more active (Cheney, Gore) in government. It's alarming that McCain didn't have any real idea whether the two of them could actually get along and work with one another.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
What were people's views on the Palin interview? I've just started watching it, and trying to get all of it digested.
Some initial thought is that she seems quite unprepared and uneasy. She also sounds kind of "rehearsed," as if she's grabbing for some pieces of information she has been working on.
She also dances words all around Gibson's questions– to the point that Gibson stopped her to point it out.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I doubt that spreading falsehoods about the Georgia crisis will hurt Palin at all with her uninformed target constituency. Another good tactical move on her part.
Well, it could hurt her if she gets painted as someone who'd go to war with Russia if she were president...
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This puts a whole new spin on the Bridge to Nowhere.
quote:Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”
Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Still just excerpts, but this is the closest I've come to a full transcript of the Palin interview.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Wow. She came off kind of flustered in text.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
empahsis mine
If you listen to that part of the interview, she stresses the bolded text. Gibson didn't address it at all, but it really stood out to me. Is she just trying to talk tough, or did she actually mean something by that? If she did mean something, what is it that she's advocating, exactly? Who is she talking about targeting? It sounded to me as though she wasn't just talking about the usual people that would be targeted in attacks on terrorist camps and so forth [Edit - because of the use of the word "even"], but because I'm aware that I'm not an impartial observer, I wanted to know what other people here thought.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Maybe she's talking about 70+ Afghani civilians.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
May I point out that when we originally went after Al Qaeda and the government of Afghanistan would not give them up, we went in anyway, kicking out the Taliban government in the process.
Pakistan would be more problemmatic, since they have nuclear weapons, and ostensibly their government is an ally of the USA. At least, they are not openly defying us.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ron, is that intended to be a response to my post? If so I wasn't quite able to put together how it was an answer to my question (and you and other McCain/Palin supporters are exactly who I'd be most interested in hearing from on this. I really want to know what people who are positively disposed toward her made of the bolded text. I'm interested in what everybody else thinks too, of course, but I'm particularly interested in hearing from her supporters on this).
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else.
I don't have a problem with this. It's not model ethical behavior, but a governor trying to get as much money as she could for her state...There are worse crimes, I'd be more worried if she took the money for the bridge and rerouted it unofficially.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
However she does make a point out of how much she's against earmarks and this seems just as "bad" as someone else's earmark.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote: Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else.
I don't have a problem with this. It's not model ethical behavior, but a governor trying to get as much money as she could for her state...There are worse crimes, I'd be more worried if she took the money for the bridge and rerouted it unofficially.
I agree and believe that there should be a certain level of pork that's acceptable from our representatives. Afterall, they are supposed to be representing us in government, if others are getting money, shouldn't we get a piece of the pie?
The problem is that the campaign is touting her as being a champion against earmark spending, trying to show that she battled the bridge do to nowhere because it was wasteful spending. It's not so much that she kept the money as it is that they're implying that she didn't keep the money because she's fiscally conservative.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote: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 a governor for a short period of time. For 20-some years, including leading the largest squadron in the United States Navy, I led. I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism.
--John McCain in the October 2007 Republican Primary Debate in Orlando
Source (the quote is toward the end of the page)
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Oh that's okay, Noemon. Clearly he meant that being a mayor or a governor for a short time is just another way to be prepared. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: smacks forehead :: I completely misread that quote, but I'll bet you're right! Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
No, no, no, clearly he's saying that those who would choose to be a mayor or governor are unpatriotic and only choose the line of work for profit!
...Wait, I think I was supposed to defend the statement. Oops.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: May I point out that when we originally went after Al Qaeda and the government of Afghanistan would not give them up, we went in anyway, kicking out the Taliban government in the process.
And that went so swimmingly that the Taliban are now in resurgance in Afghanistan and Afghanistan is once again the world's opium merchant.
Can we not do that again?...
I mean, I'm not saying we should never send our military on an international mission again, but, somewhere in infancy, most of us learn that there's some swallowing in between bouts of chewing?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Wow. She came off kind of flustered in text.
It is possibly one of the most uncomfortable interviews I have ever seen. She's all over the place with jargon, he's correcting her, she's repeating his name over and over, it's just a mess.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Palin is just about done riding the euphoric wave of being a surprise guest at a party. While my initial opinion of her has taken a few hits. It will take a few debates and more interviews for me to size her up.
She will get advice on how to interview better in the future, and that may be all she needs.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
You know, it's a bizarre campaign. Nobody's really that surprised that Palin got all deer-in-the-headlights at what the "Bush Doctrine" was--it's never been that solidly defined anyway--but I think it's funny that it's more of a story that the interviewer pretty much got it wrong, too. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
This part of the interview is just sad. Palin didn't know what he was talking about, then went with a cookie-cutter response once he explained it.
EDIT - I only just saw doc's post. Maybe the question wasn't as clear as I thought (I assumed the definition Gibson used.) After watching a video of the segment, it's not immediately clear to me whether Palin has no idea what Gibson was talking about or whether she thought the question was ambigious.
I still don't think she answered the question well. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think her national defense experience answer was pretty flimsy. Apparently the CEO of Exxon-Mobil is qualified to be Commander in Chief because of his knowledge of energy issues. While I personally think that energy issues are a part of a national defense strategy, that has nothing to do with the command decisions a CinC would have to make. Still, I can't blame her for trying.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Juxt, I think it's obvious Palin didn't know what Gibson was talking about.
On another note, if this is true, I think this is the biggest Obama campaign gaffe yet.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I fail to see how what the Obama campaign said was technically false. Also it seems like there's a subtle contradiction between the two articles the guy posted to show McCain's knowledge of a computer. One seems to say McCain doesn't check his e-mails because of the emotional strain of hearing suffering veteran families, and the other says that one of his favorite things to do is read his e-mails while Cindy types the responses he dictates.
I grant that it's a bit unfair of the campaign to say he's still not able to use computers when its his injuries that prevent him from being able to... but at the same time, they were just quoting McCain who says he doesn't know how. It's not wrong factually. I'd say it was irresponsible, but... understandable?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I thought both campaigns had decided to just make stuff up now? Was that not supposed to be common knowledge?
At the least, John McCain has something in common with Bush in that both either outright lie or fail to understand reality, and Barack Obama is stooping to their level.
Of course, both campaigns can bite me at this point.
[ September 13, 2008, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, even if Gibson got it wrong, Palin didn't know what it was at all. That's to be expected of most people- but this is a vice-presidential nominee. Even if the question was ambiguous, which I'm not sure of, she should know what Charlie is talking about *better* than he does himself. She should have a handle on the jargon as well as the key issues that exceeds that of a journalist, you'd think.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik:
On another note, if this is true, I think this is the biggest Obama campaign gaffe yet.
I find it unlikely that McCain's innability to send an email (that is, not know *how* to send an email) has to do with being tortured by the VC decades ago. Can he hold a pen? Didn't he fly a plane even after he was tortured (after lengthy physical therapy)?
Only those who really really want to see this as a mistake by Obama are going to feel that it is.
And, by the way, is the defense: "I'm physically unable to use the tools of modern communication," really a great comeback for the McCain campaign? It's a zinger to phrase it the way this article does, but it also took me less than the time it took to read the sentence to think: Umm... there are a few problems with that.
Edit: I don't, for the record, think knowing how to send emails is particularly important, as long as the president knows how they work. The implication of importance in the Obama ad is not that McCain is specifically unable to use email (no President to date has used email regularly) but that he is not, in contrast with Obama, familiar or comfortable with the modes of communication that are favored by younger people. That's debatable, but it's not much to do with McCain being a vet.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
I actually like the answer. When you think about it, the prsident doesn't officially get to do a whole lot. He's a great fund raiser and he gets a lot of press conferences telling us what he'd like Congress to do. And he gets to send troops places.
Then again, I'm in the "Han Shot First" camp, so maybe my opinion of pre-emptive attacks stems from that. If you've got Greedo in your face and you let him pull the trigger first, you're gonna die. International conflicts are certainly more ambiguous, but waiting for an attack where Americans die before acting is a bad plan, IMO.
She didn't thunder on about it. She didn't talk like we'd walk in anywhere and start trouble. (Heck, I don't think the Neo-Cons were wrong to push to invade Iraq and I still want a break from them.) But she said that she'd be ok with us defending ourselves before the first punch is thrown. With nuclear technology in so many hands and threats of chemical and biological weapons in more, we can't afford to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, I question whether the point is really relevent, but I don't think it's nearly the insult that doc's link is trying to make it out to be.
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: On another note, if this is true, I think this is the biggest Obama campaign gaffe yet.
I got the feeling while watching that Obama ad that it was condescending towards older people who don't use computers. While older voters aren't Obama's base, it seems like a bad idea to (apparently) put down an entire demographic like that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i see no problem with the video, if McCain can't use a computer he should be president.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:i see no problem with the video, if McCain can't use a computer he should be president.
I doubt you meant this, but I agree with the bold part, certainly.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
You probably don't think it follows from his premise though Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: i see no problem with the video, if McCain can't use a computer he shouldn't be president.
ack.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I grant that it's a bit unfair of the campaign to say he's still not able to use computers when its his injuries that prevent him from being able to
Do his injuries prevent him from using dictation software?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:I grant that it's a bit unfair of the campaign to say he's still not able to use computers when its his injuries that prevent him from being able to
Do his injuries prevent him from using dictation software?
I was wondering the same thing. As someone who has a disability (visual impairment), I know that there is a world of equipment and programs out there designed to help people with disabilities.
I don't have a particular problem with him not checking his e-mail but I would prefer our leaders to be well versed in technology since congress is passing laws effecting our use of the internet and technology.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I highly doubt that his injuries prevent him from dictating software.
It's why I pointed out what I thought to be a contradiction in the articles the blogger posted. One of them suggested McCain doesn't like e-mail because of the emotional strain. The other said he let's Cindy work the computer while he dictates.
I'm in the camp that Obama didn't really do anything wrong. I'm just saying that if there were something wrong with the ad, something that could hurt Obama, it would be the possibility of seeming insensitive.
Edit for clarity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There are quadriplegics and blind people that regularly use computers, so the claim that his injuries prevent him from doing so seems awfully dubious to me. Heck, for some severely disabled individuals, computers can sometimes be the only practical means for them to communicate.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Yes, but he's also old, so if he's able to get by without using them, maybe that's enough of a reason for him (only half-tongue in cheek. as you can see from it poking out.)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't know, I think it's a lot less inaccurate than McCain's ad saying Obama supports sex education for kindergardeners when said education was actually anti-sexual-predator education.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Apparently there is a disconnect between what Palin says and what her aids are saying.
I don't think Palin intentionally tried to mislead people, more likely that aide was given a bad press packet and believed he was telling the truth.
McCain's ad stating that Obama is engaging in desperate acts of criticism against Palin is patently false IMO. His dirty ad stating that Obama favors sex education for kids in kindergarten is despicable as well.
I wonder sometimes if McCain actually OKs every ad that is run in his name.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Now McCain has a Spanish language ad claiming that Democrats and Obama railroaded immigration reform, even though Obama and McCain have identical votes on the issue, and it was senate REPUBLICANS that fillibustered the bill to death.
Apparently McCain really is just making stuff up now. God forbid the media stops spending so much time playing paparazzi to Palin's past and actually starts to call McCain on some of this stuff.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
There have been a variety of position statements Pres. Bush has made that the media has chosen to call "the Bush doctrine," even though they are substantially different. Gov. Palin did speak to one of them. Gibson apparently had a different one in mind. Palin was not wrong, and Gibson had no call to correct her, just because he had a different "Bush doctrine" in mind.
Note what this article in Wickipedia says:
"Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive 'Bush Doctrines' in his book The Bush Tragedy, while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
Among the Bush doctrines: We will hold nations accountable that harbor Al Qaeda--thus we invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban government when they refused to give up Al Qaeda. This was probably the first position statement that was called by the media THE Bush Doctrine.
Another Bush doctrine: We will seek the coopration of our allies, but if necessary we will go it alone. This was called by the media THE Bush Doctrine.
Yet another Bush position statement, that also was called by the media THE Bush docrine: We reserve the right to be proactive, and engage in pre-emptive attacks, when we have definite knowledge that someone is preparing to attack us, or we hear that they are in the process (as Saddam Hussein claimed) of building and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and planning to share them with terrorist organizations.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blackblade, Sen. McCain's charge that Sen. Obama has favored sex education for five-year old kindergartners is absolutely true. It is dishonest obfuscation to point to the main point of the program being to warn children about sexual predators, as if that were all the program were about. But that program did have a section in it which included identifying all the intimate body parts, saying it feels good to touch them, and advising kids that if they want to masturbate, they should do so in private. It also explained homosexuality, and spoke of it in favorable terms designed to encourage kids to be tolerant of it. This is sex education, it was intended for five-year old kindergarten students, and Obama and everyone else who has denied it is guilty of flat-out lying.
Here is an excerpt from the Fox News website:
"As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted for the sex education bill in committee in 2003, but he was not a sponsor.
"The measure said schools offering sex education must include medically accurate information appropriate to the age of the students. The lessons were to cover the consequences of unprotected sex, the effects of various forms of contraception and the option of abstinence."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blackblade, Sen. McCain's charge that Sen. Obama has favored sex education for five-year old kindergarteners is absolutely true. It is dishonest obfuscation to point to the main point of the program being to warn children about sexual predators, as if that were all the program were about. But that program did have a section in it which included identifying all the intimate body parts, saying it feels good to touch them, and advising kids that if they want to masturbate, they should do so in private. It also explained homosexuality, and spoke of it in favorable terms designed to encourage kids to be tolerant of it. This is sex education, it was intended for five-year old kindergartern students, and Obama and everyone else who has denied it is guilty of flat-out lying.
Maybe next time you should use sources to back up your claim.
Newsweek seems to thoroughly debunk the idea that Obama wanted explicit sex education taught to Kindergarteners, but let's go a step further, eh?
Here's the bill itself. The only time kindergarten seems to be mentioned is through the range that this will be taught. (k-12) And that's only done three times (by my count) in the bill itself. What is mentioned in this is that all instruction would be age-appropriate. So don't pretend that teaching kindergartners how to masturbate was Barack Obama's plan. (Also of note, this wasn't Obama's plan, merely an item he supported.)
And what's more, I would think that teaching students early about the dangers of sexual assault and harassment are a good thing to do. Especially with the dangers of sexual abuse happening at home, even at that early age, the best tool a child can use to stop the abuse is knowledge. Teaching the kids what the 'intimate parts' are and what's appropriate and inappropriate could possibly help bring to light the problems that happen at home sooner. The plan also wouldn't force children to learn the information as there was a no-questions-asked opt-out plan for parents. If a parent would feel better suited to teach a child that information, they can do so.
This claim by John McCain came by cherry-picking quotes from Obama during his debates with Alan Keyes, and has disfigured his position entirely. It's disgusting to me because it came out as a flat-out lie. I can understand him making arguments that Obama would raise taxes. I think its unethical that they portray it like everyone would feel a tax-increase, but it's true that a small portion would get their taxes raised.
But to outright lie, especially about something like this, revolts me.
EDIT: You posted an excerpt from foxnews, and it still doesn't support your argument, especially considering it too uses the word 'appropriate.'
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is dishonest obfuscation to point to the main point of the program being to warn children about sexual predators,
It's dishonest obfuscation to identify the MAIN POINT of the program?
Are you on any prescription medications?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is dishonest obfuscation to point to the main point of the program being to warn children about sexual predators,
It's dishonest obfuscation to identify the MAIN POINT of the program?
Are you on any prescription medications?
I suspect pot and heroin being the favorite drugs of the crazed Republican right.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Don't dishonestly obfuscate and drive. It's NOT WORTH IT.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: You know, it's a bizarre campaign. Nobody's really that surprised that Palin got all deer-in-the-headlights at what the "Bush Doctrine" was--it's never been that solidly defined anyway--but I think it's funny that it's more of a story that the interviewer pretty much got it wrong, too.
After Palin asked for clarification, he specifically stated that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine as outlined in 2002. As the WP article notes, at that time, the Bush Doctrine was indeed what he described.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually I had the impression that she wasn't stumped on which Bush Doctrine he meant, but what the term "Bush Doctrine" referred to at all.
Firing off officials and replacing them with high school buddies with scant qualifications. Using personal e-mail for the specific purpose of avoiding subpoenas. Pursuing personal vendettas on government time. Refusing to meet with legislators.
quote:The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.
Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”
It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”
The focus on Palin is important, because it is becoming more and more evident that McCain is not in charge of his campaign. I'm starting to wonder if he would be in charge of the White House, and his second-in-command is just what the current pack in charge would love to step behind: another power-hungry ideologue, ignorant and uncaring of important issues, who is good at parroting the positions that have been carefully explained by the "right" people.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"This is sex education, it was intended for five-year old kindergarten students, and Obama and everyone else who has denied it is guilty of flat-out lying."
Ron, using that exact style of argument, it is also absolutely true that John McCain favors leaving kindergarten children vulnerable to child molesters. Can you prove otherwise?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Of note, there is a clear connection between children knowing the anatomically correct names for body parts and a significant decrease in child sexual abuse. This has held for longitudinal as well as cross-sectional studies, supporting a claim of causation over mere correlation.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Of note, there is a clear connection between children knowing the anatomically correct names for body parts and a significant decrease in child sexual abuse. This has held for longitudinal as well as cross-sectional studies, supporting a claim of causation over mere correlation.
LikeOperation?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
CT, it's wonderful to hear that. It fits in completely with what I believe. Our bodies aren't evil, and know the clinical names for things makes everyone, even near-babies (in my mind, they are babies until they can read) less vulnerable to being manipulated by those who seem to know more about their own bodies than they do.
Innocence is not the same thing as ignorance. I don't understand any desire to keep things like clinical names for body parts and basic awareness of their bodies away from those who need that kind of knowledge. Since when did pretending that everyone is built like a smooth Barbie equate to innocence?
If it's a matter of protecting their virtue, I would imagine that actual knowledge of what is going on inside the bodies of both men and women would give kids the tools they need to make decisions and understand that while they can't control how they are feeling, they can control how they will act on those feelings instead of pretending that the raging hormones don't exist. If there's a fire burning in a closet, you don't close the door and hope nothing happens.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: LikeOperation?
Exactly, katharina.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: You know, it's a bizarre campaign. Nobody's really that surprised that Palin got all deer-in-the-headlights at what the "Bush Doctrine" was--it's never been that solidly defined anyway--but I think it's funny that it's more of a story that the interviewer pretty much got it wrong, too.
After Palin asked for clarification, he specifically stated that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine as outlined in 2002. As the WP article notes, at that time, the Bush Doctrine was indeed what he described.
Right, but before he clarified, he tried to do his little "gotcha": "The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?" At that point in the conversation, it's still entirely unclear which aspect he's referring to - even after she explicitly asked for clarification.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I consider myself a bright guy who doesn't like being talked down to by the likes of Charlie Gibson, and I don't like made-up doctrines, especially when they are tossed off by newspeople to make me appear stupid. It's the opposite of good faith, and I think it's the opposite of good journalism. I'm worried about Palin, especially with regards to how she picks American allies, but when I heard Gibson say, "Bush Doctrine," I thought, "Does he mean preemptive strikes? And if he is talking about preemptive strikes, why doesn't he just say preemptive strikes?" Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" move is the exact kind of crap the Right rightfully latches on to to denounce the mainstream media. The Bush Doctrine statement wasn't about Palin's views on the issue, it was a move to see if she was willing to speak in their jargon.
[ September 14, 2008, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Which she did, perfectly in goose step.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So Blayne, am I right in my assessment that you don't actually care about discussing politics and would rather simply toss off simplistic insults?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Abd I think your assessment is being simplistic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I wouldn't fault anybody for not knowing what specifically was implied by "The Bush Doctrine." To me it refers to preemptive strikes against foes who will eventually attack American citizens. But that phrase has not been used to the point that all Americans would, (though maybe they ought to) know what it means, unlike, "The New Deal," "The Monroe Doctrine," or, "McCarthyism."
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So Blayne, am I right in my assessment that you don't actually care about discussing politics and would rather simply toss off simplistic insults?
Actually, I'm pretty sure he'd rather be talking about video games. But if he can't work that into the conversation, I think simplistic insults are about the only thing he's got left.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Abd I think your assessment is being simplistic.
Possibly. Your comments about drug use and allusions to Nazis may have driven from my mind all your scintillating commentary on the issues.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As far as the Bush Doctrine goes, I too thought he was specifically referring to preemptive strikes. I sort of agree with Dag that he might have been playing, well, if not gotcha, then at least trying to catch her in a gaffe by asking her to define an ill-defined "doctrine."
I don't by any means think it was partisan, I think it was Gibson just trying to snag a headline. Lord knows after ABC's ridiculous moderating of that Obama/Clinton debate that they are no friend of Obama's.
Both the NYT and the WashPost have big articles about Palin this week.
In other news, Obama smashed his fundraising record last month. His previous one month high was $55 million. August's total was $66 million with 500,000 brand new donors. This comes after I think I read a half dozen articles last week about how Obama's fundraising has been lackluster and many feared he wouldn't be able to even keep up with McCain. Going into the final stretch, McCain just got $80 million from the public financing thing, and Obama has $77 million cash on hand, with another few weeks of fundraising to go. On the one hand, it takes some time away from Obama's campaigning to have to spend time at fundraisers, but at the rate things are going, he's going to have a huge advantage if he can hold that rate for the next seven weeks. That August fundraising total doesn't include the estimated $10 million he got the day after Palin's convention speech alone. At the very least, the enthusiasm behind Obama hasn't wavered at all apparently.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Abd I think your assessment is being simplistic.
Possibly. Your comments about drug use and allusions to Nazis may have driven from my mind all your scintillating commentary on the issues.
Kinda taking a cricket bat to a badmitton bird there, Dag. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Of note, there is a clear connection between children knowing the anatomically correct names for body parts and a significant decrease in child sexual abuse. This has held for longitudinal as well as cross-sectional studies, supporting a claim of causation over mere correlation.
I think you made this point better than I was going to!
I have a 2 (almost 3)-year-old boy and a 3-month-old girl and we use the right names for everything. When our son asks about his body parts, we tell him what they are, whether he is pointing to a chin or a penis. When I am nursing my daughter and he asks what my breasts are, I tell him breasts. (And I don't cover up in my own home.) Our bodies are not dirty or embarrassing and quite frankly, if anyone touches my children inappropriately I want them to be able to tell me about it with the right words.
Last year we had a guest speaker come to our MOPS group to talk about preventing child sexual molestation. (She brought a giant teddy bear who went to talk to the pre-school kids about their privates and about welcome and unwelcome touches. Completely age appropriate and well done, IMO.) She had worked with many children and stressed the importance of kids knowing the right names for things because no one may know what a child means if (and this was her example), a little girl said someone had touched her pussy.
As for older kids who are near sexual maturity, I believe studies have shown that abstinence only education doesn't decrease the incidence of sex, but it does increase the incidence of teen pregnancies.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
McCain might be incapable of using computers because of his injuries but would the RNC REALLY want people to dwell on McCain's infirmaries?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
After reading the NYT and WashPost articles on Palin, I'm convinced that McCain is totally off his rocker for picking her. If she were to run America should something happen to McCain like she ran Wasilla and Alaska, I think we'd be screwed.
Either he made an irresponsible choice after carefully viewing her record, or he made an irresponsible choice by choosing her for political expediency and didn't pay attention to her record at all. I'd like the media to spend a hell of a lot less time on her personal foibles and her family drama and a lot more time on her management style and actual job history. There's eerie overtones of Bush in her management style, to say nothing of her recent lackluster responses to major policy questions.
Edit to add: And here's a fun little tidbit. Karl Rove said today that he thinks some recent McCain ads have "gone one step too far," and don't pass the "100% truth test." When Rove is calling you dishonest and saying you've gone too far, you really have to wonder.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Abd I think your assessment is being simplistic.
Possibly. Your comments about drug use and allusions to Nazis may have driven from my mind all your scintillating commentary on the issues.
To be fair the drug abuse bit is aimed squarely at Ron after someone else had already raised the point.
Next, I think being a public figure with some very fascist like mannerisms perfectly places her within the acceptable margin of mockery for what is increasingly a very bad choice for Vice President.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Christine, I certainly agree. I cannot find a child sexual abuse prevention program that does not stand behind using correct clinical terminology to protect children. There must be some, but the standard federal, state, and well-known national programs all seem to advocate this as one of the core principles.
Good for Obama. [Edited to add: And especially, good for you! Rocking the Mom Job! ]
quote:Next, I think being a public figure with some very fascist like mannerisms perfectly places her within the acceptable margin of mockery for what is increasingly a very bad choice for Vice President.
So the answer to my question is "yes." Good to know.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
What a great teaching moment for the Obama Campaign, I hope they seize it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Next, I think being a public figure with some very fascist like mannerisms perfectly places her within the acceptable margin of mockery for what is increasingly a very bad choice for Vice President.
So the answer to my question is "yes." Good to know.
no its not.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After reading the NYT and WashPost articles on Palin, I'm convinced that McCain is totally off his rocker for picking her. If she were to run America should something happen to McCain like she ran Wasilla and Alaska, I think we'd be screwed.
Either he made an irresponsible choice after carefully viewing her record, or he made an irresponsible choice by choosing her for political expediency and didn't pay attention to her record at all. I'd like the media to spend a hell of a lot less time on her personal foibles and her family drama and a lot more time on her management style and actual job history. There's eerie overtones of Bush in her management style, to say nothing of her recent lackluster responses to major policy questions.
While I agree that her record is appalling, I have to admit that she might have been one of the better picks for winning the election. While I want VP candidates with whom I'd be comfortable leading the country should the President fall, I do see the need to pick a VP candidate who helps you win. Afterall, what's the point of having a great VP if you don't win?
So to defend his choice a bit. Who else could McCain have picked? Pawlenty's history of pro-choice would turn off many voters. Lieberman would have possibly made inroads with independents, but would turn off the Republican party and enrage the Democrats. Romney was very unpopular in the south, and again would not have energized the party. The only real benefit of Romney is the possible assistance in flipping Michigan.
Palin HAS energized the Republican party, regardless of her positions. Look at the recent polls coming out from some of the closer states from before. North Carolina (McCain +17 Research 2000 9/9), Montana (McCain +5 Rasmussen 9/11), and North Dakota(McCain + 14 Rasmussen 9/8) now seem out of reach. Minnesota's now tied (According to CNN today- Star Tribune has them tied at 45%), and Obama's gap of support in states already leaning his way has dwindled somewhat. (Washington comes to mind)
If McCain can keep this sheen of a new, clean politician on Palin through the next two months, he may very well have won with that decision alone.
I'm hoping that people realize the truth about Palin quickly and she become an albatross around McCain's neck rather than the boost she seems to be.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Obfuscate, obfuscate. Nobly intone that the sex education bill had as its primary purpose warning children about sexual predators, and then just ignore the fact that there was also a section that was plain and undeniable sex education. More obfuscation is to say this was for "children," and overlook the fact that the children included kindergartners, many of whom are only five years old. Whatever justifications anyone may come up with for teaching sex education to children against the wills of their parents, WE STILL ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE YEAR OLDS! F-I-V-E--Y-E-A-R--O-L-D-S-! Get it? Does it penetrate your self-righteous liberal brains that there might be something wrong with this?
Many parents do object long and loud to sex education for their children, especially in kindergarten. This is another example of tyranny on the part of the left who think they have a better knowledge of moral right and wrong than anyone else, and are entitled to ram their views down everyone else's throat.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I wholeheartedly approve of sex education for kindergarders.
My not-quite two year old knows the proper names for his body parts and that babies grow in mommies' tummies. He knows that men have penises and women don't. Right now he connects the difference with nursing -- men have penises and women can nurse babies. All of that is sex education, and is age appropriate.
Although I almost choked myself laughing last night when he announced "I nurse with mommy. On her nipple on her breast. Like the piggies on the mommy pig." (We saw baby pigs nursing at the state fair a few weeks ago.)
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Obfuscate, obfuscate. Nobly intone that the sex education bill had as its primary purpose warning children about sexual predators, and then just ignore the fact that there was also a section that was plain and undeniable sex education. More obfuscation is to say this was for "children," and overlook the fact that the children included kindergartners, many of whom are only five years old. Whatever justifications anyone may come up with for teaching sex education to children against the wills of their parents, WE STILL ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE YEAR OLDS! F-I-V-E--Y-E-A-R--O-L-D-S-! Get it? Does it penetrate your self-righteous liberal brains that there might be something wrong with this?
Many parents do object long and loud to sex education for their children, especially in kindergarten. This is another example of tyranny on the part of the left who think they have a better knowledge of moral right and wrong than anyone else, and are entitled to ram their views down everyone else's throat.
The bill allowed parents to opt out of their children receiving this instruction with no questions asked. So don't pretend it was being forced upon the children.
I also point out the bill was talking about an age range, k-12, and stipulated that instruction would be medically accurate and age-appropriate.
Kindergartners were not going to be taught what you so fear. They were going to be taught how to defend themselves.
Also, there is no 'tyranny of the left' in this bill, because they weren't forcing their beliefs down your throat. Every parent had the right to opt out of their child receiving that instruction. The parent still could teach their child themselves if they found any of the material objectionable. (The bill said that parents would receive full knowledge of the curriculum.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
How old are the kindergarteners again? I must have missed it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, in the USA, children can start school at the age of five, though some can be held back until they are six. I was actually allowed to start school at the age of four, because my birthday is in November.
By the way Vadon, the bill did not pass, did it? (Sen. Obama voted in favor of the bill so it could be reported out of committee.) Why do you think that was, if there was really no problem with it because parents could opt out? Parents could keep their children out--but if many of their classmates were taught about condoms and contraceptives and the advisability of masturbating in private, would that really mean their children would not be exposed to it? And in case you hadn't noticed, private schools cost more, and it is a lot of trouble for parents to homeschool their kids--not many parents can do it.
Why do liberals think they have some sort of "divine right" to control the public school system?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm not sure where you are getting the details you lay out about what would be taught, Ron Lambert, as those details are not in the bill itself.
Do you have a link? Other citation?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Claudia, I do not have a copy of the bill. Sean Hannity read from it on the air, noting specific things the program called for. The people there with him on the show who wanted to defend Sen. Obama had no replies, other than trying to stick to the standard Obama talking point that the program was designed to help children avoid sexual predators.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why do liberals think they have some sort of "divine right" to control the public school system?
Divine right? Nope. Responsibility? Yes.
Speaking in generalities, it seems to me that liberals want their children to be more educated than they were. And I don't see anything wrong with that.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, in the USA, children can start school at the age of five, though some can be held back until they are six. I was actually allowed to start school at the age of four, because my birthday is in November.
By the way Vadon, the bill did not pass, did it? (Sen. Obama voted in favor of the bill so it could be reported out of committee.) Why do you think that was, if there was really no problem with it because parents could opt out? Parents could keep their children out--but if many of their classmates were taught about condoms and contraceptives and the advisability of masturbating in private, would that really mean their children would not be exposed to it? And in case you hadn't noticed, private schools cost more, and it is a lot of trouble for parents to homeschool their kids--not many parents can do it.
Why do liberals think they have some sort of "divine right" to control the public school system?
Why didn't it pass? The tyranny of the right. (I jest 'cause I love.)
But seriously, I think a child is going to be exposed to condoms, contraceptives, and masturbation regardless of what education the education system teaches some kids. If enough parents teach their child sex-education outside of the school system, some of those children will help to expose that knowledge. By the way, I'm not sure how homeschooling or private-school was inserted into this conversation, so I'm not trying to ignore it, I just don't see the relevance. Parents teach their children outside of homeschooling.
No, it didn't pass, but it wasn't voted down either. It was stalled, which can be done in many ways. And stalling doesn't require a majority of people saying nay, just a very vocal opposition that filibusters or some other strategy that gets people to eventually table the bill.
But seriously, why do you continue to ignore the fact that the bill was aimed to teach concepts at age-appropriate times? Kindergartners weren't targeted to be taught those concepts. The intent as far as Kindergarten was to teach a child self-defense against abuse.
EDIT: By the way, if you want the copy of the bill, I posted a link to it back one page.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But seriously, why do you continue to ignore the fact that the bill was aimed to teach concepts at age-appropriate times? Kindergartners weren't targeted to be taught those concepts. The intent as far as Kindergarten was to teach a child self-defense against abuse.
I'm not attempting to defend Ron here, but how do you know this is true? It seems you're doing the exact same thing Ron is - seizing on language in the bill and choosing which ages it actually applies to. Certainly the bill itself doesn't prevent Ron's scenario of explicit teaching of kindergarteners. It all depends on how "age appropriate" is interpreted.
Certainly I think any rational interpretation of age-appropriate would exclude teaching such things to kindergarteners. But I have seen "age-appropriate" defined in a way I disagree with before in these matters. So even though I think it unlikely Ron's scenario is true, I don't see how you're able to make absolute statements the other way about this.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:But seriously, why do you continue to ignore the fact that the bill was aimed to teach concepts at age-appropriate times? Kindergartners weren't targeted to be taught those concepts. The intent as far as Kindergarten was to teach a child self-defense against abuse.
I'm not attempting to defend Ron here, but how do you know this is true? It seems you're doing the exact same thing Ron is - seizing on language in the bill and choosing which ages it actually applies to. Certainly the bill itself doesn't prevent Ron's scenario of explicit teaching of kindergarteners. It all depends on how "age appropriate" is interpreted.
Certainly I think any rational interpretation of age-appropriate would exclude teaching such things to kindergarteners. But I have seen "age-appropriate" defined in a way I disagree with before in these matters. So even though I think it unlikely Ron's scenario is true, I don't see how you're able to make absolute statements the other way about this.
You've got a strong point, and I concede it. I can't make any guarantees that the curriculum wouldn't carry what Ron is saying, but like you yourself pointed out, what some people deem as 'age-appropriate' you disagree with. The bill did include provisions to let a parent opt out of their child being taught the subject matter (which it also said they would be fully informed of.). So if they did have material the Ron is worried about, he could simply not let his child be taught that. No questions asked.
I argue the bill intended the sexual abuse protections because the age range of the bill was modified to include kindergarten as well as sexual abuse protection education. Something I figured was correlated. Also the arguments that the supporters of the bill made, Barack Obama included, saying that was their intent for Kindergartners.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" It all depends on how "age appropriate" is interpreted."
Which means that the bill is aimed to teach concenpts at age-appropriate is defined, as you yourself just said.
What exactly is "age appropriate" is left up to states, and districts. But the stuff that is supposed to be taught, before graduation, is laid out so that it all has to eventually be included.
The people like Ron, McCain, et al, who are trying to paint this bill as "comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners," are idiots.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
We must stop teaching math to kindergartners.
I understand that an "age-appropriate" math curriculum is required for levels k-12, but kindergartners simply cannot handle calculus or advanced trigonometry so the entire curriculum must be stopped and stopped now. I call upon our political leaders to stop this unnecessary cruelty to our children.
Teach your children string theory before they learn to read? Is that the kind of president we want?
[ September 14, 2008, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Claudia, I do not have a copy of the bill. Sean Hannity read from it on the air, noting specific things the program called for. The people there with him on the show who wanted to defend Sen. Obama had no replies, other than trying to stick to the standard Obama talking point that the program was designed to help children avoid sexual predators.
Sean Hannity isn't a reliable, unbiased new source. You are smart enough to know that no one should trust anything said on his show (or many others) without double checking the facts.
This is just a sign of how desperate the right wing is to win this election. They know they can't win it on the issues and the truth so they have to fabricate ridiculous outrageous lies knowing that many people are gullible enough to believe the most outrageous lies and half truths.
McCain and much of the rest of the Republican Party seem to have taken his plays right out of Rush Limbaugh's handbook. If the facts don't support your position, make up some that do. At least when Rush Limbaugh is called on it, he can argue that he is an entertainer not a news source (evidently its OK to lie as long as the lies are entertaining).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That opening skit for Saturday Night Live was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was absolutely beautiful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey, Paul, now that you're back in this thread, perhaps you could have the decency to respond to my defense against the unsupported accusations you made about me. I posted some direct counterexamples and you ignored them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Certainly I think any rational interpretation of age-appropriate would exclude teaching such things to kindergarteners. But I have seen "age-appropriate" defined in a way I disagree with before in these matters. So even though I think it unlikely Ron's scenario is true, I don't see how you're able to make absolute statements the other way about this."
So are there comprehensive k-12 sex ed courses going on anywhere now where we can look at the curriculum and tell whether "age-appropriate" kindergarten classes would be "be sure to tell a grownup if someone tries to touch you there" or Kama Sutra book reports?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Claudia, I do not have a copy of the bill. Sean Hannity read from it on the air, noting specific things the program called for.
I daresay it might do well to find out where Mr. Hannity locates this information.
[edited for snark and unkindness; my apologies]
[ September 14, 2008, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That opening skit for Saturday Night Live was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was absolutely beautiful.
Without any additional background, that statement is a complete non-sequitor.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:The original controversy dates to 2003, when a bill to modify the teaching of sex education in Illinois was introduced in the Legislature. The proposal was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association.
... The proposal called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education and also allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction if they felt that it clashed with their beliefs or values.
In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.
...
It is a misstatement of the bill’s purpose, therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.
The advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by “comprehensive.” The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
McCain runs infirmaries? How *does* he find the time?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Obfuscate, obfuscate. Nobly intone that the sex education bill had as its primary purpose warning children about sexual predators, and then just ignore the fact that there was also a section that was plain and undeniable sex education. More obfuscation is to say this was for "children," and overlook the fact that the children included kindergartners, many of whom are only five years old.
No, the sex education bill did not have as its primary purpose warning children about sexual predators. The inclusion of kindergarteners had as its primary purpose the protection of children against sexual predators.
quote: Whatever justifications anyone may come up with for teaching sex education to children against the wills of their parents,
Were this true, there would definitely be no justification! But the parents may fully opt out so it is completely untrue.
quote: WE STILL ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE YEAR OLDS! F-I-V-E--Y-E-A-R--O-L-D-S-! Get it? Does it penetrate your self-righteous liberal brains that there might be something wrong with this?
Do you have children, out of curiosity? I'm still not seeing exactly what you think is wrong with teaching a 5-year-old the names of their privates and what to do if anyone touches them. (Or do you still think someone is going to teach a 5-year-old to masturbate?)
quote: Many parents do object long and loud to sex education for their children, especially in kindergarten.
Fine. I disagree with them. Loudly. But they are welcome to raise their children how they choose and can opt out.
quote:This is another example of tyranny on the part of the left who think they have a better knowledge of moral right and wrong than anyone else, and are entitled to ram their views down everyone else's throat. [/QB]
I know! People can be so self-righteous about their moral views, thinking they know best. Like those people trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Who gives them the right to tell people who to love? I ask you...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That opening skit for Saturday Night Live was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was absolutely beautiful.
Without any additional background, that statement is a complete non-sequitor.
Not if you take the link I put on the last page to the opening skit into account it's not. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
The SNL skit was much funnier than I expected it to be. Reading the script is nothing compared to the way it was played out. I think it made fun of Hillary Clinton as much as Sarah Palin. And man, Tina Fey did an incredible impersonation.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote: The NYTimes has a long article on Palin today, detailing her style of governing.
Firing off officials and replacing them with high school buddies with scant qualifications. Using personal e-mail for the specific purpose of avoiding subpoenas. Pursuing personal vendettas on government time. Refusing to meet with legislators.
Now there is a person with true Executive Experience, at least the kind we have come to expect from the present administration.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
For anyone who's interested, Obama vs. McCain's tax plans in fancy graph form:
*Note that I'm pretty sure this doesn't include McCain's plan to make employer health benefits taxible income (edit - while providing a tax credit of $2500 for singles/$5000 for families).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way Vadon, the bill did not pass, did it? (Sen. Obama voted in favor of the bill so it could be reported out of committee.) Why do you think that was, if there was really no problem with it because parents could opt out?
As McCain's ad specifically calls it one of Obama's "few accomplishments", presumably the bill did in fact pass.
If you want to view it as a liberal evil despite all evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to think that's a problem with your view, not the bill.
ADD: Further probing shows that the bill indeed did not pass, which makes the way it's been broached somewhat confusing.
Factcheck.org:
quote:The ad claims the bill was Obama's "one accomplishment." This is doubly false. Obama was neither a cosponsor nor a sponsor of the sex education bill, which never got past "go" in the Senate. So it was not an "accomplishment" at all. Furthermore, Obama can properly claim a number of real accomplishments.
Full text of the bill for the non-hysteria minded is here.
In an October debate with Alan Keyes, Obama said (emphasis mine)
quote:We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate.
[ September 15, 2008, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: but if many of their classmates were taught about condoms and contraceptives and the advisability of masturbating in private, would that really mean their children would not be exposed to it?
So we base all of our public school policies from the legislature on the worst possible scenario imaginable? That sounds workable to me. What the hell is a PTA for if not to deal with issues like this one- why are you even suggesting that such details even *should* be worked out on a national level? I thought you republicans were in favor of less government involvement, not more.
We both know that if inappropriate material is presented to kindergartners, it represents a failure on many levels closer to the students themselves: Their teachers, their district, their parents, their local government, their state government, etc. By the time you get to legislature, I can't see how responsibility for such specifics is really to be expected. These are all problems that can and should be dealt with by more local authorities. The only job of the Senate, in this case, is to put the plan, in broad terms, into motion so that it does get done. The legislature can only develop expectations that each school must meet- it cannot be responsible for the method employed everywhere.
For instance, and this just a for instance, children of kindergarten age or a little older do have a tendency, in some cases, to touch themselves inappropriately in public. I know this from working with kids of that age for a long time. The appropriate response to that behavior is something a teacher must be equipped to give, and it's something that the district and school can help establish with the teachers. That response is going to vary from case to case, but it's important that at every level, the administration of the school is prepared with a response, and is informing its staff of appropriate responses.
Precisely because the subject is a sensitive one, there needs to be a force in place to encourage schools to prepare and effectively handle the concerns and behaviors of their kids.
I was working for a public recreation dept. camp one summer, when on a day that I was not working, two children had inappropriate sexually-directed contact with each other at the camp. The people on the ground in that case had been trained in how to deal with the situation, and were therefore better able to keep the experience from traumatizing one or both of the children involved. Ignoring the reality of child on child sexual abuse, which is a growing concern in schools, would be negligent- and if local communities choose to ignore the danger out of sensitivity, the problem will grow when it can be prevented.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bite me, Rabbit. Someone linked to it earlier in the thread, and I was responding to that link. I'm not interested in your usual nasty metacomments.
And the opening skit really was hilarious. If that statement is too complex and confusing for anyone, I suggest they read the rest of the thread, find the link, and giggle madly along with me.
Rabbit, you owe me an apology.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That opening skit for Saturday Night Live was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was absolutely beautiful.
Without any additional background, that statement is a complete non-sequitor.
Not if you take the link I put on the last page to the opening skit into account it's not.
Thank you Lyrhawn, That was the background I was looking for.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Interesting chart, Solar. I'm not sure now is really the time for tax cuts, but I learned Keynsian economics in college which I was later told has been replaced with newer, shinier theories. Still, when you have a large, growing debt, cutting income doesn't seem to make much sense.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: but if many of their classmates were taught about condoms and contraceptives and the advisability of masturbating in private, would that really mean their children would not be exposed to it?
So we base all of our public school policies from the legislature on the worst possible scenario imaginable? That sounds workable to me. What the hell is a PTA for if not to deal with issues like this one- why are you even suggesting that such details even *should* be worked out on a national level? I thought you republicans were in favor of less government involvement, not more.
If this were true, I'd still be leaning Republican! I went to the Democratic Caucasus a few months back to throw a vote for Obama. I went with a friend and while we were there, I explained a few of my political positions. I'm in favor of small government, especially at the national level. I want to see more local control. I wouldn't mind seeing the federal department of education bite the dust and control over my children's public education to be funded by and control entirely through state and local agencies.
"So you're a Republican?" she asked.
Nope. I'm independent. Fiercely independent. But that's because I don't buy into one party being evil and the other good. What has the Republican party done lately? They've expanded government, increased the deficit, passed the Patriot Act (and don't even get me started on that), started a questionable war. They are clinging to trickle down economics, giving tax breaks to corporations for sending jobs overseas, sponsoring corporate welfare, and trying to legislate morality.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:you owe me an apology.
I don't think I've ever said that. I fully believe the Rabbit was unnecessarily flip, but the world wide web can see you two have issues deeper than one comment. I've said, "You should apologize," but even that rarely. I use should often, but I rarely talk of apology. I digress...
I don't want the McCain/Palin administration to lead the country for the next for years. I'd rather have Obama/Biden in office. It's a lukewarm endorsement, but that's where I stand.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: You know, it's a bizarre campaign. Nobody's really that surprised that Palin got all deer-in-the-headlights at what the "Bush Doctrine" was--it's never been that solidly defined anyway--but I think it's funny that it's more of a story that the interviewer pretty much got it wrong, too.
After Palin asked for clarification, he specifically stated that he was referring to the Bush Doctrine as outlined in 2002. As the WP article notes, at that time, the Bush Doctrine was indeed what he described.
Right, but before he clarified, he tried to do his little "gotcha": "The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?" At that point in the conversation, it's still entirely unclear which aspect he's referring to - even after she explicitly asked for clarification.
Yes, I did think he was trying for a "gotcha," and I didn't really dig that. However, it's still incorrect to say that he was wrong about what the Bush Doctrine was.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I learned Keynsian economics in college which I was later told has been replaced with newer, shinier theories.
Unfortunately, shiny theories don't actually appear to be any more effective.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Keynsian is a lie told to undergraduates because the story sounds nice and has a foot in reality. At this point, modern macroeconomics is playing at theory while waiting for better data.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The only merit to Keynesian economics is that it appears to work, unlike most of the other economic theories we've tested since.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Tom, I assure you that no macroeconomist in the US today uses Keynesian economics to actually do economics, because it doesn't work. Neo-Keynesian, most certainly, but nothing that Keynes actually wrote is used today.
Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm curious what period you think we tried Keynesian economics, and what economic theories (with periods) you think have been tried since, Tom.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jhai: a number of intermediate macro courses are starting to teach based on microfoundations. This means they (well, the courses that do it well) don't cover as much theory, but they give a much better (and more grad-similar) foundation for macroeconomic thought.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I assure you that no macroeconomist in the US today uses Keynesian economics to actually do economics, because it doesn't work.
I'm willing to grant this. What economic theories do work?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Marxism.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Ted Rall's take on Bristol
It's probably right about her odds of being happy in her teenage marriage, but there are options other than abortion and being a married teenage mom.
She could have had the baby, and given it up for adoption.
My guess is that having her daughter hand off her baby to the state to find more suitable parents was not going to send the pro-family message that was desired. Certainly, anyone desiring to curry the favor of those who want to drown the government in a bathtub probably shouldn't put their flesh and blood in the hands of those professionals whose careers they claim to want to send down the drain.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I absolutely do not understand the resistance to adoption.
Growing up, it was always understood that I got pregnant while still in high school, it meant I would be giving birth to a baby that actually belonged to a loving couple that couldn't have any of their own.
I'm astounded at the number of people who'd rather the baby die than be raised by people they choose who have longed for a kid of their own.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
EDIT: In response to Blayne's pithy response:
Marxism, at its root is a socio-economic prediction, not a theory. And every attempt to hasten towards its conclusion has been a failure (to put it mildly).
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What Bristol Palin does with her pregnancy should be none of our business.
"Work" is an interesting term for economic methods and strategies. I suppose we would have to determine goals to see what "worked". Are we talking about how best to predict what will happen or how best to achieve a certain outcome. And then we would have to determine what the most desirable outcome would be.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Jhai: a number of intermediate macro courses are starting to teach based on microfoundations. This means they (well, the courses that do it well) don't cover as much theory, but they give a much better (and more grad-similar) foundation for macroeconomic thought.
Really? That's interesting. Personally, I think it's okay to teach undergraduates the "just-so" theories you often see in macroeconomics classes, since it gives them a good grasp of the big picture, and is fairly accurate in a broad strokes/big picture kind of way. I'm quite curious to know how professors transfer the graduate-type foundations to the undergraduate level, given the demanding mathematics (at least, that's what I was subject to in my macro classes). How does it avoid dynamic programming, for instance? Anyways, do you happen to have any links to syllabi or textbooks that follow this structure, fugu?
Tom, I don't think any macroeconomic theory is all that good in every instance. In order to make the mathematics reasonable you have to abstract away a lot of detail, which means you end up capturing only some of what's going on. So you apply a particular theory as the situation dictates. For instance, Solow's growth model (a dumbed-down version of which is often presented to undergraduates) is very good at capturing the broad strokes of what is important to an economy's long term growth. It's useless for telling you what the Federal Reserve ought to be doing at any point in time. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, has some amazing models for figuring out what's happening in the economy at any point in time (which the Fed then uses to decide its actions), but they aren't at all useful for developing economies, where the data is all crap anyways.
Personally, I think a lot of macroeconomic theories are fairly useless, as we're constrained by how good the data is. A fancy model which shows a tiny bit more of what's happening in the economy isn't that useful if there are errors in the data. But the macroeconomists need something to keep themselves busy...
Irami, I didn't mean any disrespect to undergraduates. Typically they just don't have the background in mathematics to understand the theories of modern macroeconomics. Just like they don't have the mathematics to understand most a lot of modern theoretical physics. I mean, if an undergraduate has a firm grasp on multivariate calculus, linear programming, and is willing to put in some hard time to learn dynamic programming, I'm all for them learning graduate-level macroeconomics. Without that background, however, they'll be completely lost in the class.
I've tutored a heck of a lot of economics undergraduates, and many of them were struggling with the basic calculus required of them for the economics courses. There's no way more than a handful of my classmates in undergrad were capable (at the time I was in classes with them) of doing the mathematics required for graduate classes. What's the point of mincing words about it?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What Bristol Palin does with her pregnancy should be none of our business.
I agree. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
I know almost nothing about economics besides, ironically, what I learned in an introductory undergraduate course, but what makes you assume that what he said is inaccurate? I could make a similar statement about graduate level molecular biology, and it would be absolutely true.
The fact of the matter is that graduate level subjects are at a higher level than undergraduate or high school levels. Heck, it's why they aren't taught at pre-graduate levels. Would you claim similar douchebaggery of someone who said that "high school algebra is too challenging for your typical 1st grader"?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
*ahem*
She
/end *ahem*
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business. "
So attack that policy position, it's perfectly fair game. But don't mention Bristol.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jhai: I'll try to dig out my intermediate macro book, though we didn't use the book a huge amount.
The way things were taught was a combination of conceptually with a little math. That is, the models were solved only for the simplest models, and more complex ones were treated with as conceptual frameworks where we could explore (often graphically) what the solution needed to look like, without actually solving.
In other words, much more simplistic models, but of a similar character to those found in grad macro.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
What have they done right since Eisenhower explicitly told Republicans to NOT do what they are doing now?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business. "
So attack that policy position, it's perfectly fair game. But don't mention Bristol.
I do.
But I also think it is appropriate to address the fact that another of her policy positions, namely supporting abstinence only education, seems to be partially refuted by her personal life, and yet she has made no justification for it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business. "
In Palin's defense, there may be a baby's life at stake and protecting lives is a matter of good governance.
Jhai, did you ever think that if YOU can't explain concepts to interested undergraduates, it may show a lack in your powers of communication rather than their ignorance.
[ September 15, 2008, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: In Palin's defense, there may be a baby's life at stake and protecting lives is a matter of good governance.
Jhai, did it ever enter your mind that if you can't explain concepts to interested undergraduates, it may show a lack in your powers of communication rather than their ignorance.
Interested != Capable of at the time.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But I also think it is appropriate to address the fact that another of her policy positions, namely supporting abstinence only education, seems to be partially refuted by her personal life, and yet she has made no justification for it.
That's just making a "anecdote is the singular of data" argument that I know you hate. It's tempting to use her daughter as an example here, but I don't think it's appropriate.
That said, I don't think it's inappropriate to address Bristol's pregnancy or her marriage in any context which may be relevant to Sarah Palin's policies or public speeches. If she wants to publicly commend her daughter's choice, I think that's a fair jumping off point to discuss what her others choices could have been or the value of having that choice in the first place. If it turns out that the baby was kept or that the marriage is happening strictly for political expediency, I think that's a valid conversation to have as well as it directly relates to Sarah Palin.
I don't think criticism of Bristol is appropriate, but I don't see any problem with mentioning her in a larger context.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
What have they done right since Eisenhower explicitly told Republicans to NOT do what they are doing now?
Blayne that question is noticeably flawed, when one does only a cursory reflection. By definition our country still existing and being a reasonably functional society indicates that Republicans have not done, everything wrong and therefore must have done, at least one thing right.
I admit though, I am of the opinion that not only has the Republican party gone against their platform in almost every conceivable way, these compromises to that platform are not a different, yet viable way of administration, but represent a complete decent into abject foolishness.
There are plenty of things to admire concerning Republican and conservative thought, but I have not seen any of those things exemplified. I like many of John McCain's virtues, but I'm not convinced Palin is good for this country, nor am I impressed with Mr. McCain's platform and the manner in which he has run his campaign.
If I see a departure from politics as usual, and an earnest focus on policy issues, coupled with a bit of refinement on Palin's end, McCain could yet get my one vote, but he'll have to work to earn it back.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Jhai, did it ever enter your mind that if you can't explain concepts to interested undergraduates, it may show a lack in your powers of communication rather than their ignorance.
She's not saying it's not possible, but that it requires substantial foundational understanding which is not present.
Try to explain how to change a tire to someone who doesn't speak English.
Try to explain, in simple terms, how to debug a bad convergence IC for the green gun on a CRT to someone who's only electronics experience is with elementary circuity composed of discrete components.
Complex topics exist. They can't all be explained in a reasonable amount of time to someone who's not already knowledgeable in the applicable domain(s).
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Irami, I'm quite capable of explaining the concepts of macroeconomics to undergraduates - indeed, this is what most macroeconomic courses for undergraduates attempt to do. However, there's a difference between understanding a concept of a thing, and actually knowing a thing. For instance, I understand the concept of evolution, and the principles behind it. I do not understand the details of evolution, and I do not understand the detailed theories of evolution that evolutionary biologists discuss and debate - I don't have the background in biology to do so. Just like how I can understand A Brief History of Time but I can't say that I know or can do graduate-level theoretical physics.
To give you an idea of what macroeconomics is like, try checking out the first few pages of this pdf: A Simple Introduction to Dynamic Programming in Macroeconomic Models. Note that this is a guide to understand a textbook - the text itself (we used it) is considerably denser. In particular, look at page 3 of the pdf to see a general formulation of a the simplest type of problem.
I really have no idea how I could teach an undergraduate how do this problem without them having some basic knowledge of multivariate calculus and linear algebra, and preferably at least some linear programming or other optimization practice. Your typical undergraduate simply does not have this knowledge. Thus, they would be unable to understand the first problem that is presented in the first class of graduate-level macroeconomics (at least how I was taught in my program, which is quite mainstream).
If they can't understand the mathematics which underpin the entire theory and explain how the system changes over time, then how can they truly understand or study the theory?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
What have they done right since Eisenhower explicitly told Republicans to NOT do what they are doing now?
Blayne that question is noticeably flawed, when one does only a cursory reflection. By definition our country still existing and being a reasonably functional society indicates that Republicans have not done, everything wrong and therefore must have done, at least one thing right.
I admit though, I am of the opinion that not only has the Republican party gone against their platform in almost every conceivable way, these compromises to that platform are not a different, yet viable way of administration, but represent a complete decent into abject foolishness.
There are plenty of things to admire concerning Republican and conservative thought, but I have not seen any of those things exemplified. I like many of John McCain's virtues, but I'm not convinced Palin is good for this country, nor am I impressed with Mr. McCain's platform and the manner in which he has run his campaign.
If I see a departure from politics as usual, and an earnest focus on policy issues, coupled with a bit of refinement on Palin's end, McCain could yet get my one vote, but he'll have to work to earn it back.
Obviously its a tad flawed and I agree with you, I like the idea of the platform of a minimalist government, fiscal responsibility, free trade, and a reduction and/or prevention of the expansion of the military-industrial complex and responsible defence.
Now unless I'm wrong these are what the Republicans nominally stand for or at least used to at some point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Macroeconomics at the graduate/Ph.D level looks nothing like macroeconomics as it's taught to undergraduates. The mathematics from the basics up are completely different, and too challenging for your typical undergraduate.
Republicans do get some things right. It's talk like this that reminds me why people think academics are douchebags.
What have they done right since Eisenhower explicitly told Republicans to NOT do what they are doing now?
Blayne that question is noticeably flawed, when one does only a cursory reflection. By definition our country still existing and being a reasonably functional society indicates that Republicans have not done, everything wrong and therefore must have done, at least one thing right.
I admit though, I am of the opinion that not only has the Republican party gone against their platform in almost every conceivable way, these compromises to that platform are not a different, yet viable way of administration, but represent a complete decent into abject foolishness.
There are plenty of things to admire concerning Republican and conservative thought, but I have not seen any of those things exemplified. I like many of John McCain's virtues, but I'm not convinced Palin is good for this country, nor am I impressed with Mr. McCain's platform and the manner in which he has run his campaign.
If I see a departure from politics as usual, and an earnest focus on policy issues, coupled with a bit of refinement on Palin's end, McCain could yet get my one vote, but he'll have to work to earn it back.
Obviously its a tad flawed and I agree with you, I like the idea of the platform of a minimalist government, fiscal responsibility, free trade, and a reduction and/or prevention of the expansion of the military-industrial complex and responsible defence.
Now unless I'm wrong these are what the Republicans nominally stand for or at least used to at some point.
Add to that the safeguarding of certain traditional judeo-christian values, and that's a pretty comprehensive list.
Remember that Eisenhower was the main opponent of the military industrial complex. Down the road, people thought Reagan was betraying that ideal. IMHO letting the military stagnate and trying to dramatically replace and bring everything up to code again is ultimately a more costly strategy than a solid investment in continued military development. But certainly we should guard against machines that cost billions to design and build, and offer very limited benefits.
Government contracts that private firms bid for are also good for the economy and stimulate creative thinking. I think it's perfectly consistent to believe in fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending, while supporting a state of the art military.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Jhai, when you talk about economics for undergraduates, do you mean advanced classes for undergraduate economics majors or introductory economics for a general population? Undergraduate engineers generally take multivariate calculus and linear algebra. I don't see why economics majors can't do the same if that's what needed to work in the field.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Jhai, when you talk about economics for undergraduates, do you mean advanced classes for undergraduate economics majors or introductory economics for a general population? Undergraduate engineers generally take multivariate calculus and linear algebra. I don't see why economics majors can't do the same if that's what needed to work in the field.
I'm talking about the typical courses an undergraduate major in economics will take to complete the major. The difference between engineering and economics as majors is that most people who major in engineering plan on becoming engineers, while most people who major in economics do not plan to become professional economists/study economics at a graduate level (it's essentially the same thing). And I think that's just fine - economics is an excellent subject to study to get a good idea of many facets of the world, and prepares you very well to work in many analytical fields or industries.
If you want to go on to be a professional economist (which is somewhat different from being, say, an analyst, which many undergraduate economics majors go on to do), you need math. Lots and lots and lots of math. In fact, you can be accepted to a top-tier Ph.D program in economics having never studied economics at all - in my first-year class we had two Ph.D physics dropouts, and one student with a masters in math, none of whom had more than one course in economics.
So if you're planning on doing graduate studies in economics, you take a lot of math. If you aren't, and are in the economics major for other (probably excellent) reasons, then there's absolutely no need to take that much math, and setting it as a prerequisite would keep a lot of talented students out.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Advanced economics pretty much runs on differential equations. (or what Jhai said)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"But I also think it is appropriate to address the fact that another of her policy positions, namely supporting abstinence only education, seems to be partially refuted by her personal life, and yet she has made no justification for it."
I don't. Mainly because it would be a huge mistake and backfire, as it has already.
Is it an appropriate question? Yes. Would it help Obama or Biden to ask it? Not in the slightest.
Remember when Kerry brought up Cheney's gay daughter during a debate? An absolutely appropriate question that simply should not have been asked, because where Kerry supporters saw it as Kerry pointing out hypocrisy, Bush supporters saw it as a personal attack. And it was.
I think Kerry would have been far more effective with something like: "I believe that people are what God made them. I think all of us here know that gay people can be just as intelligent, just as caring, just as worthy of love. Would they say it was a choice? Could you look your gay friends and relatives in the eye and tell them they can't marry the people they love?"
Something similar could work here, although it would still be spun as an attack. But do not question Bristol's pregnancy or Palin's parenting skills directly in any way, shape, or form, or not only will you drive away Palin supporters but you will also risk alienating undecideds who have been in that position - pro-life with a pregnant daughter - and damage your own chances.
And honestly, what would you think Palin would say anyway? "Oh, you're right! I have been hoist by my own failed policy! Thank you, questioner!" All you'd do is make yourself look petty and predatory.
Instead, ask about the overwhelming number of reports, including one from the previous Surgeon General, that indicate comprehensive sex ed curriculums are more effective than abstinence-only ones. That can be backed up with data and the McCain/Palin campaign seems to have problems with data. As soon as you make the question personal you've lost.
[ September 15, 2008, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly. Plus it isn't the poor girl's fault that her personal life is on display.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Biden was on fire this morning. I went to his rally in St Clair Shores to see him speak, and he gave a good speech. It started off so slow I could barely understand him, but when he got going he really nailed McCain left and right. He's very engaging.
I got to briefly meet with him afterwards at a little post rally reception. A friend of mine was one of the event organizers so he got me a VIP ticket so I could stand up front like five feet away from him. If anyone was watching CNN to see his speech, my head was probably being blocked by the CNN ticker. Anyway, I got to shake his hand and say hello afterwards, which was cool.
It was nice to see CNN actually make a point out of the fact that Palin even today was saying that Obama wanted to raise everyone's taxes when in reality he wants to lower them for 95% of the people, and on her bridge to nowhere line. It's about time the media starts to actually CORRECT campaign lies instead of just reporting them in the same vein as any campaign claim.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'll take defunct theories for Four Hundred, Alex.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hey Chris you ever watched that episode of Penn & Teller where they talked about abstinence vs comprehensive education? They interviewed Doctor General (or whatever the position is called) and there was alot of information.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The surgeon general.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Remember when Kerry brought up Cheney's gay daughter during a debate? An absolutely appropriate question that simply should not have been asked, because where Kerry supporters saw it as Kerry pointing out hypocrisy, Bush supporters saw it as a personal attack. And it was.
It was actually John Edwards, during his debate with Cheney, if I recall correctly.
It was kind of a dick move.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Remember when Kerry brought up Cheney's gay daughter during a debate? An absolutely appropriate question that simply should not have been asked, because where Kerry supporters saw it as Kerry pointing out hypocrisy, Bush supporters saw it as a personal attack. And it was.
It was actually John Edwards, during his debate with Cheney, if I recall correctly.
It was kind of a dick move.
I'm certain Kerry did it once -- was there another instance?
--j_k
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What Bristol Palin does with her pregnancy should be none of our business.
However, the fact of her situation itself is important in its relationship with Palin's policies. I agree, this case in its minute particulars is private, as is Bristol herself. But I would not expect the situation in general to be ignored, considering how very apropos it is to Palin's positions on abstinence only education and birth control.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Remember when Kerry brought up Cheney's gay daughter during a debate? An absolutely appropriate question that simply should not have been asked, because where Kerry supporters saw it as Kerry pointing out hypocrisy, Bush supporters saw it as a personal attack. And it was.
It was actually John Edwards, during his debate with Cheney, if I recall correctly.
It was kind of a dick move.
I'm certain Kerry did it once -- was there another instance?
--j_k
If I remember correctly, it was the VP debate.
Here's a transcript. A little over half-way down the page.
quote: Edwards:
[...]
Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.
[...]
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That's it?
CHENEY: That's it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
just me or does that seam not like a dick move?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I was actually thinking we might be able to learn from that debate. Specifically that if Biden were to give a statement like that in the VP debate and make it clear there is no question of the support or love that the Palin family gives Bristol, it paves the way for him to say that he does wish to talk about the issue at large without focusing or politicizing the Palin family's personal lives.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
(1) Sean Hannity is far more objective and reliable than most journalists, because he openly states he is conservative--and cohosts his show with Alan Colmes, who is a liberal--and he makes an effort to be fair and balanced. He made his remarks in the presence of two Obama apologists, who were allowed to respond. Hannity is certainly more reliable that someone like Chris Matthews, which even NBC has been forced to remove as political commentator because of his blatant bias, such as when he said on-air that when Obama comes into the room, he feels a "tingling feeling down" his "leg."
(2) It is indeed a key question what "age appropriate" means. I read the whole 14-page bill linked to by Sterling, and I see no guidelines that spell this out. It seems to leave it up to the individual teacher what is age-appropriate. THIS SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE PARENTS, ESPECIALLY FOR KINDERGARTNERS. The schools and the teachers and society do not own the children. Whatever responsibility schools and society may have, the responsibility of parents is greater, especially for five-year old kindergarten students, whom society does not give much freedom of choice.
(3) I excerpt this from the bill that Sterling linked to:
"Section 27-9.1 "(a) "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS."
Notice where it says (in line 14) "grades K 6 through 12 shall"
The character does not reproduce here, but the "6" was cross out, and "K" apparently was added in. Obviously it was originally intended that this sex education would apply to students from grades 6-12, but someone decided to include all ages back to Kindergarten.
(4) Many lines of this document were crossed out. What was the final form of the bill? I am not sure this is it.
(5) I did not find any mention of "masturbation." But positive instruction was given that: "Factual information includes without limitation medical, psychiatric, psychological, empirical, and statistical statements.... "Factual information presented in course material and instruction shall be medically accurate and objective. All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate. Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV."
Again, no where is it spelled out what constitutes "age and developmentally appropriate." How can all the above things be taught so they are age and developmentally appropriate to a five-year-old?
(6) I would also like to point out that all the following lines WERE CROSSED OUT:
"Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
"Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage.
"Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy."
WHY WERE THESE LINES CROSSED OUT? They were not replaced with something worded better; they were completely deleted. Would parents want these lines deleted? Someone with extreme liberal bias is trying to overrule what 90% of parents (and the original framers of this bill) would prefer be taught.
(7) To reiterate what I pointed out earlier: Just allowing parents to opt out for their children is not adequate. First, parents may not be fully apprised what will be taught. Second, even children who opt out will hear about what was said by their classmates who did not opt out, which may not be accurately related. Third, it is expensive to send children to private schools, and may be difficult and impractical for many parents to attempt to homeshool their children.
(8) Remember, in all this, we are talking about kindergartners, because they are included in this bill, and many children start kindergarten at the age of five.
[ September 16, 2008, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, I have to ask: do you not understand what people are telling you, or are you making an effort to convince yourself that it's not relevant?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (1) Sean Hannity is far more objective and reliable than most journalists, because he openly states he is conservative--and cohosts his show with Alan Colmes, who is a liberal--and he makes an effort to be fair and balanced.
Objective?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, I find your question false in its implications and gratuitously insulting. But this is what I have come to expect from you.
Threads, it is more reliable and objective to frankly acknowlege his bias and allow opposite views to be expressed. The liberal news media never does this. People can tell the difference. This is why Fox News has higher ratings than all other cable news channels put together--including CNN and MSNBC.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
CNN says the McCain-Palin campaign issued a statement saying she's not going to cooperate in the investigation over Monegan's firing. I'm impressed with their audacity to claim that she shouldn't fully cooperate with the investigation, as she had stated previously.
quote:The campaign says Monegan made multiple trips to Washington, D.C., to try to get earmarks from Congress even through the governor (Sarah Palin) didn't want them.
Seems like choosing a convenient scapegoat to some of those earmarks Alaska has received in the last two years.
I tried to find her original statement on why Monegan was fired, because this is the first I've heard earmarks being a part of it. Her public reasoning behind the firing is was a little vague in July and August. Here on July 22nd is the most informative article I could find. In it,
quote:Harris also questioned Palin's explanation that she fired Monegan because she wants the public safety department to go in a "new direction." Palin has talked about being honest, open and transparent, Harris said, and her plans for the future of the department don't sound different from what Monegan was doing. . . Palin told reporters on Monday there is a need for action in the department of public safety and "a different, more energetic approach."
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, I find your question false in its implications and gratuitously insulting. But this is what I have come to expect from you.
Threads, it is more reliable and objective to frankly acknowlege his bias and allow opposite views to be expressed. The liberal news media never does this. People can tell the difference. This is why Fox News has higher ratings than all other cable news channels put together--including CNN and MSNBC.
I believe that what Threads was pointing out was that objective would mean that you report things without bias. The word you're looking for is that Hannity discloses that he is conservative. The large majority of the press does not admit its liberal bias as easily.
That said, I do agree with Tom that you seem to be missing the point that people are going for. I don't wish to spend too much more time on this issue, but I suppose a quick counter-point to your arguments has been earned being as you put forth the effort to make your case.
(1) I recognize there is bias in the media, I also admit my liberal bias. But just because you admit bias on opinion doesn't excuse fact. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and even liberal commentators such as Olbermann will often distort the facts or even lie to make their point. We are simply saying that you shouldn't cite someone with such a profound bias as proof of your claim.
(2) I grant it is not specific as to what Age-Approrpiate entails. But as was pointed out previously in this thread, that's what school-districts, teachers, the PTA, and other local institutions are for. This is a State-level law and it will be up to the others to decide. And afterwards, the parents would theoretically be given all information that would be taught to help them decide whether to have their child learn through the school. I of course say theoretically because while I can't guarantee that they won't get all the information, you can't guarantee that they wouldn't.
(3) Yes, they did, and I think it's a good idea to teach the dangers of HIV/AIDs even at a young age. The disease doesn't discriminate if you're only five years old.
(4) Can't guarantee this is the final form, I admit. But I'm pretty sure that it is. The lines crossed out were removed through debate or committee, but it's best to show what was being proposed from the beginning.
(5) Don't know. My guess would be that some of the information would be deemed either not age-appropriate for a kindergartner, but I would re-iterate that I think HIV/AIDs education is best given while young. They don't have to teach it all at Kindergarten.
(6) My only guess would be that the parts crossed out were deemed discriminatory to homosexuals. Marriage is not an option for homosexual couples in Illinois (to my knowledge). As for the pregnancy question, I can't be sure, but again I would argue some form of discrimination.
(7) I re-iterate what I said earlier about how kids will spread any information they get anyways, even if it's from their parents. I also still don't see the correlation of private schools and homeschooling. And it's a pretty strong hypothetical that parents won't get all the information. But at the same time, I admit I can't guarantee they will. I just think it's in bad taste to automatically assume they wouldn't.
(8) I do remember.
EDIT TO ADD: I offer you a compromise, Ron. I think that ultimately we're going to just have to agree to disagree on whether or not the bill was a good thing. I grant that there are no guarantees on what 'age-appropriate' meant. But I think we've ultimately veered off of the point of this debate in regards to the election. So here's what I offer.
I grant that there are some ambiguities to the bill that give you grounds to object to the law, in return, you grant that the advertisement McCain made does paint Obama unfairly in a negative light because 1. He lied about this being Obama's only accomplishment, and 2. Because Obama does not support teaching explicit sex to children.
[ September 16, 2008, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's positions seem to indicate that she does not agree. Or, at least, she wants it to be the government's business. "
So attack that policy position, it's perfectly fair game. But don't mention Bristol.
I do.
But I also think it is appropriate to address the fact that another of her policy positions, namely supporting abstinence only education, seems to be partially refuted by her personal life, and yet she has made no justification for it.
That statement shows a complete lack of intellectual discipline.
Furthermore, who cares bout bristol and her baby, don't people ave their own kids and presidential election to worry about. I swear, the news media is about that (/ /) far from being the weekly world news.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I would also point out, if you look at the original code the bill is amending: (link) that no part of the code mandates that classes in comprehensive sex education be taught, to kindergardeners or otherwise; the amendment largely says that, whencomprehensive sexual education classes are taught (at any grade level) that they include medically accurate information, information on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and so forth.
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: CNN says the McCain-Palin campaign issued a statement saying she's not going to cooperate in the investigation over Monegan's firing.
Huh. I guess she does understand the Bush Doctrine. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: In 2006, state investigators found Wooten guilty of "a significant pattern of judgment failures," including using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and drinking beer while operating a state trooper vehicle. Wooten was suspended for 10 days as "a last chance to take corrective action."
Speaking Thursday to CNN's Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston, Wooten gave his account of the Taser incident but denied ever drinking while driving.
He said that he was a new Taser instructor, and his stepson was asking him about the equipment. "I didn't shoot him with live, you know, actual live cartridge," Wooten said.
Instead, he said, he hooked his stepson up to a training aid "with little clips. And, you know, the Taser was activated for less than a second, which would be less than what you would get if you touched an electric fence. ... It was as safe as I could possibly make it."
He said his stepson was on the living room floor surrounded by pillows, that he "was bragging about it," and that the family laughed about it.
Asked whether it was a dumb decision, Wooten told CNN, "absolutely."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Threads, it is more reliable and objective to frankly acknowlege his bias and allow opposite views to be expressed. The liberal news media never does this. People can tell the difference. This is why Fox News has higher ratings than all other cable news channels put together--including CNN and MSNBC.
FUN FACT: If you put together the ratings of CNN and MSNBC alone, they total higher ratings than Fox.
ANOTHER FUN FACT: Ron is approaching an eerily consistent total inability to post in a thread about politics without at least one blatant falsehood.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron, I'm just wondering, do they have school boards where you are from? I have to imagine the answer to that is yes as you've said you're from Michigan, where I grew up, and I know we have school boards. I've been to school board meetings before both as a student and after being graduating, so I have a good idea as to what can go on in meetings. School boards and PTAs are there for parents and communities to get involved in local education. So when you see a lack of clearly defined ages and definitions of of a specific curriculum for each grade, it's because the state legislature is leaving those types of decisions not up to individual teachers, but to local school boards to set a curriculum for their district that teachers and schools will follow.
As for the stuff crossed out in the bill, it doesn't really bother me. The role of schools in sex education should be to present facts rather than ideology. "If you do this, then this is likely to happen, and these are the likely consequences of such actions, but you can prevent those consequences through the following actions," and such. Arguments about whether or not sex is morally right, and when to have it, and who should be having it with whom should be made outside of schools. That's where parents are supposed to step in to fill in whatever gaps they personally see in the education system. For all the complaints I hear about what teachers are or are not teaching kids, the only solution I seem to see (and this isn't just for one side) is that parents should fight for a better curriculum rather than just compromising and then filling in the blanks where they personally see fit.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nancy Pfotenhaur Presents "Fun With Math!"*
Reporter: Is there anything in Obama's proposal that would raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 per year.
Pfotenhaur: Yes. Obama's health care plan alone would cost $300 billion.
Reporter: But that isn't my question. Is there anything in his tax proposal that would raise taxes on people making leass than $200,000.
Pfotenhauer: Yes. Obama's health care plan would cost $300 billion. That is $3000 per family!
See how that works? It sounds like she is using math to answer the question.
*paraphrased because I can't find a transcript and I am relying on my memory for the amount she said the health care plan would cost.
ETA: For more info on actual health care plans, check out the wacko, liberal Wall Street Journal today.
So I'm wondering if they totally missed the point of the skit, or if they caught it and are deciding to fly in the face of it.
For anyone who missed it, the skit had Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton. The skit made light of Palin's claims of sexism in contrast to Clinton's. I think it was less about portraying Palin as having no substance than it was making fun of the fact that A. Republicans didn't much care about sexism when Clinton was running and now it's apparently a huge deal. B. Calling Palin "hot" or any other such physical compliment isn't sexist, but using the type of descriptors that Clinton is often referred to as, is. The skit wasn't considerably more fair to Clinton, who was portrayed as opportunistic and selfish.
Edit to add some polling stuff:
McCain's floodwaters of support have receded in some ways in the last few days. While he's still doing very well in the enthusiasm and money sector, the polls show a little slide, making the national race a dead heat. Palin's favorable ratings have taken a sharp nosedive as well, as the public really gets to know her better. Research 2000 has her favorable/unfavorable at 46/45, for a +1. That's down from a +17 six days ago. Another poll has her at +12 down from +24 in the same time period. Since McCain and Palin have split up, McCain is seeing smaller and smaller crowds at his rallies, while Palin's are staying pretty good.
My own personal analysis would be pretty much a confirmation of what I've said before. Palin is energizing a lethargic party base who had no reason to come out and support McCain before, but who absolutely love his superconservative choice for VP. Their donations are up, volunteers are up, and crowds for Palin (and not McCain) are still large by the GOP standards for the year. I think as the polls come back down the the ground and we assess the reality of the landscape after the Conventions, Palin is going to be more of a problem than a gain. McCain picked her out of a last gasp sort of play. People generally say, I think correctly, that moderates decide elections. The hardcore right and hardcore left are generally always going to vote for the right and left candidates, which means you play to the middle if you want to win. Obama didn't have nearly the problem with his base that McCain had going into the conventions. His coffers were brimming with donations from millions of rabid supporters who've created a national network of campaign connections from scratch in less than a year. Yes there are disaffected Clinton supporters, but I think the majority of them who were already self described left wing Democrats are going to bite the bullet and support Obama in the end. Interestingly, if you look at the polling data for Hillary's supporters during the primaries, I don't remember the exact percentages, but only like 75% of her supporters who voted for her in the primaries said they would actually vote for her in the General. I think there's a huge disconnect in assuming everyone who voted for her should automatically vote for Obama, just like I wouldn't expect all Obama supporters to vote for her, or all Romney supporters to vote for McCain and so on. Different candidates create different coalitions of supporters.
Anyway, McCain would have lost if for no other reason than Obama's base came out in droves plus he won part of the middle, whereas McCain winning part of the middle wouldn't matter if his base wasn't there. So instead of picking a VP to play to the center, which he, unlike Obama I think, was in a position to do, he chose someone to shore up his base and made the fight for independents and moderates a dead heat fight. I think his ads would be far more socially issue oriented on issues like abortion if he had picked a more moderate centrist VP. He figures he doesn't have to cover that ground with Palin, so that's why he's attacking Obama on made up positions on issues like taxes and energy.
At the state level things are still up in the air. Obama has a narrow lead in Virginia, and McCain in Ohio. I think Florida is going to stay with McCain and Michigan with Obama, and the west might move one way or the other, though it looks like Obama has a good chance at New Mexico and Colorado, but I think it'll come down to Obama either stealing Virginia or Ohio from McCain. Both races are narrow fights that could probably go either way.
[ September 16, 2008, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Calling the Democrats sexist is Carly Fiorina's new job. That is pretty much all I've seen her do since Gov. Palin was chosen.
quote: "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," Fiorina told MSNBC earlier Monday. "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."
Did she not notice that Sen Clinton is also a woman? How is that sexist? Using the example of one woman to show the other lacks substance is kind of the opposite of saying that women in general lack substance.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: ETA: For more info on actual health care plans, check out the wacko, liberal Wall Street Journal today.
Perhaps you didn't realize that your linked article was written by
quote: Mr. Cutler is professor of economics at Harvard and an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Mr. DeLong is professor of economics at University of California, Berkeley. Ms. Marciarille is adjunct law professor at McGeorge School of Law.
It is very misleading to imply this is a reporter-driven article from the Wall Street Journal instead of an opinion piece written by Obama's advisers.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I can't find it on Obama's website now, but I had previously found quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And yet, the WSJ printed it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Um, I think lots of papers print lots of OPINION pieces which are opinions...not not necessarily factual or respresentative of the paper's belief.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. And the WSJ is known for having more conservative, finance oriented, aimed-toward-people-who-make-a-lot-of-money opinion pieces rather than fluff populist pieces. This reflects its readership. The people that read the WSJ read tend to read it because it gives them solid advice about how the news will impact their businesses.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Printing an opinion piece by Obama advisor's is not a factual representation of Obama's healthcare plan.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We can find the facts about Senator Obama's healthcare plan on his website. Most of us, I think, need some analysis of it. I think that opinion pieces by economists in reputable papers are a good source of information. Of course, it makes sense to figure in who wrote it along with who printed it. That makes sense for reporter pieces as well.
I linked all of that information.
If there are opinion pieces you would care to link, I would be happy to read them. Bearing in mind the author and the publication.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
We could start with some hard numbers for this beauty: Barack Obama
quote: Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses.
How small is a small business? How much is a meaningful contribution? He isn't going to tax them...just take a portion of their payroll to pay for towards the costs of the national plan.
quote: As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama says people lack health insurance because "they can't afford it." He's right. But he is also partly responsible for why health insurance is too expensive. A long list of studies show that mandates like the ones Mr. Obama has championed drive up the cost of insurance for the very people priced out of coverage.
quote: Barack Obama talks a lot about change in his campaign. Healthcare reform offers him the chance to put that rhetoric into action. Unfortunately, all his plan does is offer empty talk and shallow ideas. Senator Obama, are you really serious about change? If so please show us some substance in your healthcare plan.
quote: In truth, Obama's plan could fall somewhat short of real "universal coverage." It would exempt the smallest businesses from the requirement that they cover their workers. (The exact size of the exemption has yet to be determined, but one campaign official said it would apply to businesses employing "some number less than 15.") And while it would require coverage of children, adults could choose not to take advantage of his plan and go uninsured, even if they could afford coverage.
quote: The Illinois Senator also promised that his plan would pour billions into upgrading medical record-keeping, make hospitals collect and publicly report measures of their own health care quality, and require more generous coverage of preventive care. He also said he would put new emphasis on personal responsibility in health care, although — giving back some ammuniton to his critics — he didn't specify how he would do it. "In the end," he said, "prevention only works if we take responsibility for our own health and make the right decisions in our own lives — if we eat the right foods, and stay active, and listen to our wives when they tell us to stop smoking." That last reference drew a knowing chuckle from his audience, where many were familiar with Obama's own struggle to kick his nicotine habit.
Obama's healthcare sounds good....but there simply is not enough information in it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I do agree with the WSJ article's contention that if McCain's plan is going to raise taxes, cause employers to drop coverage, and not make up the difference with the credit, then it's a bad plan.
The part that really piqued my interest was this statement:
quote: One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful.
What exactly does that mean? Is that like when my fiancee (who thought he was too healthy to need insurance) went to the clinic and was diagnosed with gastroenteritis completely missing his food poisoning that caused him to lose blood, spend a week in the hospital, and need two transfusions? Or are these like people who voluntarily go to faith healers and alternative spas to get treatments they believe there's evidence for but the FDA hasn't proven?
Fewer mistakes sounds like a good plan. Taking away options that people believe in because someone else doesn't seems really wrong to me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
For those who are interested, you can watch the SNL skit in question here:
As far as I know most health insurance doesn't currently cover faith healers and spas. Are you suggesting that they should be covered?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
No, but medical costs don't necessarily have anything to do with insurance. If people are ponying up their own money for these types of services, it would be pretty dishonest to cite the number for why new health insurance is a good idea.
I want to know what kinds of costs are included in the numbers. Like how you have to watch the numbers of kids killed by guns because they include 18 and 19 year olds, gang members, and children killed while committing crimes. Or teen pregnancy numbers that include 17 year olds who got married first. It's not really the same thing, but it all gets lumped together to make the statistics more compelling.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Good point. Thanks for the clarification. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting.
The WSJ (another opinion piece, this one by a fellow or the American Enterprise Institute) seems to be discussing mandates for the most part and uses as its main source and industry sponsored study. And the AEI is a pretty well known conservative think tank. It makes sense that they are anti-government regulation given their other policies.
quote: A 2008 study by an insurance-industry supported research organization, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), estimates that mandates increase the cost of basic health coverage by 20% to 50%, depending on the state.
The American Thinker article seemed to me to be mostly to be speculating on answers to questions about added government bureaucracy. A reasonable question and I agree that specific answers would be good. I had never heard of American Thinker but given the other articles on the site ("The Loneliness of a Blue-State Conservative", "Appalling Lies from Obama...", "McCain and Leadership") and the anti-Obama video they are showing, they seem to have an agenda.
I'm afraid the link to the Time article doesn't seem to be working. If I can find the article, I'll give you my impression of it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've read the TIME article. TIME magazine seems to have a fairly low opinion of both Obama's and McCain's plans. It doesn't like Obama's plan because while it will cover a lot more people, it is believed it will raise the overall cost of healthcare, at least in the short term. It doesn't like McCain's plan because they think it'll be relatively ineffective. His plan boils down to taxing your healthcare benefits from employers, which are currently untaxed, and then offering a tax credit to make up the difference. They think that'll A. Make things more complicated. and B. Not really solve much of anything. Sounds to me like it's robbing Peter to pay Peter. They're taxing people and then giving the money right back in the form of a tax credit that most people who need the money won't be able to realize the full benefits of. In the end it helps the poor the least and the rich the most.
I have a mixed opinion on Obama's plan. I like the focus on preventative care, and that he, unlike Clinton, wouldn't mandate that EVERYONE be covered all the time, but would instead make it a more afforable option, but I wonder how the finances will shake out at the end of it. McCain's plan, unless he's recently added more to it, doesn't appear like much of a plan at all. Generally I see him attacking Obama's plan more than touting his own.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, the United States is spending more on health care - both per capita and as a percentage of GDP- than just about any other fully industrialized country.
Which kind of begs the question of skeptics as to just how a system that doesn't have as many people going to emergency rooms for minor care or ailments that would have been treatable simply and inexpensively if caught in an earlier visit could possibly be more expensive and less effective.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I don't know how much can be discerned from the gross numbers reported in those articles, Sterling. Taking "total health care spending" as a proportion of GDP, or per capita is very tied up in how you define "total health care spending" and may or may not say much about what we generally consider "health care" (see previous entries about faith healers and spas).
Furthermore, making the inference that countries with single-payer systems are cheaper per capita because they are single-payer systems presumes that all other aspects of health care are equivalent. (Insert correlation and causation statement here).
Personally, I tend to think that the explanation both for the US's disproportionate per capita/percent of GDP total health care spending and the statistic cited by AvidReader that 1/3 of medical costs go for procedures that are ineffective or harmful is the difference in medical litigation levels (both in frequency and in award size) inside the US relative to other countries. We've perpetuated a medical culture of "test for everything, just in case" because the outcome of missing something is so financially negative for the doctor/hospital. As a result, malpractice insurance is very high and hospitals and doctors are incentivized to perform expensive tests that aren't medically advisable. All this results in higher "total health care costs" and would not be remedied by moving to a single-payer, government administered health care program.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
One factor (who knows how large) is that I don't believe intelligent lab testing is done in most hospitals, especially training hospitals. The resident or attending is far removed from the actual cost of each lab draw or imaging test. It's too easy to get in the habit of covering every test that might be useful. Sometimes that's been borne out to be cost effective. But most of the time it leads to things like getting a complete metabolic panel for $80 instead of a single chemistry test for $15, or ordering that MRI because you're not confident enough to say it's unnecessary.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Printing an opinion piece by Obama advisor's is not a factual representation of Obama's healthcare plan.
Of the three authors, only Cutler is an advisor to Obama.
EDIT - I should add I don't think that changes your larger point. Attributing statements made in an opinion piece to the paper that prints it isn't the most intellectually honest course, in my opinion.
[ September 16, 2008, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
From a letter to the Des Moines Register on the hypocrisy of how people have been labelled in this election cycle:
quote:If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you’re “reckless.” A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a “maverick.”
...
If you spend three years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of one to 13, and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African American voters, spend 12 years as a constitutional law professor, then spend nearly eight more years as a state senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly four years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you are “inexperienced.”
If you spend four years on the city council and six years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you’ve got the most “executive experience” of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation because your state is the closest state to Russia.
...
If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people you are an “arrogant celebrity.” If you are a popular Republican female candidate you are “energizing the base.”
...
If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a “Christian.” If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years, you’re “risky.”
Those are just a couple of them. The letter goes on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone see Palin's comments earlier (I think it was earlier today, might have been yesterday)?
She said that Wall Street needs a regulatory overhaul, with more regulation to prevent the sort of crisis we're in right now. And also, we have to reduce the level of government interference in our economy so the private sector can do business without the government slowing things down with regulation.
That's an interesting mishmash of generic lines. Sure, you have to say the first one because people think that sounds good in relation to the economy, and I guess you have to say the second one because that's the Republican mantra...but maybe you could more artfully at least pretend that they are polar opposites of each other.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: As a result, malpractice insurance is very high and hospitals and doctors are incentivized to perform expensive tests that aren't medically advisable. All this results in higher "total health care costs" and would not be remedied by moving to a single-payer, government administered health care program.
Things are rarely so simple.
It's true that malpractice insurance costs are very high, and some cautious medical liability reform is probably in order. But it's also true that our current system fosters an excess of specialists and a dearth of general practitioners, family practitioners, and OB/GYNs. With enormous case loads and very short appointments, it's often easiest for generalists to send patients off to specialists than to try to diagnose and treat complicated problems locally, even when they might be qualified to do so... Which contributes to the "unhelpful/disadvantageous treatement" statistic, and to more expensive care.
Thesearticles note that outcomes are actually superior in some cases for treatment by GPs than specialists.
The "market driven" system we currently have in place also means that a plastic surgeon who can charge several thousand dollars for cosmetic surgery is going to get a lot more for their work than the family doc who takes medicaid patients and only gets a percentage of a $150 fee for a genuinely necessary visit. If one got into medicine seeking to make a killing, there are some practices that are far more attractive than others. If one expected to make a living, there's a couple of arenas one should avoid like the plague (so to speak.) This article also notes that the basic costs for drugs, materials, services, and technologies are as much as three times higher in the U.S. than in Canada. Some things could probably be better addressed with a large block that was able to negotiate drug and technology prices directly with the relevant companies. Some things would also probably be better if the relevant companies would stop sending out marketers to ply doctors with pens, paperweights, and expensive lunches.
Oh, and while I'm here- as far as I'm concerned, the "state mandate" argument is bunk. Certain conditions need to be treated, and whether there's a mandate or not, someone ends up paying the bill.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: In Palin's defense, there may be a baby's life at stake and protecting lives is a matter of good governance.
Jhai, did it ever enter your mind that if you can't explain concepts to interested undergraduates, it may show a lack in your powers of communication rather than their ignorance.
Interested != Capable of at the time.
Blayne, good point. Please refer to this comment you made the next time you want to try and make an MMO for a class project....
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Did she not notice that Sen Clinton is also a woman? How is that sexist? Using the example of one woman to show the other lacks substance is kind of the opposite of saying that women in general lack substance.
So...does that mean McCain and the Republicans get a pass on sexism-related criticisms, because after all, they've got Gov. Palin in the bullpen?
Did President Bush get a pass on race-related criticism during the time he had Powell on his Cabinet?
One can very, very easily be a racist, sexist, or any other kind of -ist while still having friends, colleagues, or what have you of the particular group in question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Did she not notice that Sen Clinton is also a woman? How is that sexist? Using the example of one woman to show the other lacks substance is kind of the opposite of saying that women in general lack substance.
So...does that mean McCain and the Republicans get a pass on sexism-related criticisms, because after all, they've got Gov. Palin in the bullpen?
Did President Bush get a pass on race-related criticism during the time he had Powell on his Cabinet?
One can very, very easily be a racist, sexist, or any other kind of -ist while still having friends, colleagues, or what have you of the particular group in question.
It means that one can find a particular woman superficial or lacking substance without being guilty of the sexist notion that women in general are superficial or lacking in substance.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I had to post, as I looked at this and saw the post number and found it highly appropriate for this topic.
We had post # 1776 for this thread.
(of course now I have ruined it by posting this. )
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It means that one can find a particular woman superficial or lacking substance without being guilty of the sexist notion that women in general are superficial or lacking in substance.
Which is the particularly insulting aspect of the Palin candidacy: McCain actually picked a woman who is, by all appearances, superficial and lacking in substance and proven ability. As, of all people, Matt Damon said recently (I paraphrase): "this is like a bad romantic comedy, and this hockey-mom from a small town in Alaska could be president in a few months, facing down Vladamir Putin with her folksy wisdom."
And it is insulting, when Jon Stewart presents you with clip after clip of Republican talking heads approving of Palin, in stark contrast to their condemnations of democratic hopefuls, and often praising her for the very same qualities they derided in others. Then we're told that Palin is supposed to represent everything we find interesting about Obama and for some reason, Clinton. And then we are further faced with scorn from Palin herself toward Obama, who has been an important voice since the moment he got a chance at the national public stage in 2004, and for what? His qualifications as a community organizer in Chicago, which, last I checked, had a population 1,000 times greater than the town where she was mayor... Let's not mention his historic national campaign, his previous campaigns for the state and national legislatures, his position as a teacher of constitutional law, etc.
My Dad and I cringed at her smugness at the comment "a mayor has actual responsibilities." My Dad has spent about 20 years on his own city counsel, and has served as mayor 3 times in a city of similar size to Wasila, and he did this without taking time from his day job as a litigator, and then a corporate lawyer. His father was also the mayor of a town four times the size of Wasila, (at the same time as his son was mayor of ours), a job he took on as a retiree of 75. My dad is a "community organizer" as well, working for the successful Jackie Speier campaign (for the House of Representatives) in San Mateo county and San Francisco, (which is Tom Lantos' former seat). Now he's apparently just 19 months as a governor of say, North Dakota (ranked just below Alaska in population), away from being a Vice Presidential nominee.
Now, I don't want to dismiss my father and grandfather's accomplishments in their positions, nor their responsibilities, but neither now feel that they are qualified to be vice-presidential candidates (a job Palin claims to have accepted with zero hesitation). Their jobs were, when not ceremonial in nature, wholly consumed with arcane local issues and personalities, and budgets. It's fine to know how to do all that, but a city manager in a city that size has far greater responsibilities, and works in an unelected position.
Now, a person who looks down smugly from a position as governor for 0.22% of the nation's population on a community organizer from Chicago, and claims her foreign policy credentials include the fact that Alaska is close to Russia (you can see it!), is asking for my contempt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Well, the United States is spending more on health care - both per capita and as a percentage of GDP- than just about any other fully industrialized country.
No, we don't pay more per capita that "just about" any other fully industrialized country. We pay more per capita than EVERY OTHER Industrialized nation and not by only a small amount. We pay twice much per capita as they do in Germany, Canada, France, Australia, Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark. We pay nearly 2 and a half times as much per capita as they pay in England, Ireland, Italy, and Japan and three times what they pay per capita in New Zealand, Israel, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.
The only country that even comes close to spending as much per capita as the US is Luxembourg which spends about 80% of the US amount. This number is however highly skewed because of Luxembourgs very small wealthy population. They only spend half what the US does as a percentage of GDP.
The US is also number 1 in health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP. In 2003, health care costs were 15.2% of the US GDP while most other developed countries were running at 10% or lower.
And this wouldn't be so bad if we were getting better quality health care, but we aren't. We have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates than any other country. And we are ranked the worst in terms of preventable deaths.
[ September 17, 2008, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Out of curiosity: Is there some bizarre non-industrialized or partially-industrialized nation that does spend more per-capita than the US? I usually see those qualifiers and I'm wondering why.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think it's more that comparing the economies of industrialized countries to non-industrialized countries (almost) never makes sense, so that's the standard qualifier that everyone just tacks on. Also, we rarely have very accurate data for non-industrialized countries, so the lack of that qualifier leaves an opening for people who want to split hairs ("you don't know that there isn't some tiny rural country...").
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Looks like the McCain camp is pretty unhappy with Fiorina for saying that Palin (and then in another interview McCain and Obama as well) isn't qualified to run a major corporation. I can understand why they're displeased with her, because of the way her comments can be used, but really she's just stating the obvious--there is some overlap between being a skilled politician and being a skilled business leader, but they're not the same thing.
[Edited to fix UBB code]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I find it hilarious that a Rothschild thinks that Sen. Obama is an elitist. Have we just completely redefined the word to mean anyone who values education?
Maybe she can replace Ms. Fiorina as the official accuser of sexism.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm willing to bet that she doesn't. She's just pulling for Hillary Clinton in 2012.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I find it hilarious that a Rothschild thinks that Sen. Obama is an elitist. Have we just completely redefined the word to mean anyone who values education?
You just have to value the right kind of education. B.S., B.A. and M.B.A. are perfectly non-elitist. JDs, PhDs, MFAs, etc are the elitist degrees (unless earned at a military academy).
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I can understand why they're displeased with her, because of the way her comments can be used, but really she's just stating the obvious--there is some overlap between being a skilled politician and being a skilled business leader, but they're not the same thing.
I agree. They aren't the same thing.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Wiki actually has some interesting numbers on health spending. There's still no clear break down of where our money gets spent, though. What are we spending it on? How much of our spending is the medicine we provide to developing nations or research? How much is everyone else contributing to that? Just saying we spend more doesn't prove anything in my book unless we know what the numbers are talking about.
quote: The Congressional Budget Office has found that "about half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology."
Is it just getting more expensive because the hospital needs to justify their hardware purchases with unecessary tests, or are we giving patients more options? Or are we finding fancy ways to prove that we can't help them? Is the newer technolgy helping patients live longer with better quality of life?
quote: 1% of the population with the highest spending accounted for 27% of aggregate health care spending. The highest-spending 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all spending.
Again, is it really more expensive, or do we have folks who'll do anything and spend anything to try to save Grandpa skewing the numbers? What about all those folks we hear about who come to the US for their elective surgeries because of the long waits in Canada and Europe? Is that added to our numbers as part of the "problem"?
People not having access to a doctor is a problem. How much we spend may not be. We don't have enough data to know.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: No, we don't pay more per capita that "just about" any other fully industrialized country. We pay more per capita than EVERY OTHER Industrialized nation and not by only a small amount.
Well, yes, but I only had the numbers on hand for "just about". Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fox News Commentators, especially Bill O'Reilly, have been repeating the claim within the past few days that their ratings exceed those of CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News combined. I don't know whether they are figuring it for the overall ratings the most recent week, month, or whatever, or for the prime time ratings, or just for the O'Reilly Factor (Bill O'Reilly's 8 pm show has been top rated every week for over seven years straight).
Here are the ratings figures I found for the most recent week:
quote:Tuesday Sep 16, 2008 Cable Ranker: Week of Sept. 8 Fox News was the third highest rated cable network during prime time in Total Viewers last week, averaging 2,772,000 (Live+SD). CNN finished 6th (1,690,000) and MSNBC was ranked 18th (1,130,000). This is the third consecutive week FNC has finished in the top three cable networks.
In Total Day, FNC finished 2nd (1,511,000), CNN 8th (1,028,000) and MSNBC 23rd (553,000).
Fox News Channel is the third highest rated of all cable channels, including entertainment and sports channels--and second highest during prime time.
One thing seems obvious: Democratic candidates only hurt themselves by avoiding being interviewed on Fox News. Sen. Barack Obama recently allowed Bill O'Reilly to interview him, but that was only the first time since the whole campaign began, some 19 months ago.
Contrary to misrepresentations, O'Reilly did not shout Obama down. He did interrupt him at times, as all interviewers do, to hurry things along. O'Reilly appears to be the first one who got Obama to state openly that the "surge" in Iraq has been "successful beyond our wildest dreams." O'Reilly asked tough but valid questions. This is in contrast to the totally softball questions interviewers on other networks like MSNBC have asked him.
NOTE: The figures given above are "Live + SD." SD means "Same Day."
[ September 17, 2008, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I can believe that Fox News is the top rated cable television news network. I can't remember the website, but there is one that gives the percentage of web-traffic of a website compared to others. As I recall, when I used it, MSN was the behemoth (but I attribute that to being many people's default homepage.) and CNN was over FoxNews as far as the internet is concerned. But for television, I could buy Fox News being the top channel. (I don't know about it beating CNN and MSNBC combined, but...)
But the real reason I'm posting here today is Gallup's Daily Tracker now has Obama +2 for the first time since the Republican Convention.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One thing seems obvious: Democratic candidates only hurt themselves by avoiding being interviewed on Fox News. Sen. Barack Obama recently allowed Bill O'Reilly to interview him, but that was only the first time since the whole campaign began, some 19 months ago.
Contrary to misrepresentations, O'Reilly did not shout Obama down. He did interrupt him at times, as all interviewers do, to hurry things along. O'Reilly appears to be the first one who got Obama to state openly that the "surge" in Iraq has been "successful beyond our wildest dreams." O'Reilly asked tough but valid questions. This is in contrast to the totally softball questions interviewers on other networks like MSNBC have asked him.
I don't find it particularly shocking that Obama refused an interview with O'reilly for so long. O'Reilly, whatever his politics may be, is a pompous ass, and a bully. Contrary to some people's beliefs, he is a piss-poor interviewer, who shuts down any and all possible avenues of interesting discussion by cutting off his guests and changing topics, often seemingly at random. Perhaps he does this, with his signature truculence and heavy-handed manner, to "keep them on their toes." Whatever the motivation, I can't stand watching him bully and pout at his guests, no matter what his opinions happen to be. I once heard a segment in which he yelled at his co-host on the radio for saying something that was factually incomplete, I mean really flat out screamed at her like a hormonal 16 year old, and claimed that she had poisoned his audience with inaccuracy.
This is a man who does not understand the world outside his own brain. No matter how smart he is, no matter how many newspapers he reads and names he remembers and opinions he manages to generate, nothing seems to change his level of emotional and intellectual maturity. Maybe he's the smartest and most successful petulant 14 year old in history.
I would be embarrassed to have that man represent my beliefs.
Edit: And in that particular "interview," O'Reilly spoke more than Senator Obama, and when he interrupted Obama in order to elicit a definit answer on questions, and Obama in turn provided a definite answer, O'Reilly quickly dismissed it.
At one point, as I recall, O'Reilly asked a hypothetical question about Obama's willingness to use force against Iran, and when Obama responded that he would be willing, only to add that he felt that diplomatic options and cooperation with Europe should not be neglected, O'Reilly cut him off again to say that that was "just hypothetical." What kind of journalist is he exactly (he claims to be a journalist in that interview)? He treads over important topics and interrupts his guests as if the audience were not interested in actually hearing anything from them. That's just plain bad reporting.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Indeed, but I would like to point out that the polls with John McCain in a clear lead (other than Rasmussen) are almost a week old. If we go with the top five or six most recent, it's Obama in the lead. (You can look at the older polling data if you want, it's perfectly fine, I'm just an Obama supporting optimist that likes to see him winning. =P)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:I find it hilarious that a Rothschild thinks that Sen. Obama is an elitist. Have we just completely redefined the word to mean anyone who values education?
You just have to value the right kind of education. B.S., B.A. and M.B.A. are perfectly non-elitist. JDs, PhDs, MFAs, etc are the elitist degrees (unless earned at a military academy).
I don't know that the military offers many MFA programs. Just a wild guess.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One thing seems obvious: Democratic candidates only hurt themselves by avoiding being interviewed on Fox News. Sen. Barack Obama recently allowed Bill O'Reilly to interview him, but that was only the first time since the whole campaign began, some 19 months ago.
Contrary to misrepresentations, O'Reilly did not shout Obama down. He did interrupt him at times, as all interviewers do, to hurry things along. O'Reilly appears to be the first one who got Obama to state openly that the "surge" in Iraq has been "successful beyond our wildest dreams." O'Reilly asked tough but valid questions. This is in contrast to the totally softball questions interviewers on other networks like MSNBC have asked him.
I don't find it particularly shocking that Obama refused an interview with O'reilly for so long. O'Reilly, whatever his politics may be, is a pompous ass, and a bully. Contrary to some people's beliefs, he is a piss-poor interviewer, who shuts down any and all possible avenues of interesting discussion by cutting off his guests and changing topics, often seemingly at random. Perhaps he does this, with his signature truculence and heavy-handed manner, to "keep them on their toes." Whatever the motivation, I can't stand watching him bully and pout at his guests, no matter what his opinions happen to be. I once heard a segment in which he yelled at his co-host on the radio for saying something that was factually incomplete, I mean really flat out screamed at her like a hormonal 16 year old, and claimed that she had poisoned his audience with inaccuracy.
This is a man who does not understand the world outside his own brain. No matter how smart he is, no matter how many newspapers he reads and names he remembers and opinions he manages to generate, nothing seems to change his level of emotional and intellectual maturity. Maybe he's the smartest and most successful petulant 14 year old in history.
I would be embarrassed to have that man represent my beliefs.
Edit: And in that particular "interview," O'Reilly spoke more than Senator Obama, and when he interrupted Obama in order to elicit a definit answer on questions, and Obama in turn provided a definite answer, O'Reilly quickly dismissed it.
At one point, as I recall, O'Reilly asked a hypothetical question about Obama's willingness to use force against Iran, and when Obama responded that he would be willing, only to add that he felt that diplomatic options and cooperation with Europe should not be neglected, O'Reilly cut him off again to say that that was "just hypothetical." What kind of journalist is he exactly (he claims to be a journalist in that interview)? He treads over important topics and interrupts his guests as if the audience were not interested in actually hearing anything from them. That's just plain bad reporting.
And he thinks Americans commited the Malmady massacre.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Obama airs a two minute ad on the economy. What's particularly nice about the ad is that it is not an attack ad. He doesn't even mention Bush or McCain once.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think they need another category beyond "income > 2.8m" At the top 3% of Americans with high income, there is a HUGE gap.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'm not at all surprised at any rich person who supports McCain.
Are you implying that anyone with an income above $200,000 who supports McCain is likely doing so out of greed?
If so, would you also say that anyone with an income below $200,000 who supports Obama is just as likely to be doing it out of greed?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Orincoro, if the way you describe Bill O'Reilly as an interviewer were correct, then how do you account for the fact that he has had the top-rated prime time show for week after week for over seven straight years?
I think he is a good interviewer, quite fair. He gets impatient when the subject of the interview just gets into reciting his rehearsed talking points, instead of directly answering the question. I haven't heard that Sen. Obama complained that O'Reilly treated him unfairly. I think the complaints just come from some of his supporters who feel that O'Reilly was committing sacrilege by presuming to interrupt their "Messiah," Obama.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Bread and circuses?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, if the way you describe Bill O'Reilly as an interviewer were correct, then how do you account for the fact that he has had the top-rated prime time show for week after week for over seven straight years?
I think he is a good interviewer, quite fair. He gets impatient when the subject of the interview just gets into reciting his rehearsed talking points, instead of directly answering the question. I haven't heard that Sen. Obama complained that O'Reilly treated him unfairly. I think the complaints just come from some of his supporters who feel that O'Reilly was committing sacrilege by presuming to interrupt their "Messiah," Obama.
Ron: Out of all the publications I read on a regular basis only Newsweek even mentioned the O'Reilly interview. I haven't heard anybody complain about him bullying Obama, there was some interest in Obama admitting that surge accomplished more than his wildest dreams. I'm glad O'Reilly stuck to that point longer than others.
But O'Reilly is certainly not above being rude or sometimes unnecessarily impatient with those he interviews. He's a human being, so like other news reporters he doesn't act like a robot all the time. Having the most watched news show on the most watched news channel certainly indicates that there must be something people enjoy watching, otherwise they wouldn't tune in. But sheer numbers doesn't always indicate pure quality.
The Colosseum was far and away the most popular form of entertainment at it's peak, but I'd attribute it's allure to moral degeneracy rather than, "It had something important to say."
Not that I think Fox News attracts moral degenerates, but a explanation might be that those who prefer a bit of a conservative slant to their news might already prefer the television as their medium of information. Whereas those who are more liberal prefer to use newspapers or the internet. I don't know that's the case, but that seems plausible to me. I'm just one example, but I only watch my news on TV when they are broadcasting a significant event live.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Matt Damon's beef with Palin seems to stem on many things, but what he articulated was he belief in the world being less than 6,000 years old, and that rape victims must carry the child to term. (that latter part I might be merging Damon with somebody else.) Then in a bit of dark humor saying, "She's gonna have the nuke launch codes you know."
I don't think Damon was even trying to give a carefully crafted critique of Palin, rather, he made some facetious stereotypical points and then withdrew.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sorry, I had a post in there, then I remembered how much I hate this thread and deleted it. I apologize to you in particular, Blackblade.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Sorry, I had a post in there, then I remembered how much I hate this thread and deleted it. I apologize to you in particular, Blackblade.
Heh, you can hate a thread as much as you want. I'm glad none of it seems to spill over onto me. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Is no one else interested in Palin's refusal to cooperate with the Monegan investigation?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I mentioned it in another thread. Not exactly the behavior I would expect for a champion of accountable, transparent government. So far, none of her behavior has been what I would expect from a champion of accountable, transparent government. See also e-mails.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm following it in various sources. I agree with kmboots (shocker, there ).
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Is no one else interested in Palin's refusal to cooperate with the Monegan investigation?
I think it's a non-starter. It's more of a non-issue than Whitewater was. I wouldn't even care if Palin said, "Yes, I tried to get him fired. The guy was a jerk to my sister, and I'm worried about her kids." It's a sympathetic position for her to carve out, and I think the Democrats would do more harm than good by highlighting it. I can't think of any of her supporters who would be turned by such behavior, and I can think of some people who'd appreciate it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I mentioned it way back on 35... But I think what it comes down to is that all Palin needs to do is stall on the issue for two months, and I don't see anyone preventing her from doing so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I mentioned it way back on 35... But I think what it comes down to is that all Palin needs to do is stall on the issue for two months, and I don't see anyone preventing her from doing so.
Heck a complete investigation could take longer than 2 months anyway. Strategically stalling the investigation would give less for the Democrats to scream about than what they might find were they unfettered.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The Monegan thing is meaningless. We're talking about a small-town family squabble, and the guy she wanted fired is by all accounts a jerk. Sure, it's petty and possibly illegal, but of all the things to ding her on, this one's meaningless.
More relevant is actually her use of Yahoo webmail, which the current presidential administration likes to do, too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Strategically stalling the investigation would give less for the Democrats to scream about than what they might find were they unfettered.
The problem with that argument is it brings about the "well then what's she hiding?" question. If she really has nothing to hide, then even a vicious partisan investigation shouldn't be a problem, which I don't think by any means it would be. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the Hardy Boys solving a crime and 10 being what the Republicans did to Clinton in the 90's, it's looking like a 3 or 4.
Refusing to comply as an automatic response to me looks just awful, especially from a supposed reformer bringing change. And I'm absolutely sure that if Democrats touch it at all (which they will, possibly linking her to other scandalized Alaskan Republicans), they'll frame it exactly that way.
I think there are far, far better and more substantive ways to go after her that are perfectly fair, but come on, this election thus far has hardly been about substance.
I'm sure most of you have seen Palin's effect on the type of crowds that gather at GOP campaign events now yes? She's bringing in nearly the crowds that Obama always brings in (celebrity what?), but the odd thing is that McCain is pretty much taking a back seat. They chant "Sarah! Sarah!" while he's talking, and when they campaign separately, he can't fill a high school gym while she packs an airport hanger to the brim with people who drove hours to see her. Now, I'll set aside the fact that Republicans were ranting about how silly it was when people treated Obama like this, and Palin is even less known than he was when he started to run for office, but it's a pretty stark contrast to see the VP garnering so much more attention and support than the actual guy running for president.
I wonder how long it will be before someone starts to really point that out and make an issue out of it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, if the way you describe Bill O'Reilly as an interviewer were correct, then how do you account for the fact that he has had the top-rated prime time show for week after week for over seven straight years?
The same way I account for "The Hills" being a top rated show.
quote: I think he is a good interviewer, quite fair. He gets impatient when the subject of the interview just gets into reciting his rehearsed talking points, instead of directly answering the question. I haven't heard that Sen. Obama complained that O'Reilly treated him unfairly. I think the complaints just come from some of his supporters who feel that O'Reilly was committing sacrilege by presuming to interrupt their "Messiah," Obama.
Your perception, then, is quit seriously skewed. If you believe that the skills of a good interviewer include droning on and lecturing in a bored and dismissive tone to a guest you don't allow to speak, then yes, O'Reilly has those abilities. It's not that he presumed to interrupt, but that he quite clearly made no effort to allow Obama to speak, and when he did, made absolutely no show of listening to him. That's a bad interview. That's embarrassing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The problem with that argument is it brings about the "well then what's she hiding?" question. If she really has nothing to hide, then even a vicious partisan investigation shouldn't be a problem, which I don't think by any means it would be. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the Hardy Boys solving a crime and 10 being what the Republicans did to Clinton in the 90's, it's looking like a 3 or 4.
Refusing to comply as an automatic response to me looks just awful, especially from a supposed reformer bringing change. And I'm absolutely sure that if Democrats touch it at all (which they will, possibly linking her to other scandalized Alaskan Republicans), they'll frame it exactly that way.
This is just how I see the situation. I don't think McCain was aware of Bristol's pregnancy, or even some things that are showing up in her background. Her first interview demonstrated some glaring inadequacies, and I doubt even McCain realized just how suddenly the conservative base would rally behind Palin. The McCain campaign (McCampain?) need to steady her so that she wont crash and burn in the coming weeks. McCain's support shot up, after he announced Palin as his running mate, but I think the honeymoon is going to end and we will see the race tighten up again.
My money is that she will be underwhelming at the debates and that will bury the McCampaign. But then again Biden may very well find himself slugging a girl and women across America not liking it.
quote:I wonder how long it will be before someone starts to really point that out and make an issue out of it.
Columnists are already pointing it out. I expect that if it continues, television anchors will start discussing it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This will all implode when Palin is put heads-up with Biden in a debate. He'll destroy her, if her very small number of interviews is any indication whatsoever.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This will all implode when Palin is put heads-up with Biden in a debate. He'll destroy her, if her very small number of interviews is any indication whatsoever.
Again, that good back fire in Biden's face if he "destroys" her. If he can manage to make her destroy herself, I think that would be far more effective.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a fine line to walk. I think he's much better off pulling out all the stops and then cleaning it up in the spin room afterwards.
If anyone says "but he was so mean to her!" then the Obama campaign will say "As opposed to Vladimir Putin and Ahmadinijad who'll treat her with kid gloves if she becomes president? This woman can skin a moose but she can't handle a debate?"
They're presenting her as tough. They can hardly turn around and say that Biden was too rough with her. Republicans are great at framing arguments so they get to play both (even polar opposite) sides of an issue, but that's often because Democrats rarely hold their feet to the fire.
Part of the problem with "readiness" and "experience" being such huge buzzwords this time around, is that if Palin does indeed come off as unready or inexperienced in the debate, it will be easy to make them look silly over it. Why do you think she's spending all her time now regurgitating the party line at every campaign stop? She's learning how to be VP by rote memorization, and in debates that might be all she needs, though I suspect Biden will be excellent at carving her up on little mistakes and generalized answers. If McCain wants to keep criticizing Obama for being all talk and no plan (which is already a dubious claim), then again, it will be easy to make them look silly for sending in their VP with platitudes instead of policies (ooo, that'd be a good slogan!).
I can't wait for the debates. Much as Palin energized things, it's all come back to earth. Obama has the same 2 point lead that he had a month ago, as if Palin had never come along, although her effect on the base is certainly noticeable. But I think people who've been paying attention this whole time are burned out. Outrage fatigue, if you will. And a lot of others haven't started paying attention yet, and won't until the first debate. I think a week from tomorrow starts a new chapter in the campaign.
Anyone else see Obama's full two minute ad? It's just him talking into the camera, and there's not a single negative barb in it. It's just him talking about his plans (rather specifically), what he wants to do and why. I don't know if it'll work or not. I think it'll be a decent test of people's ability to look at something that lasts longer than 30 seconds, but it's the first message like it in either campaign thus far. I think Obama realizes that the last couple negative attack ads he tried in response to McCain's ads really didn't do what he wanted. He just can't muster up the same kind of, whatever, that McCain does, so he's going back to positive issues oriented ads. We'll see how it goes.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Is no one else interested in Palin's refusal to cooperate with the Monegan investigation?
I think it's a non-starter. It's more of a non-issue than Whitewater was. I wouldn't even care if Palin said, "Yes, I tried to get him fired. The guy was a jerk to my sister, and I'm worried about her kids." It's a sympathetic position for her to carve out, and I think the Democrats would do more harm than good by highlighting it. I can't think of any of her supporters who would be turned by such behavior, and I can think of some people who'd appreciate it.
See the thing is, this isn't about the trooper, this is about the boss. If the allegations against the ex-brother-in-law are true, there isn't going to be a lot of sympathy there.
The problem is that she fired the guy she pressured to fire the ex-brother-in-law, when he refused to do so (since disciplinary action had already taken place).
This isn't about "wah, wah, she fired a jerk" but "hey, you fired a guy who looked at the situation and used his professional judgment to not cave to your demand... Oh, and then you replace that guy with someone who had known sexual harassment allegations against him."
Ironically, "Troopergate" isn't actually about the trooper.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This will all implode when Palin is put heads-up with Biden in a debate. He'll destroy her, if her very small number of interviews is any indication whatsoever.
Again, that good back fire in Biden's face if he "destroys" her. If he can manage to make her destroy herself, I think that would be far more effective.
I would hope the Obama campaign is telling him to make heavy use of rhetorical questioning to make implications about Palin without directly addressing her.
Things like, "Not all of us could afford to take 6 years to get though college".
-Bok
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:They're presenting her as tough. They can hardly turn around and say that Biden was too rough with her.
... sure they could.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay they could, but I think it's easily dispelled.
"Look how tough she is!"
"Biden was mean to her! Beating up on a poor woman!"
She can't be She-Ra in one breath and a damsel in distress in another. Frankly, I think the whole "Biden was mean to a woman" argument would be just as sexist as what they are claiming. They're saying women aren't equal to men and require special protections because they aren't tough enough. If Obama or Biden or whoever can frame the issue that way (really that's up to the media I guess), then they'll be fine.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Aren't you talking about an entirely hypothetical situation, here? Give Palin a chance to actually debate Biden before condemning her for handling it poorly and speculating upon how her party can and cannot do to clean up the mess.
quote:Things like, "Not all of us could afford to take 6 years to get though college".
Comes off as sarcasm. Not a good plan.
Debate fairly, about real issues. Be straightforward. Don't mention the person's personal life unless they bring it up themselves. Don't rise to any attempts to make you angry or look silly; stay calm.
If you don't know the answer, don't hedge even in trying to discern what the question is. Be specific about what you're confused about.
Admit when the other fellow is right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn,
You are expecting reason, again. Woman can so do that. We shouldn't, but we can. Especially attractive women.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: She can't be She-Ra in one breath and a damsel in distress in another.
Have you not been watching this election? Or the Bush years? It is very easy to be one thing one moment and the exact opposite the next. Infact, it seems that is the winnable strategy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Anyways, the issue wouldn't be that Biden was "beating up on her" so much as he was losing her cool while she stayed calm and collective. If she can stick to her guns, know how to dismantle some of his particularly outrageous assertions, and stay calm, he can be beaten pretty easily.
Which is unfortunate, because I think she is not a particularly good vice presidential candidate, given the various direct evidence that has amounted.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:They're presenting her as tough. They can hardly turn around and say that Biden was too rough with her.
... sure they could.
It isn't a question of what "they" say, it is a question of how people will react at an emotional level to Biden if/when he attacks. If he is very aggressive in the debate and she flounders, many people will see him as a bully.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:They're presenting her as tough. They can hardly turn around and say that Biden was too rough with her.
... sure they could.
It isn't a question of what "they" say, it is a question of how people will react at an emotional level to Biden if/when he attacks. If he is very aggressive in the debate and she flounders, many people will see him as a bully.
Probably true- but if that happens, I think the bigger question is how it comes up on replay (not on Fox News). Would the pundits show the footage of Palin floundering and speculate at her toughness and readiness for high-pressure situations, or would they focus on Biden and comment on how cruel and unlikable he is in his attack? I don't think the first impression is necessarily as key as the message that gets repeated over time.
ADD: Also, is there only one debate planned for the VPs? If Palin plays the "that ruthless jerk" card once, it might work; if she comes out of more than one debate wringing her hands about how she wasn't expecting to be treated so cruelly, it becomes self-parody.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Aren't you talking about an entirely hypothetical situation, here? Give Palin a chance to actually debate Biden before condemning her for handling it poorly and speculating upon how her party can and cannot do to clean up the mess.
quote:Things like, "Not all of us could afford to take 6 years to get though college".
Comes off as sarcasm. Not a good plan.
Debate fairly, about real issues. Be straightforward. Don't mention the person's personal life unless they bring it up themselves. Don't rise to any attempts to make you angry or look silly; stay calm.
If you don't know the answer, don't hedge even in trying to discern what the question is. Be specific about what you're confused about.
Admit when the other fellow is right.
This has been proven to drop you in the polls, which in turn creates a sense of insecurity about the candidate, that often leads to defeat. See Gore/Bush debates, re: lockbox. Turns out Gore was probably right on that particular policy, but Bush won because he was personable.
Dealing solely on the issues is a losing proposition too. Most of the general public can't be bothered to understand the nuance of policy positions on either side, so if Biden goes policy wonk, Palin can give a sound bite (which can be true or false, it doesn't matter, because few bother to check all of the claims made) with folksy charm, which is a strength of hers, and she wins the point on "beer-ability". --
Lyrhawn, as we speak, the Republicans are having certain surrogates (hi Carly!) shout about sexism, while at the same time touting her as a tough reformer/Hockey Mom/moose hunter. She can be seen as tough, and still get the "beat up a woman" sympathy vote.
-Bok
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This has been proven to drop you in the polls, which in turn creates a sense of insecurity about the candidate, that often leads to defeat. See Gore/Bush debates, re: lockbox. Turns out Gore was probably right on that particular policy, but Bush won because he was personable.
I think its a gross over simplification to say Bush won the 2000 election because he was personable in the debates. Its far more accurate to say that Bush won the 2000 election because he had his campaign manager and brother counting the votes in Florida and we have a supreme court that said that was OK.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Its far more accurate to say that Bush won the 2000 election because he had his campaign manager and brother counting the votes in Florida and we have a supreme court that said that was OK.
I believe you meant to say that the conspiracy theory nuts believe that Bush won the 2000 election because he had his campaign manager and brother counting the votes in Florida and we have a supreme court that said that was OK. You statement was hardly accurate.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Documentation released by the McCain-Palin campaign supports Palin's contention that the commissioner was fired for refusing to accept her budget cuts, and being dismissive of her authority.
The investigation or inquiry, according to a lawsuit filed a couple of days ago, is illegal, because such an investigation requires a vote of the state legislature, and such a vote was never taken. It is also obvious that the investigation has been taken over by partisan Democrats.
Fox News is almost unique among news channels, because it alone regularly provides people with the conservative viewpoint. It also gives the liberal viewpoint in balance. The problem is that the political and newsmedia left do not want the conservative viewpoint given any publicity, so they denounce and denigate Fox News all they can.
The negative descriptions some here have given of Bill O'Reilly as an inerviewer are not true. I watch them frequently myself, including the major recent one of Sen. Obama, and I see for myself that he was soundly and properly professional. He never shouted down Obama, and only interrupted him when he was repeating himself, or resorting to a canned talking point rather than responding directly to the question. The real complaint some people have is that O'Reilly talked back to Obama, and did not accept what he said at face value. That is how he got Obama to admit that "the surge [in Iraq] has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." This is a stark reversal of Obama's statements only a few months ago that the war in Iraq had failed, and was lost. O'Reilly deserves credit for keeping after Obama until he made this admission.
Those who think Sen. Biden will handle Gov. Palin easily are vastly underestimating Palin. In my estimation she has twice his I.Q., is an extremely fast learner who has been well-prepared by the McCain advisors, she has already shown herself to be very articulate, confident, and poised, and they don't call her "Sara Barracuda" for nothing.
[ September 18, 2008, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Fox News is almost unique among news channels, because it alone regularly provides people with the conservative viewpoint. It also gives the liberal viewpoint in balance. The problem is that the political and newsmedia left do not want the conservative viewpoint given any publicity, so they denounce and denigate Fox News all they can.
Hey, come back to Earth. The weather is great down here.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Those who think Sen. Biden will handle Gov. Palin easily are vastly underestimating Palin. In my estimation she has twice his I.Q.,
Just out of morbid curiosity, what evidence are you using to determine that she has 'twice' Biden's IQ?
To be clear, I don't think Palin is unintelligent. But I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates that she has twice the IQ of anyone involved in these campaigns.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Strider, guess what, the earth is round! You're just living on the left side, and you think that is all there is.
Ask the people in Galveston, Texas, and thereabouts, and see if they agree with what you say about the weather being great.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know that the average is about 110 and 150 is freaking scary genius level, right?
There's no need to make stuff up about a candidate, not if there is something to them to begin with.
You might as well claim she runs a two-minute mile, can hold her breath for five minutes, and has calculated the final digit of pi.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In other news, do we think that Senator McCain was taking a hard line with Spain or that he was confused about the question. If the former, that is a much tougher stance than the current administration has or that Sen. McCain took in April. I'm inclined to think the latter, but the former is possible.
How am I able to evaluate Gov. Palin as having twice the I.Q. of Sen. Biden? (Ha! What an opening!) It takes one to know one.
Unlike Biden, Palin is not known as a "serial plagiarist," for one thing.
For another, how many people could have enough smarts, not to mention grit, to demolish the statewide "Good Ol' Boys" network, run out of office an allegedly corrupt Attorney General, force the oil industry to toe HER line and change the way it does business in her state, replace an allegedly corrupt governor from her own party (by beating him in the primary), and defeat a Democrat who was a former governor and had some questions about corruption over his head--AND DO IT IN ONLY 18 MONTHS AS GOVERNOR? Talk about effective! This lady is for real. I wish she were running for president. She would be the Margaret Thatcher of the USA.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Katharina, since you mention I.Q. figures, I believe that by definition 100 is average. I tested 150 on my last I.Q. test, administered just before I left college in the middle of my junior year, but since I only missed two questions, it was not definitive. It is standard practice to administer a series of additional, advanced tests to measure higher I.Q.s. My mother had that done when she graduated from high school, and after three days of testing, her I.Q. was determined to be 185.
Actually, I would like to know what Palin's I.Q. scores were. I wouldn't go by her grade score. I could pass any course with a C without making any effort, so I only got A's in the classes I was interested in. I figured I was actually grading the teacher.
Oh, and she may not have run a two-minute mile, but she was point guard and captain of the Wisilla High School Women's basketball team that won the state championship, and she was the one who made the winning free-throw in the championship game. She also won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest, and placed second in the state competition for Miss Alaska--which was good enough to win her a college scholarship.
Then her husband, Todd (the "First Dude" of Alaska) has won--FOUR TIMES--the 1,971-mile Tesoro Iron Dog Snow Machine championship. Talk about a marriage of winners!
[ September 18, 2008, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't care what anyone's IQ is. The entire measurement is, at best, controversial. As if you can sum up someone's entire potential with a single number! I care far more about real achievement.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whatever the definition, Americans today score over 110 on average. Stupid grade creep strikes everywhere.
Oh, honey, you can proclaim her credentials without making up numbers.
I love that her husband winning a dogsledding race is the best triumphant credential you can come up with.
I hear Big Brother just ended - perhaps McCain will declare his intention to appoint the winner of that Secretary of State.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK Christine, look at her achievements--all she has accomplished in just 18 months as governor! Most politicians do not succeed on this scale during their entire careers!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure - most would wait until their second term to fire their enemies and install a tanning bed.
The next headline on CNN: McCain Declares Michael Phelps Would Be a Perfect Attorney General
For the head of the CIA, I hear Tyra Banks is open to the idea. She's won Emmys! And RUNS a televised beauty pageant!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:look at her achievements--all she has accomplished in just 18 months as governor!
Ron, the "list of achievements" you gave for her 18 months as governor basically amounted to being elected to the position in the first place. She ran against the "Good Ole Boys" network, won a primary, won the general, and replaced the AG with one of her own people. That's what most governors do.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Katharina, Todd also is a supervisor in his job on the North Slope. And how about this more indefinable acheivement--Todd Palin apparently seems to be loved by everyone in Alaska. He sets a high standard for the role played by the husband of the chief executive. Nothing wimpy about him, despite the fact that he changes diapers and whatever else is needed.
Maybe that is why the loonie ultra-feminist left on the left coast hates the Palins so passionately. They both exemplify conservative, Christian ideals of what it means to be a good man and woman, and they look really attractive--sort of living, breathing refutations of the hedonistic, self-first, amoral "ideals" of the above-mentioned LUFL on the LC.
Granted, the example the Palins set is a hard one to live up to. But it is more inspiring and more worthy of trying to emulate, than what the loony left in Hollywood ever envisioned.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, you're just being ridiculous. How many governors defeat "the Good Ol' Boy" system? You're not supposed to run against the incumbent in your own party! How many governors force the oil industry to cave in and toe the line? She demanded that they pay increased taxes on their windfall profits, and they forked it over. She then gave that money to Alaskan citizens--giving each one checks that so far total something like $5,000. Now that's an "economic stimulus package"!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are two reasons to run against corruption in your own party. One, you don't like corruption. Two, you are ambitious and out to make a name for yourself.
As I've said before, I'm trying to reserve judgement on Gov. Palin (and still waiting for someone to even try to make a serious case that she is qualified for the VP slot), but what has come out so far seems to me to be more indicative of the latter.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not sure - did you just call me a (hilariously-innacurate) epithet to distract from the fact that apparently Palin's primary qualification is that her husband is no longer entry-level in his job, which proves that he has serious testosterone.
Heck with the debates. Bring on the rulers.
You just have to be a parody. You can't seriously base your political decisions on beauty pageants.
I actually suspect that you like that Sarah Palin was chosen to be the spokesmodel for the campaign and that she isn't allowed to campaign on her own. She's a Barbie that can be trotted out for empty points but not actually taken seriously.
If McCain's campaign trusted her to not make a fool of herself, she'd be campaigning by herself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:They both exemplify conservative, Christian ideals of what it means to be a good man and woman, and they look really attractive--sort of living, breathing refutations of the hedonistic, self-first, amoral "ideals" of the above-mentioned LUFL on the LC.
I won't argue that they're attractive.
But if "exemplifying conservative Christian ideals" includes persistently lying (that whole, "I said no to earmarks" thing), then I'm pleased that most folks consider me to be non-conservative Christian.
Unless she comes out as much more intelligent than she has so far been projecting then I won't support her at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Since when is an superficial beauty a Christian ideal?
You're claiming that God approves of pretty people more? You can tell the elect because they have a BMI of 22 and are over 5'8"? That personal virtue shows itself in designer suits?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Maybe that is why the loonie ultra-feminist left on the left coast hates the Palins so passionately. They both exemplify conservative, Christian ideals of what it means to be a good man and woman, and they look really attractive--sort of living, breathing refutations of the hedonistic, self-first, amoral "ideals" of the above-mentioned LUFL on the LC. [/QB]
Er? So people hate them because they are physically attractive, religious, and seem to have a good marriage? That's pretty out there. (BTW, why is it ideal to be physically attractive? That seems shallow.)
I've never been clear on these "amoral ideals" the left is supposed to have. As far as I can tell, they are the daydreams of a reactive right who can't figure out how to be happily married to the opposite sex if someone else is happily married to the same sex. I don't have that problem. My husband and I are doing great. He even changes diapers and looks quite manly doing it. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The "beat the good ol' boys" network, ignores the fact that she is steeped in it. She was a director on Ted Stevens' PAC, for crying out loud! --
On an unrelated note, we had a primary here in MA. Being "unenrolled" I got to pick my ballot. I chose the Democrats ballot. The only wrinkle was the Provost, who was running unopposed. My wife, the night before, had mentioned that he had been caught a month ago stealing change from coffee machines at the office.
So I wrote in this guy instead. Oh wait, maybe this is related. My choice is definitely a handsome devil.
-Bok
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Ron is conservative he won't realise Mcsame will ruin the country until he has. Conservatives won't change their minds until they realise the world has lied to them.
Edited to remove religious joke
sorry
[ September 18, 2008, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: T:man ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That smiley does not make your against-the-terms-of-agreement specific-religion-bashing comment okay. You should remove it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm trying to reserve judgement on Gov. Palin (and still waiting for someone to even try to make a serious case that she is qualified for the VP slot)....
quote:"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said Wednesday in an interview. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."
quote:Palin has cited the proximity of Alaska to Russia as evidence of her international experience.
Hagel scoffed at that notion.
"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
quote:Hagel offered a couple of caveats on his assessment of Palin: Experience is not the only qualification for elected officials — judgment and character are indispensable.
Washington experience isn't the only kind of experience, Hagel said, and he noted that many White House occupants have been governors with no time inside the Beltway.
"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."
quote:I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.
[Edited to add all of the excerpts]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: She's a Barbie that can be trotted out for empty points but not actually taken seriously.
Actually, I think that the "caribou Barbie" meme is dangerous, in that it leads people to under-estimate her.
quote:If McCain's campaign trusted her to not make a fool of herself, she'd be campaigning by herself.
Mmmm...I don't know. She speaks well, and in most campaign appearances she wouldn't actually be forced to deviate from a predetermined script in ways that would reveal her ignorance or lack of thought on pertinent topics. I think that the real reason why she's mostly been campaigning alongside McCain is that she invigorates crowds in a way that McCain simply does not. Her presence props him up rather than the reverse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm a tad nercous about the foreign policy experience of the top of the ticket.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Hey! Spain is like a Latin American country! In, you know, in some ways.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
'Cuz they speak Latin, right?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: laugh :: I actually just found out that Quayle didn't actually say that when I double checked it atsnopes a second ago. When I started this post I was intending to say that I still couldn't quite believe that he'd actually said it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Mmmm...I don't know. She speaks well, and in most campaign appearances she wouldn't actually be forced to deviate from a predetermined script in ways that would reveal her ignorance or lack of thought on pertinent topics. I think that the real reason why she's mostly been campaigning alongside McCain is that she invigorates crowds in a way that McCain simply does not. Her presence props him up rather than the reverse.
Precisely.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Whatever the definition, Americans today score over 110 on average. Stupid grade creep strikes everywhere.
Nothing grade-creepy about this. Much of the world's population is malnourished, and very little of it is educated in test-taking to the extent that Americans are. Those two effects between them are going to make the American average higher than the world average.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
When I was twelve I scored 187, yet I had horrible grades, I'm just an excellent test-taker.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
While Dick Cheney is Vice President President Bush is safe from lunatic fringe assassination, for no person on the far left or the far right wants a President Cheney.
If Senator McCain does win the election, and returns to his more moderate stances, I know that many Lunatic Right will be waiting, hoping, and possibly praying for his passing so that the conservative Palin can take charge.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: She then gave that money to Alaskan citizens--giving each one checks that so far total something like $5,000. Now that's an "economic stimulus package"!
And yet she's still taking earmarked money from the federal government. Maybe less than the last guy, but not none, and not just a little.
How can someone who calls herself a fiscal conservative take a penny from a defecit-spending federal government to use in her own state when her own state has so much spare cash that she can afford to blow it on something as inefficient as rebate checks? And why wasn't that money used to pay down the national debt, or fund the war in Iraq, rather than pay off voters and improve her approval rating?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The other argument is duh, of course she gave them a giant paycheck. Alaska has massive oil revenues to spread amongst a relatively tiny population. They have a small budget with few demands, and a source of revenue that's the envy of a great many states (hell, the envy of some small nations). That's not a particularly impressive accomplishment of hers.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Alaskans were getting energy-money long before Palin took office.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."
You can have a bigger scope of the world without having multiple foreign visa stamps in your passport. Nor do you need to be a Washington insider to have a bigger scope of the world.
I'm fairly certain that a number of Jatraqueros have a bigger scope of the world than ANY of the presidential candidates.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: She's a Barbie that can be trotted out for empty points but not actually taken seriously.
Actually, I think that the "caribou Barbie" meme is dangerous, in that it leads people to under-estimate her.
quote:If McCain's campaign trusted her to not make a fool of herself, she'd be campaigning by herself.
Mmmm...I don't know. She speaks well, and in most campaign appearances she wouldn't actually be forced to deviate from a predetermined script in ways that would reveal her ignorance or lack of thought on pertinent topics. I think that the real reason why she's mostly been campaigning alongside McCain is that she invigorates crowds in a way that McCain simply does not. Her presence props him up rather than the reverse.
Zombie + Barbie = win?
....now....an actual zombie Barbie...that would be neat.
From Obama's recent speech mocking John Mccain's call to fire the SEC chair:
quote:"In the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path.
Like-- BIDEN, maybe?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Is Biden an advocate of trickle down economics? That's usually a Republican thing.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:BTW, why is it ideal to be physically attractive? That seems shallow.
I like pretty people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world," Hagel said. "I think that's just a requirement."
You can have a bigger scope of the world without having multiple foreign visa stamps in your passport. Nor do you need to be a Washington insider to have a bigger scope of the world.
I'm fairly certain that a number of Jatraqueros have a bigger scope of the world than ANY of the presidential candidates.
I agree with you, but at the same time, the campaign has yet to give any indication that she has sufficient knowledge of the world. The fact that she said she could see Russia from an island in Alaska and that that was a piece of her foreign policy credentials and wasn't kidding strikes me as a pretty huge red flag. Add to that her nonsense about Alaska's energy concerns making her a national defense expert because energy is a national defense issue. There are three or four things wrong with that too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Is Biden an advocate of trickle down economics? That's usually a Republican thing.
No-- and I don't know that Mccain is either. 'Trickle-down economics' is code for 'scary conservative politics that we don't really care to explain, but it must be bad because Reagan and Bush 1 loved it.'
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If McCain's campaign trusted her to not make a fool of herself, she'd be campaigning by herself.
I think that it's more due to the fact that when they campaign separately she draws much, much larger crowds than McCain does on his own. I can't remember seeing everyone paying nearly this much attention to the VP on the ticket for either party previously.
--Enigmatic
ETA: Somehow I missed that there was a whole other page after the post I quoted.
[ September 18, 2008, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Enigmatic ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Those who think Sen. Biden will handle Gov. Palin easily are vastly underestimating Palin. In my estimation she has twice his I.Q., is an extremely fast learner who has been well-prepared by the McCain advisors, she has already shown herself to be very articulate, confident, and poised, and they don't call her "Sara Barracuda" for nothing.
Wow Ron. Do you just, like, believe things because they are "republican?" I mean, anyone who saw the Charlie Gibson interview with Palin would choke on the words: "confident" and "atriculate" not to mention "poised." And what exactly is in it for you to swallow this offal from the Republicans anyway? I would expect that "independent" and "free-thinking" people would have a very easy time of dismissing Palin for the super fly-weight personality she is.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
1876 XD
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Strider, guess what, the earth is round! You're just living on the left side, and you think that is all there is.
Ask the people in Galveston, Texas, and thereabouts, and see if they agree with what you say about the weather being great.
HH Snap! Liberals don't know how to deal with bad weather. Obviously Strider does not care about Black peo.... I mean Texans.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You might as well claim she runs a two-minute mile, can hold her breath for five minutes, and has calculated the final digit of pi.
I have made projections which indicate that there is a 50% likelihood of that number being between 5 and 9.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Well I have 100% belief that it is between 1 and 9.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Is Biden an advocate of trickle down economics? That's usually a Republican thing.
No-- and I don't know that Mccain is either. 'Trickle-down economics' is code for 'scary conservative politics that we don't really care to explain, but it must be bad because Reagan and Bush 1 loved it.'
No... "Trickle-down economics" is a rather specific term describing policies that favor the wealthy under the premise that they are the ones creating national wealth, and that by doing so the wealth that they generate will "trickle down" to the middle and lower classes, thank you very much.
Like, for instance, McCain's tax plan, which cuts the corporate tax rate of the country which presently collects the fourth-lowest amount of corporate tax revenue in the industrialized world.
You can argue as to whether trickle-down economics works or not, but pinning the term on someone and then claiming it's so vague it can be applied to anyone seems in this case to mostly suggest a lack of research, to put it politely.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Is Biden an advocate of trickle down economics? That's usually a Republican thing.
No-- and I don't know that Mccain is either. 'Trickle-down economics' is code for 'scary conservative politics that we don't really care to explain, but it must be bad because Reagan and Bush 1 loved it.'
"Trickle-down economics" is a catch-all phrase that can refer to any economic theory that advocates increasing the wealth of the rich, either individuals or corporations, to benefit the general economy because corporations will then invest more into their companies, hire more people, pay them better, etc. It's not specifically a Republican or conservative theory, but after Reagan and Bush Sr. promoted it heavily the Republican party became tagged with it.
McCain is definitely a proponent of this, as he has fought for over two decades to deregulate Wall Street and favors tax cuts for the rich, despite his new pro-regulation stand of the last 24 hours.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Well I have 100% belief that it is between 1 and 9.
That's unfortunate.
-Bok
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Well I have 100% belief that it is between 1 and 9.
What if it's 0?
On a slightly more political point, it looks like Obama's retaken the lead in national polling. And the new Insider Advantage poll has Obama at +10 in Colorado. That's nice to see, but considering that just a couple days ago McCain was at +2ish, I'm wondering if there's not something strange going down there.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd suggest two major things: the financial crisis plays more to Obama's favor, and some of the public are taking a closer look at Palin now that the novelty is wearing off.
[ September 18, 2008, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Well I have 100% belief that it is between 1 and 9.
What about zero... There is only a 90% probability of it falling between 1 and 9.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: McCain is definitely a proponent of this, as he has fought for over two decades to deregulate Wall Street and favors tax cuts for the rich, despite his new pro-regulation stand of the last 24 hours.
I stood against pork-barrel spending for 24 hours once. Boy were my legs tired.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Well I have 100% belief that it is between 1 and 9.
What about zero... There is only a 90% probability of it falling between 1 and 9.
The final digit of pi? Maybe I forgot to carry the 1, but according to my calculations there's a 0% chance that it's anything.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Well I have 100% belief that it is between 1 and 9.
What about zero... There is only a 90% probability of it falling between 1 and 9.
The final digit of pi? Maybe I forgot to carry the 1, but according to my calculations there's a 0% chance that it's anything.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Well I have 100% belief that it is between 1 and 9.
What about zero... There is only a 90% probability of it falling between 1 and 9.
The final digit of pi? Maybe I forgot to carry the 1, but according to my calculations there's a 0% chance that it's anything.
Our research poles show that most of the people who believe in transcendental numbers are stoned slackers. The earth was created 6,000 years ago, and for some reason that make me feel more comfortable with myself than the idea that the universe is infinitely complicated and inviting of man's expanding knowledge.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Our research poles show that most of the people who believe in transcendental numbers are stoned slackers.
We now use the Polish for research? Awesome, where can I get some? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No, we use the Polish for notation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Our marketing Croatians will get back to you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
We're going the other way now. Just so you know.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:pinning the term on someone and then claiming it's so vague it can be applied to anyone seems in this case to mostly suggest a lack of research, to put it politely.
Who did this?
My point was that 'trickle-down-economics' has become a code phrase for liberals the way 'liberal media' has for the GOP. Using the term is meant to invoke partisan feelings, not for the purpose of clarifying policy.
No one wants to comment on Obama's gaffe?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No one wants to comment on Obama's gaffe?
Could you be more specific? I browsed back through this page and couldn't figure out what "gaffe" you are referring to.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From Obama's recent speech mocking John Mccain's call to fire the SEC chair:
quote:"In the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path.
Like-- BIDEN, maybe?
This one. Biden is one of the crowd in Washington whose votes have led us down this disastrous path.
I don't think I've ever been as disillusioned with politics in America as I am right now.
I didn't expect the GOP to come up with anyone ethical-- none of the contenders for the Presidency really fit the ethical bill. I did not expect such blatant, bald lies, though.
But Obama, I had a lot of hopes for him. I hoped that he would raise the level of political discussion AT LEAST.
It hasn't happened. Instead, he is guaranteeing an oppositional minority in Congress by his conduct in this campaign. This means four more years of the GOP squalling and threatening to filibuster everything. It means no political reconciliation; it means idealogical entrenchment on both sides.
Which is the OPPOSITE of what I was supporting Obama for in the first place.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Scott, to be fair, he tried not attacking (as much), and it put him behind in the polls.
How do you try to reconcile with a group whose mouthpieces assume there is a nefarious trick behind everything you propose?
I mean, he voted for FISA, to keep gridlock from happening, he's made overtures to support faith-based initiatives, he said he'd be willing to talk new drilling if it brings folks to the table about an energy plan. On the one hand, it could be a cynical ploy to move to the middle, on the other, it could be attempts to raise discourse and propose compromise. (Personally, I think it was both).
-Bok
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Heard two commercials today.
McCain/Palin/Republican Congress--"Vote for us and we'll spend Billions on Stem Cell Research." I'm in Missouri, and a 2 term congressman got kicked out two years ago when he supported a "No Stem Cell" initiative which was also crushed.
Gov. Palin--the Right to Life candidate is endorsing a Pro-Stem Cell Research ad?
Obama/Biden/Democrat--Register to vote before its too late. Go to "Voteforchange.org".
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Has there been a proliferation of "Fact Check" (note the capitalization) sites or ongoing commentaries lately? I used to just see FactCheck.org, but it seems to be a popular terminology lately.
Not disagreeing with the trend or criticizing, just a little befuddled. But heck, the more fact-checking that is actually what it purports to be, the better. I am a little worried about keeping things straight for myself now -- I had a good feel for FactCheck.org, but I need to make sense of all these other "Fact Check" references I see and get a feel for them individually.
Or is this all tied back to FactCheck.org, anyway?
---
Note: I'm using the quotation marks not as scare quotes to imply these aren't really "facts" or "checking," but to isolate them as terms.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Gov. Palin--the Right to Life candidate is endorsing a Pro-Stem Cell Research ad?
I bet this is in reference to non-fetal-derived stem cells, e.g., from bone marrow.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Scott, to be fair, he tried not attacking (as much), and it put him behind in the polls.
In fact, he's still under fire from fellow Democrats for not hitting back hard enough at McCain.
Obama has definitely gone overly negative as of late, but he has at least been consistent with his convention speech promise to keep it about real policy and judgement issues, rather than going personal. Obama's campaign seems intent on connecting McCain to the other Republicans, and then arguing that Republican policies have failed in virtually every way, rather than trying to show that McCain is personally corrupt or immoral. They've stepped over that line a few times, but never consistently in a way that would suggest their intention is to do so. I'm still convinced Obama really does intend to raise political discourse, but is afraid that doing so might just allow the Republicans to win, given what happened after the Republican convention. I'm also wondering which direction he'll decide to take in the coming weeks.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm against abortion but okay with stem cell research, as long as the embryos aren't created for that purpose.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tresopax pretty much summed up my feelings on this one.
Personally I don't blame him. I blame the American people. We're supposed to reward good behavior in politics. Instead we reward bad behavior. McCain went on an unprecedented streak of lies and slander in recent weeks and wiped out a quite large Obama lead until he was leading himself. Obama spent that whole time trying to win on policy disagreements, but when that didn't work, he finally bowed to what Congressional Democrats had been clamoring for and threw out some half hearted attempts to go negative on McCain. Then he quickly returned to more positive oriented ads, like that two minute long ad with him talking into the camera about his ideas.
In my view, McCain has totally folded. He doesn't care about having an election about issues. If he did, he'd talk about them honestly instead of what he's doing now. Obama wants to talk about issues, but every time he does, he seems to slide in the polls, not because people don't like his policies, but because they're falling for McCain's misleading interpretations of his policies and positions.
Should he just take it on the chin and keep the high road, even if that pretty much means forfeiting the election? I guess that's really the main question here when it comes to talking about Obama and what our hopes were for his campaign. I think he's being dragged down by McCain. But ultimately I blame the citizenry. They claim to want better quality civil discussion, and when it's offered to them, they throw their support behind the guy shooting spitballs.
I also agree with Bok, I think his move to the center was half what-Democrats-always-do move to the center to appear more moderate and electable, and half compromise to try and get stuff done. I don't think his actions thus far are going to posion the well with Congressional Republicans. Look at what Republicans are saying. I think it's pretty clear how they already feel about Democrats, so I can't imagine anything Obama says will really have a further effect on them. Besides, what clean well is left to poison?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Obama's been going negative for a lot longer than a few weeks, in key states. He's only stepped it up recently, but he was running negative ads in the primary, and he was running negative ads not too long after sewing up the nomination.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Orincoro, I did see the Palin-Gibson interview, and she was poised and confident, and was ready with answers instantly. She does not hem or haw or stutter--she has an answer ready and articulates it clearly. The only time she was taken aback was when Gibson asked her for her take on the "Bush doctrine." Her response, asking what he meant, was entirely proper, because there are at least four Bush position statements that have been labelled by the media as "THE Bush doctrine." Palin did pick one of the actual position statements by Bush that the media has called the Bush doctrine. Gibson smirkingly presumed to correct her by referring to the position statement he had in mind. The only person who came off poorly in that interview was Gibson.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Should he just take it on the chin and keep the high road, even if that pretty much means forfeiting the election? I guess that's really the main question here when it comes to talking about Obama and what our hopes were for his campaign. I think he's being dragged down by McCain. But ultimately I blame the citizenry. They claim to want better quality civil discussion, and when it's offered to them, they throw their support behind the guy shooting spitballs.
Shouldn't a real leader be able to find a way to stay above the fray *and* win the election?
It is the easy way out to say that it's the American people because it is not. It is Obama. Just like it was his responsibility to get Clinton supporters to vote for him, it is his responsibility to get the American people to vote for him and to do it in a way he has said he wants to do. If he can't or could not find a way to do that, then he shouldn't be President.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron -
Her answers were non-answers. To be fair, that's what most politicians give. And it wasn't NEARLY as bad as the awful interview she had with Hannity.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Obama's been going negative for a lot longer than a few weeks, in key states. He's only stepped it up recently, but he was running negative ads in the primary, and he was running negative ads not too long after sewing up the nomination.
Quantity? Quality? Ratio of positive to negative?
How many and how many times? Where they factually true or slanderous falsehoods? How many was he running in comparison with positive ads in the same areas?
Media reporting on those kinds of specifics is lackluster at best. Quality reports I usually get from places like Factcheck.org. Quantity is almost impossible because no one has a list out there that has all the ads, the number of times they were shown, and where. And same with the ratio. It all comes down to an overall impression that people get, unless you have numbers saying otherwise.
Using southeast Michigan as an example, we've been utterly bombarded with ads in the last few months. It's like nothing I've ever seen before. Obama ads have only been coming here in decent numbers in the last few weeks, but we've been getting McCain ads for months. The majority of McCain ads are negative, and the majority of the negative ads are either outright lies or insincere misdirection of facts. Obama's ads started off talking about policy and then skewed negative and have since waffled back and forth. I'd say the majority of them have been positive, and of the negative ones, maybe half are falsehoods or distortions. In other words, I don't think either of them are perfect, but one is demonstrably worse.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Should he just take it on the chin and keep the high road, even if that pretty much means forfeiting the election? I guess that's really the main question here when it comes to talking about Obama and what our hopes were for his campaign. I think he's being dragged down by McCain. But ultimately I blame the citizenry. They claim to want better quality civil discussion, and when it's offered to them, they throw their support behind the guy shooting spitballs.
Shouldn't a real leader be able to find a way to stay above the fray *and* win the election?
It is the easy way out to say that it's the American people because it is not. It is Obama. Just like it was his responsibility to get Clinton supporters to vote for him, it is his responsibility to get the American people to vote for him and to do it in a way he has said he wants to do. If he can't or could not find a way to do that, then he shouldn't be President.
I disagree. That totally absolves the American people ANY responsibility to civic duty.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The reason campaigns do not stay nice is because each candidate is compromised by various factors, and it is proper and necessary for these to be pointed out. Usually, one candidate's foibles are outweighed by the worse foibles of the other.
It would not be proper or responsible for Americans to decide on whether to make Sen. Obama the president, without knowing about and dealing with the fact that he was a member for 20 years of a church that has been teaching the Black Liberation Theology, he was associated in several significant ways with the self-confessed and unapologetic terrorist, William Ayers, and he made several real estate deals with Tony Resko, who is under indictment and being tried for alleged shady dealings. Obama also has for one of his key campaign advisors--the one who headed his committee to search for a vice presidental running mate--Jim Johnson, who was the former CEO of Fannie Mae.
It may be negative to discuss these things, but they must be discussed. This is part of the necessary "vetting" process. It has had to come in accelerated, condensed form, because Sen. Obama is so new to the scene.
Sen. McCain, on the other hand, has been in the public eye for decades, and it is hard to find anything negative to say about him that has not been said before, and fully dealt with in most people's minds.
Gov. Sarah Palin, of course, is new, even newer than Obama. But the army of snoops sent in by Democrats to try to dig up dirt on Palin, have not really found anything substantive, except to suggest there may have been something irregular in her forcing from office a police commissioner. The facts of the case do not prove she was guilty of any wrong-doing. All Democrats have is innuendo and suggestion of ulterior motives. The review probably will not go any further, now that it has been taken over by partisan Democrats, and most of the principals in the case have refused to respect the subpoenas. Now it will have to go the Alaska legislature to vote whether to enforce the subpoenas, and that is unlikely to happen ever, let alone before the election.
Aside from that, Democrats have dug a deep grave for themselves by their uncalled-for and grievously intemperate insults, which lead voters to react against the insulters. To Palin's credit, she has shown that she has a thick skin, and has not been whining about these way out-of-bounds attacks. This is the course of wisdom, because this has caused all those attacks to rebound back onto the heads of those who tried to insult her.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:It would not be proper or responsible for Americans to decide on whether to make Sen. Obama the president, without knowing about and dealing with the fact that he was a member for 20 years of a church that has been teaching the Black Liberation Theology, he was associated in several significant ways with the self-confessed and unapologetic terrorist, William Ayers, and he made several real estate deals with Tony Resko, who is under indictment and being tried for alleged shady dealings. Obama also has for one of his key campaign advisors--the one who headed his committee to search for a vice presidental running mate--Jim Johnson, who was the former CEO of Fannie Mae.
It may be negative to discuss these things, but they must be discussed.
It's only negative when you intentionally mislead people with that information. What you're trying to do is guilt my association. He worked for a very short time with Ayers, he wasn't in a basement somewhere working on bombs with him, he was working on a community outreach program. His real estate deals, all two of them, with Rezko, had to do with him buying his house, and then buying a small strip of land next to his house that was sold by Rezko's wife for a pretty big profit. In other words, neither of those dealings were particular "deals" for Obama, he paid at least, if not above, market value for them. That's been debunked at least twice on Factcheck.org, among other places. And Johnson's role in the Obama campaign, other than helping look for a VP, is sketchy at best. He himself said a few months ago that he offered some advice to Obama on financial matters, and that apparently makes him a "key campaign advisor." It doesn't matter if Obama took the advice, or how much of it was given, apparently.
So yes, these things will come up, and that's fine, but it's when they are misrepresented to try and portray a negative image that you cross the line between fair point of contention and outright negative slander.
As for Palin: She said in her interview with Hannity that SHE was the one who called for an investigation! Now that it's actually going forward, she doesn't want anything to do with it. And there are plenty of things to find fault with her for, other than her dismal lack of knowledge on major national issues challenging the country. Her whole earmark mantra is a good one for starters. Alaska has been a national leading porker under her leadership, and keeps selling that "thanks but no thanks" line about the bridge to nowhere even when it's been debunked as an untruth several times over. There HAS been a lot of crap thrown out there about her, but to bundle it up with the perfectly fair points and call it ALL baseless attacks is an attempt to whitewash perfectly legitimate beefs people have with her. I think you're better off addressing them than pretending she's a perfect angel.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Sen. McCain, on the other hand, has been in the public eye for decades, and it is hard to find anything negative to say about him that has not been said before, and fully dealt with in most people's minds.
Untrue. The previous John McCain, who voted for deregulation, who shunned religious Right leaders, who publicly despised political attack ads, who didn't want Roe v Wade overturned, who opposed Bush's tax cuts, who was against torture no matter who was doing it, who did not support ethanol, who opposed off-short drilling... that guy's been vetted pretty thoroughly. But this new guy we've been seeing the last few months? I don't know who he is at all. Which is too bad; I could have voted for the McCain from a few years ago. I respected him.
Edited to add: I have no problems with a politician who changes his/her stance based on new information or new understanding of the situation. I expect it. And in some of these examples, McCain has said just that. But I have big problems with a politician who tries to imply that the new position was really the one he/she held all along, despite evidence to the contrary, and the new McCain has been guilty of that.
[ September 19, 2008, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
He's McCain's reanimated corpse. Little did you know that Palin is a master of the dark arts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, now that Senator Obama's connection to Rezco has been explained, would you like the opportuity to address the Keating Five?
That, at least, has some bearing on how a candidate might think about financial crises.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Or his (and Bush's) position on urging people to channel some of their Social Security money into "personal accounts" to be invested on Wall Street with firms such as, say, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Apparently McCain's economic acumen is being slammed again, this time by those tree-hugging liberals at the Wall Street Journal.
quote:In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: All Democrats have is innuendo and suggestion of ulterior motives.
That's my favorite line. Thank God Rush and Hannity would never stoop so low.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We can't actually know the "facts of the case" as it is a fact the Gov. Palin is blocking the investigation. Which is enough of a fact to be damning.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The reason campaigns do not stay nice is because each candidate is compromised by various factors, and it is proper and necessary for these to be pointed out. Usually, one candidate's foibles are outweighed by the worse foibles of the other.
It would not be proper or responsible for Americans to decide on whether to make Sen. Obama the president, without knowing about and dealing with the fact that he was a member for 20 years of a church that has been teaching the Black Liberation Theology, he was associated in several significant ways with the self-confessed and unapologetic terrorist, William Ayers, and he made several real estate deals with Tony Resko, who is under indictment and being tried for alleged shady dealings. Obama also has for one of his key campaign advisors--the one who headed his committee to search for a vice presidental running mate--Jim Johnson, who was the former CEO of Fannie Mae.
It may be negative to discuss these things, but they must be discussed. This is part of the necessary "vetting" process. It has had to come in accelerated, condensed form, because Sen. Obama is so new to the scene.
Sen. McCain, on the other hand, has been in the public eye for decades, and it is hard to find anything negative to say about him that has not been said before, and fully dealt with in most people's minds.
Gov. Sarah Palin, of course, is new, even newer than Obama. But the army of snoops sent in by Democrats to try to dig up dirt on Palin, have not really found anything substantive, except to suggest there may have been something irregular in her forcing from office a police commissioner. The facts of the case do not prove she was guilty of any wrong-doing. All Democrats have is innuendo and suggestion of ulterior motives. The review probably will not go any further, now that it has been taken over by partisan Democrats, and most of the principals in the case have refused to respect the subpoenas. Now it will have to go the Alaska legislature to vote whether to enforce the subpoenas, and that is unlikely to happen ever, let alone before the election.
Aside from that, Democrats have dug a deep grave for themselves by their uncalled-for and grievously intemperate insults, which lead voters to react against the insulters. To Palin's credit, she has shown that she has a thick skin, and has not been whining about these way out-of-bounds attacks. This is the course of wisdom, because this has caused all those attacks to rebound back onto the heads of those who tried to insult her.
See? He keeps lowering the bar, now its "well the american people will obviously not vote for barack obama now!" Saying Aha! with all the zeal and misplaced ferocity of a paper tiger.
You KEEP DOING THIS saying "he won't get elected now!" as if it was only now that something was dug up on him besides the fact that you've been saying this "damning" discarded and debunked evidence in some recycled form or another again and again as if by some stretch of ones deluded imagination that it will some kind of impact on the natural and inevitable course of events.
First it was "he won't get picked in the primaries" then "the supers won't go fr him" then constantly in retreat but declaring victory is that the best you can do?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:John C. Green, a professor of political science and a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said scholars do not consider black liberation theology to be racist. But it can appear that way to outsiders.
“A black empowerment theology could be seen as having a racist element because it isn’t neutral in regards to race,” he said. . . Obama responded to criticism about the church’s tenets in a February 2007 interview with the Chicago Tribune.
“Commitment to God, black community, commitment to the black family, the black work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect,” Obama said. “Those are values that the conservative movement in particular has suggested are necessary for black advancement. So I would be puzzled that they would object or quibble with the bulk of a document that basically espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and self-help.”
quote:Deborah Harrington, president of the Woods Fund, a philanthropic organization in Chicago, said Obama was a director from 1994 through 2001. That overlaps Ayers’ time as a director by three years. It also means Obama served with Ayers for the final months of 2001, after Ayers made his comments to the New York Times.
Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (not English as Obama stated), is still on the seven-member Woods Fund board.
When you say "Sen. McCain, on the other hand, has been in the public eye for decades, and it is hard to find anything negative to say about him that has not been said before, and fully dealt with in most people's minds." it's not something you can prove. I have several following items that are similar to your concerns with Obama: Guilt by association. What if I contend that the concerns you have of Obama have been "fully dealt with in most people's minds"? Neither of us can prove either of those statements nor do I think any of these accusations are particularly important.
quote:Hagee's endorsement of McCain on Feb. 27, 2008, set off several rounds of controversy. The day after the endorsement, the Catholic League called Hagee an anti-Catholic bigot and lamented McCain's connection to him. The Catholic League monitors anti-Catholic bias and emphasizes Catholic teaching on abortion and other moral issues. It pointed to a video of Hagee in which Hagee discusses the Book of Revelation and the Catholic Church. Hagee clearly uses the words "Antichrist" and "false cult" as he discusses the Catholic Church, the Crusades and the Holocaust.
quote:Reed is the former executive director of the Christian Coalition and currently a principal of the political consulting company Century Strategies. He was credited as a key operative in George W. Bush's sharp-elbowed effort against McCain in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary in 2000. McCain, in turn, chaired the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in 2006 when it investigated and unveiled Reed's deep personal and business ties to Abramoff, a lobbyist who pleaded guilty to three felonies.
quote:The McCain campaign’s ties to current or former lobbyists has been well documented in recent weeks. Disclosures about some of those ties — including clients they have served — led to a handful of departures from the campaign. The highest profile casualty was former Rep. Thomas Loeffler, campaign co-chairman and national finance committee co-chairman. Loeffler is a lobbyist and founder of the Loeffler Group, a multimillion-dollar lobbying operation that, according to Houston Chronicle reports last year, has included clients such as AT&T, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Port of Houston, Southwest Airlines and Toyota Motor Co. The firm also has represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on trade issues. In response, the McCain campaign on May 15, 2008, instituted a “conflict policy” — the campaign will not keep any federal lobbyists on its payroll. Period. . . But the campaign is still thick with former lobbyists, some who left or took unpaid leave of absences from their lobbying firms just before joining the campaign.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
The number of posts is the year the first whale shark was caught.
Edit: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh I was off by ten years.
[ September 19, 2008, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: T:man ]
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
No it isn't.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Oops not found but caught. By Charles Thompson.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Orincoro, I did see the Palin-Gibson interview, and she was poised and confident, and was ready with answers instantly.
Fine. If that's what passes for good interview skills with you.
Personally I like politicians that at least appear to be using their brains.
There was a funny moment between Bill O'Reilly and David Letterman, when O'Reilly was attempting to bully Letterman into answering "yes or no" to the question: "do you want us to win in Iraq." To the prompt: "it's a simple question," Letterman responds: "No, it's not a simple question, because I am thoughtful."
Did it ever occur to anyone that Ron might be a campaign troll of some kind? Maybe self-appointed? I mean, I don't think a person speaking his conscience could be so steadfastly ignorant of reality.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My point was that 'trickle-down-economics' has become a code phrase for liberals the way 'liberal media' has for the GOP. Using the term is meant to invoke partisan feelings, not for the purpose of clarifying policy.
The term describes specific policies, and suggesting that it's become some kind of catch-all for any and all economic policies that a liberal or liberals might disapprove of is wrong. While the term might be seen as derrogatory, mis-using it trivializes the very real reasons that many liberals decry the policies it does describe.
And while there are perfectly valid reasons to dislike the bankruptcy legislation Biden has supported, most people wouldn't describe it as legislation rooted in "trickle-down economics": it isn't tax-related, and I doubt even its proponents are suggesting it benefits any bottom lines other than the credit companies'.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Oops not found but caught. By Charles Thompson.
No.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... even its proponents are suggesting it benefits any bottom lines other than the credit companies'.
Presumably, it would help stockholders and other investors. Indirectly, this would include a fair number of pension plans and so forth.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Both candidates answers to the Sciencedebate 2008 questions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm against abortion but okay with stem cell research, as long as the embryos aren't created for that purpose.
And Republicans will constantly harp on the notion that human lives are being destroyed for research, when thousands of embryos are being disposed of at fertility clinics when couples simply don't want them anymore. That practice is not going to go away, and it could provide all the embryos needed for research.
That's the part of the Republican rhetoric that really drives me insane. The fact is that a certain number of embryos are created by clinics, and not all of those are implanted. If excess embryos are used for research, rather than simply being disposed of, what good comes out of that? What moral right as been served by that? The idea that using excess embryos would present a "slippery slope," because the purpose for their creation could eventually be driven by the needs of research, seems to me to contradict the Republican logic on issues such as privacy, in which "slippery slopes" don't seem to exist.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I disagree. That totally absolves the American people ANY responsibility to civic duty.
Actually, your justification absolves Obama of any responsibility to be a leader because if people start to vote for McCain because of his negative campaign, then it's not Obama's fault, it is the people's for stupidly buying into McCain. It's like those sci-fi fans of Firefly or BattleStar Galactica who are convinced that the only reason more people didn't like the show was because they didn't understand it or get it. The people of this country have no obligation to believe in or support Obama nor do they have any obligation to buy into a type of campaign. The onus is and should always be on the politician to convince us that he or she would good for America and that we should vote for them.
And if Obama says he is going to bring about a new kind of politics and then fails to do so because the campaign got too hard, then lets hope he never has to deal with anything else that's difficult. Let's hope for instance that he never has to deal with a question of torture when things get difficult or McCain won't be the only one who has something in common with Bush.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
McCain's pro-Stem Cell ads don't sound much like his answer to the Science Debate that Strider linked to.
Ron, you have an interesting take on the election. I believe that you are repeating the dream-spin of the Republican party very well.
Your above argument seems to be, "Yes, mud slinging is bad, but it is necessary. Especially since we have all this juicy mud on Obama--list it all again to drive it into our heads."
However, any attack on Senator McCain's history (infidelity, adultery, etc) and we are reminded that he is a great patriot and to attack him is to be unpatriotic, while slinging any speck of mud at Governor Palin is just Sexist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:I disagree. That totally absolves the American people ANY responsibility to civic duty.
Actually, your justification absolves Obama of any responsibility to be a leader because if people start to vote for McCain because of his negative campaign, then it's not Obama's fault, it is the people's for stupidly buying into McCain. It's like those sci-fi fans of Firefly or BattleStar Galactica who are convinced that the only reason more people didn't like the show was because they didn't understand it or get it. The people of this country have no obligation to believe in or support Obama nor do they have any obligation to buy into a type of campaign. The onus is and should always be on the politician to convince us that he or she would good for America and that we should vote for them.
And if Obama says he is going to bring about a new kind of politics and then fails to do so because the campaign got too hard, then lets hope he never has to deal with anything else that's difficult. Let's hope for instance that he never has to deal with a question of torture when things get difficult or McCain won't be the only one who has something in common with Bush.
I fundamentally disagree. You have a top down approach, I have a bottom up approach. It's the people's job to look past whatever the candidates might be saying at any particular moment and get absolutely as much information as they possibly can to make the best, most informed decision. If all you are ever going to do is bury your head in the sand and listen to a few attack ads here and there before making your decision, then it isn't Obama's or McCain's fault that you made the decision you did, be it right or wrong. It's yours for not doing your job as a citizen.
It's Obama's job, I think, to tell us what he wants to do and why, to defend his previous actions, and to tell us why he thinks what McCain has done or wants to do is wrong. That's McCain's job too. It's OUR job to find the truth, and then make the best decision we can. That doesn't mean that everyone with a full grasp of the truth will choose Obama, that comes down to a difference of ideology. But the number of people I run into who say they aren't voting for Obama because of some made up piece of crap reason is truly staggering. It renders me momentarily speechless every time I hear it. Those kinds of things aren't Obama's fault, they are the fault of the people who believe them without even bothering to check them out, and the people who started those lies in the first place.
On the part I put in italics up there: You're right, they don't. They DO have an obligation to factchecking though. And for that matter, both campaigns have an obligation to telling the truth. Your position seems to be that if one side breaks that obligation and starts lying, that that's just too damned bad for the other side, just suck it up, and if you can't beat it, you deserve to lose. I rarely say this on Hatrack, but that's just stupid. I also think the onus is on the candidate to tell us why he or she is best for the job, but that's not nearly the whole story. You keep stopping when assigning duty right at the point where the citizen has to do any work at all.
People who act like you think they should are the reason why the Founders created the electoral college: It was because of their blinding fear of stupid people.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Your position seems to be that if one side breaks that obligation and starts lying, that that's just too damned bad for the other side, just suck it up, and if you can't beat it, you deserve to lose. I rarely say this on Hatrack, but that's just stupid. I also think the onus is on the candidate to tell us why he or she is best for the job, but that's not nearly the whole story. You keep stopping when assigning duty right at the point where the citizen has to do any work at all.
No, my position is that I don't care if McCain went negative first, if he wants to start lying then that's his problem, but Obama has promised a new kind of campaign and politics. That position isn't justifiably thrown out the window because the campaign got hard and McCain started to outright lie, in fact, that's when real leaders and people of vision stand up and find a way to rise above the fray, win over the people, and maintain that which they hold dear.
The reason I compared it to torture was for one reason, we no longer are a country that can say we do not torture innocent people because though we didn't when times were easy, when times got tough we tortured people. It's is freakin easy to say that we don't torture people when it won't prevent a terrorist attack, but it is another thing all together to say that we don't torture even when it would greatly benefit our nation.
You don't get to be the candidate of change and hope, and then, when things get tough and close, throw those things out. That's not the way it works because in my experience we aren't defined by how we act when things are perfect, we are defined by how we act when they are at their worst. A true leader is one who can win over people without doing the very thing he or she is fighting against.
quote:I also think the onus is on the candidate to tell us why he or she is best for the job, but that's not nearly the whole story. You keep stopping when assigning duty right at the point where the citizen has to do any work at all.
I said that the people of this country have no obligation to believe in or support Obama and that the onus is always on the leader to prove that he is good for America. What about that is stupid?
More to the point of course, the reason I brought up Firefly and BG is because part of the problem in holding the American people accountable as you do is that you must assume that you are right, and that if given the facts, people will vote for Obama. The same goes for BG and Firefly, the arguments for those shows always revolve around the notion of responsibility or intelligence in television, and then, they go one step further in claiming that if people understood the dynamics of the show, they would enjoy it. The same principle applies for how you look at the American people because, though I never said that the American people are devoid of responsibility, you will claim that part of that responsibility goes to understanding the lies and treachery of John McCain with the underlying assumption that if they don't come around then they aren't doing their jobs. And that my friend is where we fundamentally differ because I don't just talk a good game, I walk it. I believe the American people aren't stupid and if they fail to come around to Obama, then Obama is the one who did something wrong.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The longer this campaign goes on the more I am utterly convinced in the nessesity of the Electorial College as well and I was against it at first to boot since it eliminates the value of the individual vote.
At least we have easially hackable voting machines, any any smart kid who likes Linux can hack those things the world will be a better place, who better to trust your future to then the best and the brightest? Oh wait, thats right apparantly the best are "elitist" and that we should be run by pig farmers who "understand" the common people's woes.
There's a reason why Lenin evolved Marxist theory to include the party as the fundamental vangaurd of the revolution, the people as energetic and well intentioned they may be are generally too uneducated and disorganized to do any good past a few violent outbursts here and there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:A true leader is one who can win over people without doing the very thing he or she is fighting against.
Really? Funny, because McCain is doing exactly that. He's doing the same things he railed against Bush for doing eight years ago. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, he's changed, seemingly, almost his entire ideology on a huge swath of issues, and his tactics have gone from honorable maverick to despicable party insider. And his punishment? A massive bump in the polls.
You're dealing in theoretical abstractions. I'm referring to a real live example right before our eyes.
quote:I said that the people of this country have no obligation to believe in or support Obama and that the onus is always on the leader to prove that he is good for America. What about that is stupid?
In theory, I agree with you. In practice I think that's naive. The first part I absolutely agree with, regardless. The second part is only PART of the relationship between the citizenry and their candidates for high elected office. If you don't ask anything of the people, then you place the almost the entire election into the hands of the two people running for office, and trust in their ability to be honorable and fair. The problem with that is, when one side chooses to break that trust, the other guy can lose pretty easily while sticking to it. And in your theory, that means he "shouldn't be president." I don't agree.
quote:More to the point of course, the reason I brought up Firefly and BG is because part of the problem in holding the American people accountable as you do is that you must assume that you are right, and that if given the facts, people will vote for Obama. The same goes for BG and Firefly, the arguments for those shows always revolve around the notion of responsibility or intelligence in television, and then, they go one step further in claiming that if people understood the dynamics of the show, they would enjoy it. The same principle applies for how you look at the American people because, though I never said that the American people are devoid of responsibility, you will claim that part of that responsibility goes to understanding the lies and treachery of John McCain with the underlying assumption that if they don't come around then they aren't doing their jobs.
I'll refer you to my last post. You seem to have skipped right over the part where I said that isn't what I think. In fact I specifically refuted that.
If you think the people have a responsibility, I'm curious to see what you think it is. Thus far you've placed all the responsibility on the candidates and none on the people voting for them.
quote:And that my friend is where we fundamentally differ because I don't just talk a good game, I walk it. I believe the American people aren't stupid and if they fail to come around to Obama, then Obama is the one who did something wrong.
I think a great deal of the American people are either lazy or lacking in judgment. A lot of them just have a different ideology than me, and know perfectly well all the facts but come to a different conclusion than I do, that's fine, I think they're wrong, but that's fine. Those aren't the ones I take issue with. It's the ones who say they won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim, and the dozens of other lies and misrepresentations that are out there. I don't think it's all one way or the other. Obama hasn't done everything right. And I'm sure there are more things in the future that I won't be pleased with that he'll do. Is he doing the absolute best job he could? Maybe not. But if he loses, I don't think that will be the reason why.
My real problem with the way you see things? It's a system that rewards bad behavior. It's a way of thinking that actually works best when the American people pay the least amount of attention. It's the type of thinking that leads a nation in decline, decades after the fall began to say "our leaders led us astray!" to which I would respond "then you should have demanded better leaders."
PS. I have no idea what the "I don't just talk a good game, I walk it line," has to do with anything, who you are referencing, or what "game" you're talkig about. I take it to be a vague swipe at me, but you'll have to elaborate if you want me to get it.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I'm going to have to side with Lyrhawn in this little mini-debate, mostly because I just have a fairly pessimistic view of the electorate and politics in general. I do think there are a lot of stupid or lazy people in this country, and while I've always been intrigued by Obama's "new politics", a part of me knew it this country is not ready for it. I'm honestly surprised he's come as far as he has without throwing dirt in someone's face.
He's not the perfect candidate, and I know there are a couple things about him I don't like, but at the end of the day, I'm not really concerned with "sending a message." That goes for both Obama maintaining pleasantries in a dog-eat-dog world, as well as myself writing in a vote or staying home altogether.
Every day I look around me at America and come to the conclusion that we can't afford to lose, but send a message, because barely anyone is going to hear that message, and personally I'd rather do what I can to improve this country now, even if it means not having what I really want right away. Now if some people honestly think both candidates are exactly as bad as each other, that's fine. I won't argue with you if you come to the conclusion that your vote isn't helping then. As for me, I've got a feeling Obama will make some improvements, so I'm doing what it takes to get him in office: voting for him.
I hope he does what it takes to get in office, with a minimum of fighting dirty. If that proves impossible, I'll forgive him. I'd rather win the political battle than the ideological one, and I have nothing against anyone who disagrees with that stance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I hate to doubt Ron's seven thousandth consecutive revelation that the liberals have surprisingly yet again lost the election for sure this time but
quote:Today's Polls, 9/19
Let's not equivocate too much here. Over the course of the past several days, there has been a rather dramatic shift in this election toward Barack Obama. Our trendline estimate, which is engineered to be fairly conservative, registers the swing as equaling roughly 4 points over the course of the past week.
Changes of this velocity are unusual outside of the convention periods and the debates, especially in close elections. It took John McCain about 60 days and tens of millions of advertising dollars to whittle Obama's lead down from roughly 5 points at its peak in early June, to the 1-point lead that Obama held heading into the conventions. Obama has swing the numbers that much in barely a week.
Of course, we never really were entirely outside of gravitational field of the conventions, and probably at least half of this bounceback for Obama is merely the more-or-less inevitable consequence of McCain's convention bounce ending. But the fact is that Obama is in a stronger position now than he was immediately before the conventions. We now have him winning the election 71.5 percent of the time, which is about as high as that number has been all year.
from 528
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Five Thirty Eight is what Sam's citing. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ironically, it looks like my citation is +/- 10 points. We'll call it margin of error.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Really? Funny, because McCain is doing exactly that. He's doing the same things he railed against Bush for doing eight years ago. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, he's changed, seemingly, almost his entire ideology on a huge swath of issues, and his tactics have gone from honorable maverick to despicable party insider. And his punishment? A massive bump in the polls.
He certainly is doing the same thing. Doesn't make what Obama is doing right though. In fact, when the other side does something wrong, the good leader or good side is the one that stays true to it's principles and does the right thing in the face of enormous pressure. And that's my point because at this point how the hell are we supposed to tell the good from the bad? In 2004, I voted for the lesser of two evils, but in this election I had hoped that I wouldn't have to do that. That's why I worked on Sen. Obama's campaign, I thought that maybe this would be different, that maybe when it came down to it, I would be able to tell the difference between the good side and bad side. I can't do that anymore because Obama has decided to rid himself of the ideals that I thought made him different than the rest.
And the thing is, I am really tired of voting for the lesser of who gives a crap. I really am.
quote:In theory, I agree with you. In practice I think that's naive. The first part I absolutely agree with, regardless. The second part is only PART of the relationship between the citizenry and their candidates for high elected office. If you don't ask anything of the people, then you place the almost the entire election into the hands of the two people running for office, and trust in their ability to be honorable and fair. The problem with that is, when one side chooses to break that trust, the other guy can lose pretty easily while sticking to it. And in your theory, that means he "shouldn't be president." I don't agree.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to put too much pressure or hold to too high a standard the person who is going to be President of the United States. If I did we might actually get a decent one and what silly person would want that...
If you are going to trust in the American people, if you are going to be idealistic and hope for the best of humanity, then you can't abandon that ideal when things get tough. What you have to do is trust that that guy who breaks the trust, who runs the dishonorable campaign, will be defeated by the better nature of the American people and by their own sense of responsibility to duty. If you are really going to be idealistic, then trust that the American people *will* do their duty without resorting to the tactics of the other side.
When that's a major part of your platform, and you seemingly throw that away, then no you shouldn't be President because you lied to me when you said you trusted in the American people.
quote:Those aren't the ones I take issue with. It's the ones who say they won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim, and the dozens of other lies and misrepresentations that are out there. I don't think it's all one way or the other.
Sounds like a good reason to go negative--because the other side is calling you names.
quote:My real problem with the way you see things? It's a system that rewards bad behavior. It's a way of thinking that actually works best when the American people pay the least amount of attention. It's the type of thinking that leads a nation in decline, decades after the fall began to say "our leaders led us astray!" to which I would respond "then you should have demanded better leaders."
Actually, my approach demands better leaders because I hold them accountable. The real difference between us is not about politics, it's what we hold most dear. While you want to win, I want win by doing it right. I want my leaders to be held to an extremely high standard, and if they don't meet that standard, I want that to be known. You claim that McCain went negative, got a bump in the polls, and thus, Obama is justified in going negative and abandoning part of his message because the American people are stupid. I believe that McCain went negative and got a bump in the polls, but that the answer to that is never to give up on those principles that make us the good side.
We *are* a nation on the decline, and though you claim you would tell me that we could have demanded better leaders, you certainly aren't doing that in Obama's case. Your way of thinking indicts the American people for being stupid when they disagree with you and allows our leaders to be hypocrites, liars, and completely incompetent if it means winning. I remember too when you damned Hillary Clinton for that ideal, but more than that, how am I supposed to tell the difference between McCain and Obama when they look so much alike these days?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:What you have to do is trust that that guy who breaks the trust, who runs the dishonorable campaign, will be defeated by the better nature of the American people and by their own sense of responsibility to duty. If you are really going to be idealistic, then trust that the American people *will* do their duty without resorting to the tactics of the other side.
Ah, see that's where I think we really lose cohesion. In at least the last 30 or 40 years of presidential politics, and frankly, a good long time before it, the American people have shown that they will react positively towards dishonest tactics. I should say, they say they hate it, but when it happens, they don't punish the guy who does it. We saw it when Kerry tanked after the Swiftboaters got ahold of him, we're seeing it now, and I could give you a dozen more examples that range from the year 2000 to the year 1800 (yep that's right, I'm pulling Jefferson out on you).
The American people have shown a two century long record of NOT living up to the trust you say we should have in them. When they start demanding better behavior and stop rewarding it, in other words, when they start acting like you think they should and like I think they should, then I'll give them more of my trust. Something like that that has been lost must be earned back, and I'm not willing to sacrifice this election to test a trust that the people of this country broke 200 years ago. It's too important. I'm idealistic, probably a good bit more than I should be, but I'm also realistic too. I find a balance between them.
quote:Sounds like a good reason to go negative--because the other side is calling you names.
Name calling can lose an election. Trivializing it like that is your attempt to make Obama look silly, but to me it makes you look like you don't understand presidential election politics and the effects simple words have on people.
quote:Actually, my approach demands better leaders because I hold them accountable. The real difference between us is not about politics, it's what we hold most dear. While you want to win, I want win by doing it right. I want my leaders to be held to an extremely high standard, and if they don't meet that standard, I want that to be known. You claim that McCain went negative, got a bump in the polls, and thus, Obama is justified in going negative and abandoning part of his message because the American people are stupid. I believe that McCain went negative and got a bump in the polls, but that the answer to that is never to give up on those principles that make us the good side.
I disagree. I think your system weeds out the principled and allows the lowest common denominator to sweep into power using the most baseless, sleezy tactics they can come up with. McCain is bringing a gun to a knife fight, and you're solution is to have Obama let himself get shot at 20 paces using the naive notion that the people will step in to take the bullet. I love the idea, really I do, and like I said, I support it in theory, but it just doesn't work.
Yours is a system that probably everyone will agree with, on paper. When you put it to practice, there's no accountability, because the only ones who can hold him accountable are the American people, the same people who gave McCain that big bump in the polls. If that trust you think the people deserve was really there, he never would have gotten the bump to begin with.
You're right, there is a difference between us when it comes to principles, but I guess I'm different than a lot of Obama supporters to begin with. I was never involved with the cult of personality that follows his wake, and I was never enamored with the idea of him being some icon of change that would wash over politics and create a new way of doing things, so to me, this has far less to do with him betraying stated princples over how he runs his campaign. I still like a clean campaign, and I think he's doing far better than most in his shoes would, than others in the past have, and whole orders of magnitude better than McCain, but that's not my chief concern. My highest concern is for the future of this country, and I think one of the candidates will set us back, and one will move us forward. If the better candidate has to compromise some of his stated preferences for how he would have liked to run the campaign because doing it his preferred way will lose him the election to someone with no problem throwing mud, then that's fine with me, to a point. If he sunk to McCain's level, or to the level that Clinton did in the primaries, he'd still get my vote, but not my full throated support, defence, money or any other sort of allegiance.
quote:We *are* a nation on the decline, and though you claim you would tell me that we could have demanded better leaders, you certainly aren't doing that in Obama's case.
Sure I am, but you're stating an opinion, not fact. I think Obama would be a demonstrably better leader than McCain, so he's my choice. If you go back to the primary, I was leaning towards Obama, but was totally okay with almost all the rest of the field winning the nomination. When it came down to Obama and Clinton I initially felt that no matter who got the nod, the Dems were in great shape this year. But as Clinton fell further and further behind, she lashed out with unfounded, McCain-like attacks against Obama. My support for her evaporated into nothingness, but what happened? She climbed against him in the polls and eked out some end of the race victories in some big states. Yet another example of your theory not working in practice. You could argue that Obama won because Clinton didn't go negative soon enough. If she had, she might have won.
quote:Your way of thinking indicts the American people for being stupid when they disagree with you and allows our leaders to be hypocrites, liars, and completely incompetent if it means winning.
If you want to keep putting words in my mouth you are free to do so. I trust the average reader of Hatrack is more ably equipped than the general population to discern truth from lies. I've said it twice now, but let's hopefully make this the last time: I don't think the American people as a whole are stupid. I think most of them are perfectly able to understand what's going on, but that the majority of them don't take the time to understand. Hell, barely a majority take the time to even vote, let alone understand. This particular argument has nothing to do with whether or not they agree with my own personal ideology. Seemingly few people do. I would ask you to please stop attributing that position to me.
quote:I remember too when you damned Hillary Clinton for that ideal, but more than that, how am I supposed to tell the difference between McCain and Obama when they look so much alike these days?
I damned Clinton for much the same reason I'm damning John McCain. Tactics. Her underhanded low blows were off base and unfair. If you can't win on the issues, you shouldn't win at all. And looking at the issues, if you can't tell the difference between McCain and Obama, then I don't think YOU are paying much attention either.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
How do Americans react to sneaky underhanded crap like this?
A new mailing from the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign to Florida voters has Democrats saying they're the victim of dirty tricks. They say that at the very least, the mailing is meant to confuse voters in this battleground state. Republicans say Democrats are making much ado abut nothing.
Lifelong Democrat Marilyn DiMauro of Naples was surprised to get a letter recently from Republican presidential contender John McCain.
"I thought, well that's strange, because I'm a Democrat. And when I opened the envelope, there was a card that said I was listed as a Republican with my registration number. So I immediately got my Democratic card, and the registration number was not the same," she says.
She thought the mailing — labeled "Party Affiliation Voter Registration Card" — was a little fishy — especially when she found out two of her friends who are Democrats had received the same thing but a Republican friend had not.
The article goes on to explain that the card comes with a letter, signed by John McCain, stressing repeatedly that the card needs to be filled out and sent in. The Republican campaign says it is intended to ease confusion, but judging by the worried calls coming in it seems intended to cause it. No sign yet that a Republican got one of these, and any process that can extract all that personal information and somehow miss, consistently, the party affiliation seems awfully suspicious.
I may have gotten one of these, I dunno, I reflexively pitch any and all political mail I get, regardless of the source. But this is the sort of thing that makes me hate politicians, or at least their campaign people.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
shouldn't that be considered fraud?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From that same article
quote:Democrats this week filed a lawsuit to stop Michigan Republicans from challenging voters at the polls using home foreclosure lists
Some people at work were talking about this a couple days ago. I hadn't heard anything about it, by which I mean I haven't heard anything that substantiates it as a proposed Republican tactic. But the buzz is certainly circulating about it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:State election rules allow parties to assign “election challengers” to polls to monitor the election. In addition to observing the poll workers, these volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they “have a good reason to believe” that the person is not eligible to vote. One allowable reason is that the person is not a “true resident of the city or township.”
The Michigan Republicans’ planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being “true residents.”
One expert questioned the legality of the tactic.
“You can’t challenge people without a factual basis for doing so,” said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. “I don’t think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.”
As for the practice of challenging the right to vote of foreclosed property owners, Hebert called it, “mean-spirited.”
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:shouldn't that be considered fraud?
I doubt it can be proven fraud; the people behind it can claim (as they have) that they sent this out to Republican voters and some must have gotten sent to Dems by mistake. You would have to prove intent, and that's tricky to do.
I definitely think it should be considered fraud, considered so by all voters who should take this sort of thing into account when deciding what party deserves their vote.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Shouldn't a real leader be able to find a way to stay above the fray *and* win the election?
No.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Something like that that has been lost must be earned back, and I'm not willing to sacrifice this election to test a trust that the people of this country broke 200 years ago. It's too important. I'm idealistic, probably a good bit more than I should be, but I'm also realistic too. I find a balance between them
Now that I totally agree with. Trust is something earned, not given, and when it is broken it must be earned back. But here is the thing, you blame the people for not forcing more of their leaders, but I blame the leaders for not stepping up. As I said before, the onus is on our leaders to get us to vote for them, and though I have never said that the people are devoid of responsibility (go back and read--I never have), what I have been arguing for is truly a balanced look at what Obama has done. My balance however is not between idealism and realism (my idealism *is* realism--but that's another debate), it is between democrat and republican, liberal and conservative.
Obama is the candidate of change, his entire platform during the primary was about how he would bring a new kind of politics to the fore-front, it was about how hope could change and shape this nation, and in fact, that is the reason he beat Hillary Clinton, an opponent with almost identical views. During the primary, that sales pitch worked and now he is gets to justifiably throw that out the window because the election just got more difficult and because winning above all is what matters? Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy no matter what it says on your voter registration card.
quote:Name calling can lose an election. Trivializing it like that is your attempt to make Obama look silly, but to me it makes you look like you don't understand presidential election politics and the effects simple words have on people.
Actually, it was my attempt to trivialize what both sides have been doing the few weeks because this cannot possibly be what the election is about. What I think makes us all look silly is when we take the American people for granted, when we think they are stupid and cannot possibly understand the, well, nuances of, I kid you not, name-calling. Words have meaning, no doubt, but if we don't speak down to people, if we change the way we argue, if we can show that we don't think they people are stupid, then no amount of history can keep us from both changing our fundamental beliefs about humanity and humanities actions themselves. You talk about the history of stupidity on the part of the electorate, but could it be the case that maybe, just maybe, if we just gave them an honest and fair chance, they might just surprise us?
I have said it before and I'll say it again, give people the knowledge and power to do the right thing, and they will surprise you by doing it. Maybe the problem isn't that the people suck, maybe the problem then is that we just haven't given them right opportunity...
quote:McCain is bringing a gun to a knife fight, and you're solution is to have Obama let himself get shot at 20 paces using the naive notion that the people will step in to take the bullet. I love the idea, really I do, and like I said, I support it in theory, but it just doesn't work.
No, my solution calls for Obama to counter McCain's gun with a better gun, just not the same one. My scenario calls for Obama to actually do something like being a leader or teacher and it calls for him to find a better way, not the easy way.
quote:I don't think the American people as a whole are stupid. I think most of them are perfectly able to understand what's going on, but that the majority of them don't take the time to understand. Hell, barely a majority take the time to even vote, let alone understand.
I just have a couple of questions, now I know you support Obama (as do I) so why is this such a bad thing with regard to Obama? As you said, I believe it's because of all the people who are voting against Obama because he is a Muslim or because of some other stupid reason, is that right? You believe that is the civic duty of all Americans to vote and to make the most informed decision that they can, and it is because of the people that do not do this, that Obama should do all he can to counter the negative campaign of John McCain, and thus, his campaign is justified. One last question, do you believe that if the people of this country were informed as you are, that if they did their civic duty as you want them too, that Obama would have much more of a lead in the polls?
Here is a better one, do you think Kerry wins in 2004 if the people of this country do their civic duty?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The longer this campaign goes on the more I am utterly convinced in the nessesity of the Electorial College as well and I was against it at first to boot since it eliminates the value of the individual vote.
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the accountability of a presidential campaign to individual votes would invite the tyrany of the majority. As much as we might not like it in some cases, Americans depend on the rights of their states to protect them from the majority.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Electoral College does nothing to protect the minority. Only twice in history have popular vote and EC vote not been the same. Both of them were razor thin margins. But the Electoral college provides no protections in Congress or the Supreme Court. The protections we rely on from the states have more to do with states' rights versus federal power than the EC, which has nothing to do with states' rights it's merely an apportionment method. Well okay, I shouldn't say it does nothing to protect the minority, now that we have states with ultralow populations like Wyoming and Alaska in comparison to other states, their votes are worth more per person. But no state enjoyed such an advantage when the system was set up. They didn't even have Congressional membership caps until long, long after the Constitution was ratified.
quote:You talk about the history of stupidity on the part of the electorate, but could it be the case that maybe, just maybe, if we just gave them an honest and fair chance, they might just surprise us?
If all of a sudden candidates ran campaigns with halos over their heads and we never had to worry about another lie again? Certainly. But despite the fact that candidates aren't angels, the truth is still out there to be found if someone looks hard enough. Maybe you'll settle for meeting me half way. Do I think the FIRST responsibility should be on the candidates to hold themselves to the highest possible standard of civil public discourse and discussion? Yes, sure I do. But, when they choose not to engage in a positive campaign, then it falls to the people to both hold their feet to the fire and to expose their falehoods. I know you haven't said that they have no duty, but you haven't said that they should do anything. Given your lack of specifics, I'm left to assume that your glaring absence of information in fact means you support nothing at all in that sense.
I guess my problem is the fact that like I've said before, your view gives candidates no reason to change because it only rewards good behavior in theory, not practice, or if it does, only very, very rarely. Candidates, unless someone exceptional comes along, aren't going to change unless we force them to, and just waiting around for that guy to appear is a great way to assure that nothing ever changes. If you want change, make it happen, don't wait for someone to hand it to you.
quote:Maybe the problem isn't that the people suck, maybe the problem then is that we just haven't given them right opportunity...
Why can't it be both?
quote:No, my solution calls for Obama to counter McCain's gun with a better gun, just not the same one. My scenario calls for Obama to actually do something like being a leader or teacher and it calls for him to find a better way, not the easy way.
I actually think he has been, until maybe very, very recently. But it's tough to compare different elections. Compared to McCain though, I think he's doing stellar work.
quote:One last question, do you believe that if the people of this country were informed as you are, that if they did their civic duty as you want them too, that Obama would have much more of a lead in the polls?
Hard to say. I think if literally every American were to do that, there'd be a seachange in American politics, and I have no idea how it would swing. I think there a lot of people that pay absolutely not attention at all and just say to hell with all of them without bothering to get into the details, and I have no idea where those people would place their vote if they got involved. No one does.
quote:Here is a better one, do you think Kerry wins in 2004 if the people of this country do their civic duty?
I'd have to recheck some polling data to get an idea. We're four years after the fact, and I don't remember the details all that well, so I can't answer that either.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote: "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.
"Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.
I hope reports like this quell the smugness I see in many conservatives who tout how successful the troop surge was.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Both of them were razor thin margins."
IIRC, Gore won the popular vote by about 3 million in November 2000. That's not razor thin.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
According to the FEC website, Gore won by 543,895 votes. In an election where 104.5 million votes were cast, I'd call that razor thin.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Guys seriously the electoral college is terrible.
It's like if we used to do elections entirely by vote count and then some guys sitting around said one day "hey, what's the best way to increase voter apathy in America and make the system more vulnerable to local fraud?"
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: One last question, do you believe that if the people of this country were informed as you are, that if they did their civic duty as you want them too, that Obama would have much more of a lead in the polls?
I know your debate is focused more on Lyrhawn, but I thought this was a compelling question and I thought I'd give my take on it. I honestly don't know who would be leading if this were the case. I feel as though if Americans would 'do their homework' and figure out the truth from the beginning, I think we would be in an entirely different campaign. I think McCain wouldn't have had to fold in to the Republican right, I think instead he would still be that valiant crusader for humane illegal immigration reform, ending torture in any form, and keeping a legitimate maverick image.
The problem is that in order to win in the primaries, he had to become the red-meat eating cookie-cutter Republican. He had to 'walk the walk and talk the talk' to get the votes he needed. If he didn't have to do this, I think that Obama would have more easily been able to maintain his rhetoric of a new form of politics.
But to answer your question in regard to how both campaigns have been playing out, I think that Obama would have a larger lead because while both camps are guilty of some malicious negativity, I think John McCain's campaign has brought in far more, and if Americans were to 'do their homework' they would feel more betrayed and lied to by John McCain than Barack Obama.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Do I think the FIRST responsibility should be on the candidates to hold themselves to the highest possible standard of civil public discourse and discussion? Yes, sure I do. But, when they choose not to engage in a positive campaign, then it falls to the people to both hold their feet to the fire and to expose their falsehoods.
Fair enough. Inherently, what I did was hold Obama's feet to the fire, which is why I never argued about the nature of a citizen's duty. I was doing mine...
quote:I guess my problem is the fact that like I've said before, your view gives candidates no reason to change because it only rewards good behavior in theory, not practice, or if it does, only very, very rarely. Candidates, unless someone exceptional comes along, aren't going to change unless we force them to, and just waiting around for that guy to appear is a great way to assure that nothing ever changes. If you want change, make it happen, don't wait for someone to hand it to you.
Well, I am going to try and avoid the ethical argument over motivation because that could take a few weeks, but I will say that what we argue here and now simply shows that we differ by degree. My view gives candidates reason to change rarely by your view but much more by mine, my view rarely sees exceptional people become leaders by yours but much more by mine, and all of it is simply a matter of the degree of idealism we employ. That's what I meant by talking the talk and walking the walk, I am much more idealistic than you, probably to a fault sometimes, but when I see Obama doing the things I never thought he would, he disappoints me and I have to call him on it.
quote:Compared to McCain though, I think he's doing stellar work.
LOL uh huh and compared to Battlefield Earth, Showgirls was an awesome movie.
Cheers mate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:my view rarely sees exceptional people become leaders
And who WOULD become leaders in your view? Because the exceptional people won't make it through the primary.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:One last question, do you believe that if the people of this country were informed as you are, that if they did their civic duty as you want them too, that Obama would have much more of a lead in the polls?
No, but I think that Kerry would have won in '04. If McCain wins, while not optimal, I'm not going to say it's because Americans were irresponsible. But the people who elected Bush in '04 should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:And who WOULD become leaders in your view? Because the exceptional people won't make it through the primary.
Exceptional people would be people who *could* make it through the primary while maintaining what makes them exceptional, by changing the way in which we look at politics and campaigning and by teaching the American people how to embrace their better selves, for instance.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be difficult, but I am saying it *can* be done.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Let me know when it does. If I'm still alive to see it.
..................
In other news, did anyone catch the SNL opener last night? They took another swipe at the election.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Electoral College does nothing to protect the minority. Only twice in history have popular vote and EC vote not been the same. Both of them were razor thin margins. But the Electoral college provides no protections in Congress or the Supreme Court. The protections we rely on from the states have more to do with states' rights versus federal power than the EC, which has nothing to do with states' rights it's merely an apportionment method.
Legally no, you're right. But in philosophical terms, which was what I meant to highlight, the EC differentiates us from a popular democracy. When former U.N. delegate Michael Bolton said, "President Bush has a responsibility to the people who voted for him," that is wrong because the people did not for him at all. At the very least, it shields us as individuals from the even nastier partisan politics that would exist if each vote "actually counted." Think about it, if all it took was the majority, rather than a majority of the electoral college, the political process would be even worse than it is now. If all it took was appealing to the largest group in America, the largest age group, or the largest religious group, or whatever, instead of a majority of each state, the campaigns would divide us into national groups, and regional concerns would be ignored. We in California already know what that feels like- but see what would happen to your town hall meetings in new hampshire if the EC didn't matter. (You're a Californian right?)
Simply pointing out that the EC and the majority have never been that far out of alignment is meaningless. They have at times been in conflict, and that fact would undoubtedly change the process. Also, you're arguing for its lack of effect without having weighed its influence, even in the last 8 years. Bush would never have been president without it. There are huge implications for that fact. Now, I realize I'm arguing *for* the electoral college, and then saying it got Bush elected, which I am not for. But I was not one of the belly-achers in 2000 when he was elected against the majority opinion. Just as I have no patience for people who complain that a judge who exercises his right to strike down an unconstitutional law is "legislating from the bench." It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the very system that is in place to protect the majority from itself.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Compared to McCain though, I think he's doing stellar work.
LOL uh huh and compared to Battlefield Earth, Showgirls was an awesome movie.
Cheers mate.
Dude, you get to see Demi Moore. Naked...
Cheers.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Striptease?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Orincoro -
You have a lot of points in there. I hope you don't mind if I address them individually.
quote:If all it took was appealing to the largest group in America, the largest age group, or the largest religious group, or whatever, instead of a majority of each state, the campaigns would divide us into national groups, and regional concerns would be ignored. We in California already know what that feels like- but see what would happen to your town hall meetings in new hampshire if the EC didn't matter. (You're a Californian right?)
I'm a Michigander, and judging from the campaign promises and the dollars being spent, my vote is probably worth more than any other state citizen's vote except for Florida and Ohio. This is really my year in many ways. Michigan is teetering on a razor thin margin towards Obama and could go either way. Both campaigns are lavishing millions of dollars and dozens of trips to southeast Michigan (and a little bit to G-Rap, sorry UP, no dice!). We're being catered to, given promises to help fix the auto industry, or to bring thouands of new renewable energy jobs here, and that trade deals will be fixed so auto workers can get the upper hand. Some of those are generic promises that work across the Rust Belt, but they keep making these major announcements and speeches in Michigan too.
What's the only reason we're getting that kind of attention, while states like Mississippi, Kentucky, Vermont, Wyoming etc are virtually ignored? The Electoral College. Why? Because your states have already been written off. My state is in play, and we're either more winnable or bigger than you, so we get all the attention and the money.
To further address what you said about demographic groups: Hello! That already happens! Dems can't win without women, Republicans can't win without men. African-Americans vote Democrat, Whites vote more Republican, Hispanics vary by region but have been trending Democrat lately. The young tend to vote Democrat when they vote at all, and the aged tend to lean Republican. But then you have cross demographics like elderly black women versus young white men who might form an unlikely coalition of voters. There are two main reasons to rebut your concern: 1. It's already the status quo, not some looming threat on the horizon. Demographic battles are the reason we have the thousands upon thousands of polls that come out all the time to let us know what the average 45 year old black woman living in Alabama with a high school level education thinks about illegal immigration. We've all already been sorted and processed, that wouldn't change with a popular vote. 2. No one is EVER going to win just by getting a single demographic. We're not Great Britain, but candidates still have to win by forming coalitions of different demographics, and different candidates will always appeal to different people, even if they are in the same party (see Obama and Clinton primary race). American politics is far, far too complex for that type of tactic to work. Besides, party politics would likely quash any such effort.
quote:Simply pointing out that the EC and the majority have never been that far out of alignment is meaningless. They have at times been in conflict, and that fact would undoubtedly change the process. Also, you're arguing for its lack of effect without having weighed its influence, even in the last 8 years. Bush would never have been president without it. There are huge implications for that fact. Now, I realize I'm arguing *for* the electoral college, and then saying it got Bush elected, which I am not for. But I was not one of the belly-achers in 2000 when he was elected against the majority opinion.
I wasn't really arguing for its lack of effect. I was saying that there wasn't some massive trampling of the minority at the hands of the majority. I was by far NOT saying that it has done nothing, and you just made the argument I would've made to support just that. Bush never should have been president, and we'd be a different country, and maybe a different world had he not been. Better? Worse? I don't know, but certainly not the same. The will of the people was overturned on a technicality.
quote:But I was not one of the belly-achers in 2000 when he was elected against the majority opinion. Just as I have no patience for people who complain that a judge who exercises his right to strike down an unconstitutional law is "legislating from the bench."
I WAS one of those people. I don't think your comparison is equal. Changing the constitution doesn't just take a clear majority, it involved special rules and clearly set supermajorities for just this reason, so 50.1% of the population can't run amok. There has to be a clear consensus so a supermajority come to agreement, and any lesser laws that they smaller majority try and pass can be struck down to protect the minority. Majority rule with respect for minority rights. But a presidential election is just a clear majority. All you need is one more vote than the other guy. The EC is not providing the same sort of protection that the constitution does in the case of legal matters.
quote:It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the very system that is in place to protect the majority from itself.
Is that so? Tell me, what's the name of the elector you voted for in 2004? The name of the man or woman you're thinking about picking this year?
The main thrust of the EC when it was first created was two fold - 1. The nation was far too large and far too spread out to hold a nationwide election. It simply would have been too large an undertaking for a nation of three or four million people (though I suppose the eligibility to vote at that time was probably more like a million, if that) spread out amongst thousands of miles to hold a giant national vote. So instead they decided to choose local electors who would decide how the state would cast their electoral votes, by proxy. 2. The government deeply feared the people. To be blunt, they thought the people as a whole to be too uneducated to grasp the issues at hand, and they were expected to vote for someone who had better judgment and a better grasp of the issues than them.
Now, I think you can agree with me that logistics isn't a problem anymore. And though personally I feel that people can be too lazy in deciding who to vote for, all the information is at their fingertips if they should choose to find it, unlike 200 years ago. But even more important than that is just looking at the status quo. While as a point of process we might vote for local electors who meet at a higher level to pass on their vote to the EC, the name on the ballot is Obama, or McCain, not Fred Smith the local elector guy who will exercise his judgment for you. You vote for a guy, and expect your vote is going towards him. Everything that happens between you pulling the level (so to speak) and a guy getting sworn in, is a bunch of gobblydegook that in the 21st century just confounds the process. It provides zero protections and disenfranchises millions, to say nothing of the blatent unfairness of a system that values some voters as drastically more important than others.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: No, but I think that Kerry would have won in '04. If McCain wins, while not optimal, I'm not going to say it's because Americans were irresponsible. But the people who elected Bush in '04 should be ashamed of themselves.
And yet, go figure, we're not. I abhor Bush. I think he stinks. And if I could go back to 2004 and recast my vote, I'd still vote for him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And yet, go figure, we're not.
I don't think that comes as a surprise. If Bush voters were self-aware, they wouldn't've voted for him the first time, much less the second. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A possible "fix" (if you'll pardon the expression in a conversation about elections) to one of the problems of the EC is for states to allocate their votes proportionally rather than winner takes all.
It doesn't solve all the EC problems, but it wouldn't take a radical change to the US constitution to do it. Some states do it now.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
He was paid over $30,000 a month by them to lobby against the government more strictly regulating them.
Holy guacamole. For one thing $30k a month is no small amount of money. That's a pretty darn big salary. For another thing he lobbied against the government looking closer at them while they gambled the tax-payer's risk (not money risk) on sub-prime loans.
And now he's McCain's campaign manager. This really ought to be an enormous scandal -- especially when you consider what the McCain campaign is accusing Obama of, but I feel like it'll probably fade away pretty quick :/
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I hope reports like this quell the smugness I see in many conservatives who tout how successful the troop surge was.
I don't see much evidence within the link you provided that would do this.
I'm not sure I buy Agnew's premise. While I'm able to accept that the surge wasn't the only factor in the decrease of violence, I don't think that the evidence provided in the link is decisive that the surge wasn't a big factor.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because the exceptional people won't make it through the primary.
I think it should be fairly obvious that both McCain and Obama are exceptional people, in their character, personal background, and achievements. That so many people seem to not notice this, I think, points directly to what's wrong with our political system. Political campaigns take exceptional people and muddy them up to the point where we can no longer recognize any exceptional qualities in them. Despite the conventional wisdom, I don't believe politicians are generally terrible people; rather we are manipulated to the point that we come to view them as terrible.
It should come as no surprise that the country keeps ending up split 50-50 over presidential elections - that's what you might expect when voters are no longer able to distinguish a good candidate from a bad candidate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I like the timing.
quote: McCain: Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
It is unfortunate for him that this already had gone to press.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And yet, go figure, we're not.
I don't think that comes as a surprise. If Bush voters were self-aware, they wouldn't've voted for him the first time, much less the second.
I'm completely aware. I'm glad that Bush won so that there's no way to show you what would have happened had Kerry won. It's better that way.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Let me get this straight, you're saying it can't be proven that things would have been better under Kerry, and you're glad of that, because things would have been worse, and you know this. Ummm...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kerry's biggest problem would have been a Republican Congress. I think they would have stonewalled a lot of his bigger ideas, and I don't think it's a given that the 2006 midterms would have handed the Congress over to Democrats, not with Kerry in the White House.
But it's purely speculation on everyone's part as to what would have happened.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Happy Camper: Let me get this straight, you're saying it can't be proven that things would have been better under Kerry, and you're glad of that, because things would have been worse, and you know this. Ummm...
It gets better.
I agree with Lisa on this. And you know that doesn't happen very often.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
At this stage, I think it'd probably take rivers of blood and/or rains of frogs under a Kerry Administration for me to consider it worse. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Rivka, I'd be curious to know what you think would have been worse about a Kerry administration.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Happy Camper: Let me get this straight, you're saying it can't be proven that things would have been better under Kerry, and you're glad of that, because things would have been worse, and you know this. Ummm...
Basically? Yes, that's right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well that's odd. Would you be willing to share a synopsis of your reasoning?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It is a problem when people are so convinced that the "other guy" will cause disaster that they'll accept virtually anything from those in power.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
At a stretch, I can construct a case that either as a Canadian or as a Chinese person, that things have been better for us with Bush rather than Kerry/Gore from a for lack of a better word, a "realpolitik" POV.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If I had the money and the time I would make the rounds of all the political events, and pay for others to do so nationally.
I would dress up in 19th Century farm clothes, grow a long full beard, and walk into the protest area. I'd set up a booth with a large banner stretched across the top..."Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness".
I'd have fliers made up that discuss the sin of falsehood. God created reality. To deny it and replace it with your own spin is to blaspheme against God's work.
It is a much more disturbing sin than what most people of Faith are marching about. Marriage is a sacrament, but so is the truth.
And no person of faith can embrace that faith if they endeavor to befoul it with lies, innuendo, spin or misdirection. To purposefully say that the past, present or future is not what is was, is, or will be is an insult to its creator.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Though this isn't huge, Obama has pledged that as president, any bill that is placed on his desk would be posted online for five days before he would sign it.
This would certainly introduce an interesting dynamic in that bills would have to wait that much longer while citizens deliberate the contents in their completed form. It would be more difficult for legislation to rocket through the system regardless of which party is in power.
I like this idea.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well that's odd. Would you be willing to share a synopsis of your reasoning?
And get dogpiled? Again? Sorry, but my "kick me" sign is at the cleaners.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It is a problem when people are so convinced that the "other guy" will cause disaster that they'll accept virtually anything from those in power.
Strawman. I think Bush is a disaster. I just think Kerry would have been a worse one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If I had the money and the time I would make the rounds of all the political events, and pay for others to do so nationally.
I would dress up in 19th Century farm clothes, grow a long full beard, and walk into the protest area. I'd set up a booth with a large banner stretched across the top..."Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness".
I'd have fliers made up that discuss the sin of falsehood. God created reality. To deny it and replace it with your own spin is to blaspheme against God's work.
It is a much more disturbing sin than what most people of Faith are marching about. Marriage is a sacrament, but so is the truth.
And no person of faith can embrace that faith if they endeavor to befoul it with lies, innuendo, spin or misdirection. To purposefully say that the past, present or future is not what is was, is, or will be is an insult to its creator.
edited to fix link
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though this isn't huge, Obama has pledged that as president, any bill that is placed on his desk would be posted online for five days before he would sign it.
This would certainly introduce an interesting dynamic in that bills would have to wait that much longer while citizens deliberate the contents in their completed form. It would be more difficult for legislation to rocket through the system regardless of which party is in power.
I like this idea.
Heh, it's like open source government. But aren't bills public documents already?
--j_k
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Sorry I won't spam no more.
[ September 23, 2008, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: T:man ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well that's odd. Would you be willing to share a synopsis of your reasoning?
And get dogpiled? Again? Sorry, but my "kick me" sign is at the cleaners.
Lol. I bet it's quasi-religous.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Heh, it's like open source government. But aren't bills public documents already?
Yes, there is a searchable database that was created (or is in the process of being created) because of legislation authored by and ushered through Congress by Obama. Still, I doubt most people know about that so it's a good way to highlight a great idea. He'd probably just put the bills on his desk on the top page of the same website used for the searchable database, but putting it on whitehouse.gov would probably get more hits.
Recent polling has the public blaming Republicans by a 2 to 1 margin for the mess we're in, and they favor Obama over McCain on the economy by 10 points.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It is a problem when people are so convinced that the "other guy" will cause disaster that they'll accept virtually anything from those in power.
Strawman. I think Bush is a disaster. I just think Kerry would have been a worse one.
I just want to say that I can totally respect this point of view, though I don't agree with the particular assignment of relative awfulness. Lisa is not saying "Kerry was bad, therefore Bush is great!" which would be a harder viewpoint to respect.
I was never that thrilled that Kerry was the democratic nominee, but I voted for him. If he'd won in 2004 and was a lousy president, I'd probably be saying the same sort of thing Lisa is now - "Yeah, he was bad, but I don't regret voting for him because I think the other guy would have been even worse."
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Makes me wonder what would have happened if Dean had gotten the nomination. Kerry was a big pile of boring. At least Dean had fire.
Maybe a little too much, but I'd take too much over none.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though this isn't huge, Obama has pledged that as president, any bill that is placed on his desk would be posted online for five days before he would sign it.
This would certainly introduce an interesting dynamic in that bills would have to wait that much longer while citizens deliberate the contents in their completed form. It would be more difficult for legislation to rocket through the system regardless of which party is in power.
I like this idea.
Heh, it's like open source government. But aren't bills public documents already?
--j_k
I think that Obama has a good, simple idea here. It would put each bill in the spotlight so you didn't have to know what you were looking for in order to find a bill -- you just have to be interested enough in the legislation of the moment to check the whit house web page every couple of days. I've used the congressional search engine to look up bills but there are a few problems with this: First, that I have to know what I'm looking for. Second, that I never can figure out if this is the final version of the bill. Finally, that I don't read legalize. That last isn't fixed with Obama's plan, but if enough people are looking at the bill at the same time, maybe someone can help interpret them for me. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think Bush is a disaster. I just think Kerry would have been a worse one.
Agree again.
And I don't feel like going into my reasoning either, although Samp isn't quite right. I'm willing to bet it's not what he thinks it is, though.
(Have I been sufficiently vaguely intriguing without actually saying anything? Excellent! This is the right thread for it.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though this isn't huge, Obama has pledged that as president, any bill that is placed on his desk would be posted online for five days before he would sign it.
This would certainly introduce an interesting dynamic in that bills would have to wait that much longer while citizens deliberate the contents in their completed form. It would be more difficult for legislation to rocket through the system regardless of which party is in power.
I like this idea.
Heh, it's like open source government. But aren't bills public documents already?
--j_k
I think that Obama has a good, simple idea here. It would put each bill in the spotlight so you didn't have to know what you were looking for in order to find a bill -- you just have to be interested enough in the legislation of the moment to check the whit house web page every couple of days.
Heck, just slap the site in google reader and let it tell you when there's something new to go and check out.
I agree--I think that this is a fantastic idea.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Wooo! 2000! That's all I have to say.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Makes me wonder what would have happened if Dean had gotten the nomination. Kerry was a big pile of boring. At least Dean had fire.
Maybe a little too much, but I'd take too much over none.
Don't forget the scream! HAAAAUuuuuhhhh.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Makes me wonder what would have happened if Dean had gotten the nomination. Kerry was a big pile of boring. At least Dean had fire.
Maybe a little too much, but I'd take too much over none.
Don't forget the scream! HAAAAUuuuuhhhh.
A friend of mine has a fun habit that anytime Howard Dean, John Kerry, or the year 2004 is mentioned, he mutters "$#@% unidirectional mic" under his breath.
He's not bitter. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well that's odd. Would you be willing to share a synopsis of your reasoning?
And get dogpiled? Again? Sorry, but my "kick me" sign is at the cleaners.
Lol. I bet it's quasi-religous.
And I bet it's not. Okay, fine. I lived in a country under siege by Arab/Muslim terrorism for a dozen years. I know how they would have reacted had Bush been voted out after only one term, and the terms "jubilence" and "vindication" would fit. The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another. People like you would probably be saying, "Oh, it's all because of how Bush acted during his one term" and ignoring the fact that many of us were pointing out during the '04 campaign that this is what would happen if Bush was voted out at that point.
The mindset of the terrorist culture is one of predator. It sees weakness as an opportunity. It does not see openness and compromise as a signal to do the same; it sees it as a signal to pounce.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Sorry PJ, I'm an idiot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:People like you would probably be saying, "Oh, it's all because of how Bush acted during his one term" and ignoring the fact that many of us were pointing out during the '04 campaign that this is what would happen if Bush was voted out at that point.
So you'll be voting for McCain, then?
Edit: In all seriousness, once we start selecting our president based on what we think terrorists would prefer, they really have won.
[ September 23, 2008, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
Do you actually think that security has improved under Bush?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
Do you actually think that security has improved under Bush?
The argument never makes sense to me for the simple reason that 9/11 happened while the Republicans were in charge.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ah, Javert, that was before they got all serious on fighting terrorists.
Before 9/11 they feared it was a waste of $ that could better be spent insuring Sadaam Hussein stayed out of Saudi oil fields, and other prime defensive measures.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe I'm just nuts, but keeping folks like Saddam Hussein out of Saudi oil fields is a very important security concern for the United States.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think this is one of those "what if" debates that'll only be decided in 50 years when historians look back with both the benefit of hindsight and a mountain of documents that detail stuff we don't know right now, assuming the Bush Administration actually keeps such documents and doesn't destroy them (which I know Cheney's office has most recently been ordered by a Federal judge NOT to do).
Personally, I think Tom's argument is supreme. Electing a guy to office just to scare terrorists A. Allows them to dictate American policy in a way that far supercedes just our national security debate. B. Ignores the vast majority of issues that Presidents deal with that have nothing to do with foreign policy.
OSC got one thing right in his most recent essay: If terrorists really wanted to buy a gun and go on a rampage at the local mall, there's really nothing that will stop them. Stop a bombing ahead of time? Maybe. A massive conspiracy plot? Far more likely. But random guy with a beretta who opens fire at the mall or a movie theater? Good luck. I think there probably have been plots foiled in the last year, and I also think that the funding and volunteer rates for terrorist groups have seen a net increase in the last few years, rather than decrease, as a result of American action.
I don't think the fact that Euro nations have been attacked more than we have in the last couple years as a sign that they are afraid to attack Americans. They certainly aren't since they are killing us in decent numbers in Iraq. But is that really the best argument? Keep soldiers in Iraq to distract terrorists even as they fan the flames that keep the problem alive, in order to take the hit for Americans here at home? Seems like a pretty cruel way to view the American military.
But ultimately I don't think a terrorist threat is ever going to bring down the United States. We might get attacked, and we might lose some people, but as a nation it'll take far more to destroy us, and from what it looks like, we're doing a much better jobs of shooting ourselves in the foot than the terrorists are. What good is it if we defeat terrorism only to come home to a crumbling nation? Bush has only focused on a single pronged attack in this war. He's worried about suitcase bombs but it's Democrats like Obama who have championed efforts to combat nuclear proliferation from Russia and other former SSRs that pose one of our greatest threats.
Would Kerry have solved all these problems? Maybe not. With a Republican Congress actually, he almost certainly would not have, but I don't think for a second that it would have been any worse than Bush, and I think that the FBI and other agencies under him would have made all the same stops that they've made so far.
It'll be decades before we know for sure.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
Do you actually think that security has improved under Bush?
I know it hasn't spiraled the way it would have. Look, maybe you don't remember how freaked out people were on 9/11. I wasn't one of them. See, I already knew what it was like to have the Arab/Muslim terrorists blowing up civilians. Granted, I didn't think the denial would set in here in the US quite as fast as it did, but I guess I expected too much.
I was actually shocked when they weren't able to follow 9/11 up with another major strike within a week. If I'd been one of those evil monsters, I wouldn't have missed the opportunity.
It's funny, but some of the things I hate about Bush and his administration (and some of the things the rest of you hate about it as well) have actually been successful. For the record, I don't think that justifies the abuses of civil liberties at all, but I doubt highly that Kerry would have been ruthless enough to have successfully cowed the terrorists to the extent that Bush has. And I know that he wouldn't have so much as had a chance, because they probably wouldn't have waited until his inauguration to start the fun.
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
Do you actually think that security has improved under Bush?
The argument never makes sense to me for the simple reason that 9/11 happened while the Republicans were in charge.
Non sequitur. It would have happened regardless of who was in charge. The US was utterly unprepared for that sort of thing. The question is whether the US would have stayed unprepared. And how the terrorists would have reacted to what they certainly would have perceived as America flinching by replacing Bush with Kerry.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I was actually shocked when they weren't able to follow 9/11 up with another major strike within a week.
That you were shocked by this is probably an indication that your assessment of what the terrorists can and will do may not be accurate.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I was actually shocked when they weren't able to follow 9/11 up with another major strike within a week.
That you were shocked by this is probably an indication that your assessment of what the terrorists can and will do may not be accurate.
It could be an indication that the government scrambled and managed to torpedo their plans.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Except that they would've plastered it all over the news if they had.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm very amused with the idea some people seem to have that the Bush administration's obsession with secrecy is a device for covering up all their spectacular successes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Posted by Lisa: Non sequitur. It would have happened regardless of who was in charge. The US was utterly unprepared for that sort of thing. The question is whether the US would have stayed unprepared. And how the terrorists would have reacted to what they certainly would have perceived as America flinching by replacing Bush with Kerry.
I don't think that's guaranteed. I think it's LIKELY that that is the case, but there was a lot of evidence before 9/11 happened that pursued could have led to part or all of the scheme being thwarted had the evidence garnered sufficient attention. Under the Bush Administration this didn't happen, but it might have under Gore. Again, it's not likely, but 9/11 wasn't an unstoppable event.
Destineer -
I think there's two sides to that. On one hand, when you thwart a terrorist plot, you can go on the news and do a victory dance, but you risk giving away the methods used to do so. The media are very good at rooting out specifics, even if their reporting is often sketchy when it comes to putting it all together. If terrorists had a plot to blow up something specific and the FBI or CIA stopped them, personally I'd rather it remain a mystery to the terrorists as to how we stopped it. It gives us the upper hand hand and keeps us guessing, rather than letting them know how we did it so they can adapt and try something new.
I don't think this is attached to the Bush Administration's love of secrecy specifically, I think this one lends to common sense. We'll find out someday about their successes.
I think that there have likely been many attempts at attacks on the US in the last seven years, but that they've either been thwarted by US agencies, or those resources have been redirected to Iraq and away from the homeland. I think at the very least, had Gore been in charge, and had Kerry taken over, the FBI and intelligence agencies' efforts to combat terrorism wouldn't have been diminished at all. I think it's likely that Gore would have committed to action against Afghanistan as well. It's hard to know what would have happened at that point, but I think the same people who relocated to Iraq to fight us would have done the same thing in Afghanistan. There's precedent for it from when the USSR invaded.
But even if that wasn't the case, invading a foreign country to lure terrorists away from the homefront is a pretty cruel and barbaric way to defend yourself. It's tantamount to using Iraq civilians as human shields.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kerry is very debatable, but the likelihood Gore would have flinched is low. He's got a long record of hawkishness.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I hope reports like this quell the smugness I see in many conservatives who tout how successful the troop surge was.
I don't see much evidence within the link you provided that would do this.
I'm not sure I buy Agnew's premise. While I'm able to accept that the surge wasn't the only factor in the decrease of violence, I don't think that the evidence provided in the link is decisive that the surge wasn't a big factor.
I'm glad somebody read my post I agree that the link isn't conclusive, but I think it's ridiculous that so many people (and news organizations) are simply spouting "the surge WORKED" with no evidence of causation. The surge very well might have done good, but at this point, we don't REALLY know, and it's ad hoc logic to continue saying "the surge was successful" at anything except putting more troops into Iraq and costing us more money. Both of those are quantitatively true.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Launchy -
I think what you're looking for is post hoc ergo propter hoc rather than ad hoc, unless I've misunderstood your point.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Kerry is very debatable, but the likelihood Gore would have flinched is low. He's got a long record of hawkishness.
Particularly against opponents in an election.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, because Bush wasn't giving as good as he got.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And I bet it's not. Okay, fine. I lived in a country under siege by Arab/Muslim terrorism for a dozen years. I know how they would have reacted had Bush been voted out after only one term, and the terms "jubilence" and "vindication" would fit. The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
I love this logic. I am going to use it all the time now.
If McCain gets elected instead of Obama, the next four years will be full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
Don't criticize my specious reasoning. Just know that I know. You better vote for Obama now.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
<yawn>
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:And I bet it's not. Okay, fine. I lived in a country under siege by Arab/Muslim terrorism for a dozen years. I know how they would have reacted had Bush been voted out after only one term, and the terms "jubilence" and "vindication" would fit. The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
I love this logic. I am going to use it all the time now.
If McCain gets elected instead of Obama, the next four years will be full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
Don't criticize my specious reasoning. Just know that I know. You better vote for Obama now.
This is hardly a gracious summation. Perhaps Lisa isn't persuading you, but it's hard to argue that had we put the breaks on Iraq 4 years ago that terrorists groups would not have been at least emboldened.
Whether all the factors would have been there to allow terrorists to start attacking us on our own shores is still up to speculation, but I know of no group that upon winning an armed conflict becomes timid in the aftermath.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I haven't seen any evidence yet anywhere that terrorist attacks have been foiled on US soil using anything more than law enforcement procedures. Bush has claimed several attacks were stopped with information gained by whatever term for torture they're using this week, but that has not been documented.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I haven't seen any evidence yet anywhere that terrorist attacks have been foiled on US soil using anything more than law enforcement procedures. Bush has claimed several attacks were stopped with information gained by whatever term for torture they're using this week, but that has not been documented.
It probably won't be until decades later, or until our current SOP becomes ineffective and radical reforms permit government agents to explain the outdated methods.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So it's "Bush said it, I believe it, that settles it"?
Did not a whopping number of authorities believe that torture rarely if ever provides useful information, I might give him the benefit of the doubt. But this administration has so rarely been truthful about any other aspect of the war on terror I see no reason to believe this claim without backup.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: <yawn>
Lisa tires of arguing. Perhaps this expression of disinterest will surely put others in their place. Yes. Act bored at one's own logic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: So it's "Bush said it, I believe it, that settles it"?
Did not a whopping number of authorities believe that torture rarely if ever provides useful information, I might give him the benefit of the doubt. But this administration has so rarely been truthful about any other aspect of the war on terror I see no reason to believe this claim without backup.
Are you saying this to me? Of course I won't simply take Bush's "say so," but Bob Woodward seems convinced that the administration is doing something radical, and yet most of us don't know what that is.
quote:And I bet it's not. Okay, fine. I lived in a country under siege by Arab/Muslim terrorism for a dozen years. I know how they would have reacted had Bush been voted out after only one term, and the terms "jubilence" and "vindication" would fit. The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
I love this logic. I am going to use it all the time now.
If McCain gets elected instead of Obama, the next four years will be full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
Don't criticize my specious reasoning. Just know that I know. You better vote for Obama now.
This is hardly a gracious summation. Perhaps Lisa isn't persuading you, but it's hard to argue that had we put the breaks on Iraq 4 years ago that terrorists groups would not have been at least emboldened.
Whether all the factors would have been there to allow terrorists to start attacking us on our own shores is still up to speculation, but I know of no group that upon winning an armed conflict becomes timid in the aftermath.
The probably of terrorists being able to infiltrate a nuclear weapon undetected into the United States i've heard some official quote is upwards of 95%.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: I know how they would have reacted had Bush been voted out after only one term, and the terms "jubilence" and "vindication" would fit. The past four years would have been full of one major terrorist attack on US soil after another.
Maybe so. However, I will tell you this, Al Qaeda is not Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, each have different goals and means to pull them off.
More than that though, I wonder what you mean by terrorist culture? It seems to me that you think of all Arab/Muslim terrorists as part of a terrorist culture, and then you call them all predators for a specific reason, which then justifies the manner in which you believe terrorism should be fought. I could be wrong though, so I await an answer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:but it's hard to argue that had we put the breaks on Iraq 4 years ago that terrorists groups would not have been at least emboldened.
Of course it's hard to argue, because you're stopping before the argument is over.
If we had "put the breaks" on Iraq 4 years ago, how would we have done so? What would have replaced our military effort? Kerry wouldn't have just yanked them all out, brushed his hands off and went about his business, that much I believe. I don't think anyone but maybe Ron Paul would have done that. Something would have replaced that effort, and we still would have been fighting a war in Afghanistan, and frankly, it might look 100% different than it does today if we'd have four years worth of more money and more troops to fight it.
If we had put the brakes on that war in order to massively increase the effectiveness of the war in Afghanistan, then we would have left the terrorists fighting amongst themselves for power in Iraq, and also fighting a newly empowered NATO force in Afghanistan. I think they would have had more than enough to chew on there.
btw Lisa, I'm curious, seriously, as to how you've come to grips with Paul's extreme isolationist policy in regards to your feelings on being aggressive against terrorists overseas? I'd figure it's that you value the things he would do to the federal government more than foreign policy, which is an argument I'd have no problem with (well, Ron Paul's policies yes, but the idea of focusing on domestic issues vs. international issues I totally get). But I'm still curious.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: how you've come to grips with Paul's extreme isolationist policy
You mean his extreme non-interventionism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Of course it's hard to argue, because you're stopping before the argument is over.
If we had "put the breaks" on Iraq 4 years ago, how would we have done so? What would have replaced our military effort? Kerry wouldn't have just yanked them all out, brushed his hands off and went about his business, that much I believe. I don't think anyone but maybe Ron Paul would have done that. Something would have replaced that effort, and we still would have been fighting a war in Afghanistan, and frankly, it might look 100% different than it does today if we'd have four years worth of more money and more troops to fight it.
I was not really attempting to say whether a pull out could have been good or bad, merely that leaving in any manner I can conceive of would have emboldened terrorists.
quote:If we had put the brakes on that war in order to massively increase the effectiveness of the war in Afghanistan, then we would have left the terrorists fighting amongst themselves for power in Iraq, and also fighting a newly empowered NATO force in Afghanistan. I think they would have had more than enough to chew on there.
Perhaps, this is a good supposition of what might happen. But it's also possible that perceived victory would unify certain terrorists groups, as well as upping their recruitment around the world. But again, I can't say you're wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
lem,
Thanks. I generally think of isolationist policy in terms of foreign policy rather than economics, so I wasn't aware of the terminology differences there. The question to Lisa still stands.
.............
In other news, Democrats have decided that instead of seeking a compromise, they'll totally give in on offshore drilling. Given Republican refusal to compromise, the fact that the ban expires next week, and Bush's promised veto, they've dropped the issue entirely and the Republicans are claiming victory. So as of next week, we're open for business. Want to take bets on how long it'll take Bush to get contracts as quickly as possible out to people via the Interior Department before he has to leave office? Given the price of oil, if the US government charged the kind of rates that say Palin charges in Alaska, it could be a boon to taxpayers, but somehow I think they'll end up getting fleeced.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You is a plum cynic Lyr. A plum cynic.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: btw Lisa, I'm curious, seriously, as to how you've come to grips with Paul's extreme isolationist policy in regards to your feelings on being aggressive against terrorists overseas?
Letters of marque and reprisal are permitted by the Constitution. Wars not declared by Congress are not.
Anyway, you don't want to know how I would have handled the post-9/11 situation.
And Ron Paul is the furthest thing from an isolationist. He'd open relations with Cuba tomorrow, for example. Isolationism is refusing to talk to them, or to the Iranians. I'd talk to the Iranians. I'm not sure they'd enjoy it, but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "ya, ya, ya, I can't hear you!" and pretending that a country doesn't exist is just stupid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You is a plum cynic Lyr. A plum cynic.
I'm making that guess basead on Bush's record. It could very well be that that land won't be drilled on for years and years (actually that's highly likely) but I'm betting the most lucrative territory goes out via no-bid contract before January.
The only people that can stop him work at the Capitol. And they aren't going to do a damn thing about it. I'm wondering if they are allowed to break the contracts as soon as the next Congress gets into session. I suppose being Congress they could make it legal just because, and I wouldn't be surprised if that happens either.
But maybe I'll be totally surprised and Bush won't do anything, leaving it up to Obama (or McCain) to settle the issue.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Launchy -
I think what you're looking for is post hoc ergo propter hoc rather than ad hoc, unless I've misunderstood your point.
Post hoc seems much more accurate for the point I was trying to make. Thanks At the time of posting, Ad hoc looked right, and I still don't quite see the difference in the two, but I tried.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But maybe I'll be totally surprised and Bush won't do anything, leaving it up to Obama (or McCain) to settle the issue.
Now how likely is that? Although... what a political hot potato that is! He could wait to give the responsibility to Barack, so that when he sells the contracts, he'll be "betraying his own message." Gotta hate it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Want to take bets on how long it'll take Bush to get contracts as quickly as possible out to people via the Interior Department before he has to leave office?
Ten bucks says they've been written and waiting for signatures for the last two years. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Want to take bets on how long it'll take Bush to get contracts as quickly as possible out to people via the Interior Department before he has to leave office?
Ten bucks says they've been written and waiting for signatures for the last two years.
Now now Tom, your giving President Bush FAR too much foresight. It's bordering on prescience.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't understand what you mean by that BB. What foresight would President Bush need?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
The reality of who's winning the election: 18% of voters undecided. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This election: No one wins.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Shouldn't he be throwing her in a river then, or something?
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Shouldn't he be throwing her in a river then, or something?
Well, first they have to see if she weighs the same as a duck....
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How is that anti-semitic, Lisa?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Or weighing her against a duck.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Lisa, from that quote he seems to be saying that Jews are top businessmen and women, people of integrity, and a model for Christians to follow. How exactly is that anti-semitic?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How is that anti-semitic, Lisa?
It's the old Jewish banker schtick. Man, I wish I was a rich Jewish banker with my tentacles controlling the world...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How is that anti-semitic, Lisa?
It's the old Jewish banker schtick. Man, I wish I was a rich Jewish banker with my tentacles controlling the world...
I don't see that viewpoint in the bit you quoted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It does, especially in the context of the whole speech, seem to me to be pretty anti-everybody-except-"Christians".
[ September 24, 2008, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The only possible way I can stretch that quote into something anti-semite is that by saying that the Israelites "won" when they really haven't is overstating the accomplishments of Jews by a dangerous degree. This is in the neighbourhood (a big neighbourhood, perhaps the same "county") of the old "jews as bankers and controlling the world" meme.
Personally, I think kmbboot's point is rather more on the ball.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live. They go over his usual Holocaust denial, anti-Israel, peaceful nuclear program stuff, but King also asks if he has any preference as to the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election. He claims no preference because regardless of what candidates say during campaigns, there's no way to know for certain what they will actually do when in office.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Anyway, you don't want to know how I would have handled the post-9/11 situation.
I think I know how you would have handled that, but I'll wait on that. You didn't answer my question Lisa, what did you mean by terrorist culture?
Color me interested.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Reading the transcript of the Larry king interview was fascinating. Ahmadinejad definitely doesn't seem like the monster I've seen him portrayed as in the American media.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Anyway, you don't want to know how I would have handled the post-9/11 situation.
I bet by KILLING EVERY MUSLIM IN THE WORLD!!!
Scott, dkw, you really don't see the stereotyping inherent in that witch doctor-quote?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Are you guys kidding? You don't see how that was anti-semitic? Throw out "that's how they won" and look at the base assumption: Jews are in control of the economies of nations. Same old rap.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If the "that" in "that's how the Israelites won" meant "they won by having bankers," then I agree that it would definitely be stereotyping. But the way I parse the sentence, the "that" in "that's how the Israelites won" meant "they won by having people of integrity running things."
I haven't read the context, though, since I typically don't follow links to sites I don't recognize when I'm at work. Context could easily change it, since I do see the other interpretation even without the context. It just wasn't how I initially read the sentence.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
McCain has announced that he plans to suspend his campaign and return to Washington DC to help with the economic crisis.
What's worse is that he's asking Obama to join him. Especially after its already been confirmed by both campaigning parties that it was Obama who originally contacted McCain about making a joint statement regarding the economic crisis.
I can just see the wheels turning in McCain's head. Instead of having this discussion with Obama and truly making a joint decision, he decides to go on tv and play the situation as if he's the good guy taking the lead.
McCain knows he's behind Obama in the polls in regards to the economy and now he's ducking out of the debates. Could he be more sneaky??
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Are you guys kidding? You don't see how that was anti-semitic? Throw out "that's how they won" and look at the base assumption: Jews are in control of the economies of nations. Same old rap.
I assumed he was talking about the state of Israel. I'm not sure what else he would mean by "the Israelites won."
That is, I take the whole bit to mean "our financial institutions are corrupt; we should have Christians running them, because Christians are people of integrity. Look at the success of the Israelites in re-creating the state of Israel; that was acheived by having people of integrity running things."
Of course, I imagine plenty of the people running the US economy are already Christians. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
From the Ahmedinejad interview:
quote:Can the nuclear bomb save the Zionist regime?
It certainly has for the last few decades...
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:That is, I take the whole bit to mean "our financial institutions are corrupt; we should have Christians running them, because Christians are people of integrity. Look at the success of the Israelites in re-creating the state of Israel; that was acheived by having people of integrity running things."
I think that is the kindest possible interpretation of those words, an interpretation that seems totally counter-intuitive to me, and creates a meaning that is the opposite of what I took it to be.
In fact... I kind of can't imagine how that came from the original quote:
quote:It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
Which I take to mean: "Jews have won the battle for control of the economics of our nations, by being the top businessmen, women, and bankers. It is high time we replaced them with people of integrity -- Christians."
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If the "that" in "that's how the Israelites won" meant "they won by having bankers," then I agree that it would definitely be stereotyping. But the way I parse the sentence, the "that" in "that's how the Israelites won" meant "they won by having people of integrity running things."
I haven't read the context, though, since I typically don't follow links to sites I don't recognize when I'm at work. Context could easily change it, since I do see the other interpretation even without the context. It just wasn't how I initially read the sentence.
The context of the quote is Thomas Muthee explaining that the reason why he is asking the congregation to pray for Sarah Palin is because God's Kingdom needs to infiltrate seven areas of society. According to his beliefs, the economy is one of those areas.
quote:So the second area whereby God wants to penetrate in our society is in the economic area. The Bible says the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous.It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:That is, I take the whole bit to mean "our financial institutions are corrupt; we should have Christians running them, because Christians are people of integrity. Look at the success of the Israelites in re-creating the state of Israel; that was acheived by having people of integrity running things."
I think that is the kindest possible interpretation of those words, an interpretation that seems totally counter-intuitive to me, and creates a meaning that is the opposite of what I took it to be.
In fact... I kind of can't imagine how that came from the original quote:
quote:It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
Which I take to mean: "Jews have won the battle for control of the economics of our nations, by being the top businessmen, women, and bankers. It is high time we replaced them with people of integrity -- Christians."
In my initial read, "that" refers to the same thing each time: "having people of integrity in positions of authority."
"It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. [Having people of integrity in positions of authority is] what we are waiting for. [Having people of integrity in positions of authority is] part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, [having people of integrity in positions of authority is] how they won. And [having people of integrity in positions of authority is] how they are, even today."
Here's your version:
"It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. [Having people of our religion in positions of authority is] what we are waiting for. [Having people of our religion in positions of authority is] part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, [having people of their religion in positions of authority is] how they won. And [having people of their religion in positions of authority is] how they are, even today."
The difference between our two interpretations is a matter of whether "that" refers to the people in positions of authority being Christian or being people of integrity. You assumed the former and I assumed the latter.
In any event, context clears the whole thing up.
quote:Originally posted by Cerridwen: The context of the quote is Thomas Muthee explaining that the reason why he is asking the congregation to pray for Sarah Palin is because God's Kingdom needs to infiltrate seven areas of society. According to his beliefs, the economy is one of those areas.
quote:So the second area whereby God wants to penetrate in our society is in the economic area. The Bible says the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous.It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
That certainly makes me think that he meant TL's read rather than my read.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: McCain has announced that he plans to suspend his campaign and return to Washington DC to help with the economic crisis.
What's worse is that he's asking Obama to join him. Especially after its already been confirmed by both campaigning parties that it was Obama who originally contacted McCain about making a joint statement regarding the economic crisis.
I can just see the wheels turning in McCain's head. Instead of having this discussion with Obama and truly making a joint decision, he decides to go on tv and play the situation as if he's the good guy taking the lead.
McCain knows he's behind Obama in the polls in regards to the economy and now he's ducking out of the debates. Could he be more sneaky??
That's certainly how it looks. Hard to see what the fallout will be. I'm betting he sends Palin on a solo tour, which is fine since she's the one all the people want to see anyway, but the press will still not be allowed to see, touch or talk to her.
Obama already has done his last rally before the debate anyway, so he and Biden could go back to Washington to work on this mess. I wonder how much being back in Washington really matters though. Frankly I don't think it does, but this is McCain's chance to try and put himself on equal or even higher footing than Obama on an issue the majority of Americans trust Obama more with. If he can come out of this looking like it's Obama who agrees with HIM, then he can try to steal the issue away.
I think it's a stunt move, but potentially a brilliant one. It's the kind of thing the media loves to pounce on. I don't know how the American people will take it in, I think that'll still depend on how this thing plays out, but Bush's doom and gloom threats of what will happen if Congress doesn't roll over seems to have been virtually ignored by Congress and the American people. Apparently somewhere around $700 billion is when people start paying attention.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One rather frightening passage is where Rev. Muthee encouraged infiltration of education.
quote: Number three, or number four, it’s the area of education. We need believers who are educationists. If we had them, today we would not be talking about the Ten Commandments being kicked out of the church, I mean out of our schools. They would still be there. One of the things that you, you know, I would love you to know, I’m a child of revival of the Seventies, and that revival swept through the schools. They are open to preaching, you know, open. Open. Wide open. You go to any school, there is what we call Christian Union. Christian Union is nothing more but a bunch of kids that are born again, spirit-filled, tongue-talking, devil-casting. Is anybody hearing me? All over the country! Is anybody hearing me?
We need God taking over our education system! Otherwise, we, if we have God in our schools, we will not have kids being taught, you know, how to worship Buddha, how to worship Mohammed, we will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery. Is anybody hearing me?
Yikes! Sorcery? I wonder if he is talking about halloween parties or chemistry class. Sounds way more interesting than anything I was taught in public schools.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Witchcraft and Sorcery was my favorite class. They sandwiched it in there between World History and AP English. Then lunchtime.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Actually, I would love to see Obama and McCain coauthor the bill that actually passes.
That would be an amazing show of solidarity for the nation, an amazing and unprecedented historical acheivement, largely because it's so rare that two senators run for president.
Whichever candidate wins, they're going to have to deal with the aftermath of all of this--it makes sense for both of them to get knee-deep in the legislation that deals with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The sad thing about this is that Rev. Muthee's going to get a free pass on this, while Rev. Wright was driven out of the public sphere in disgrace.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
It would be great to see. But not at the expense of the debates. And McCain should not be taking credit for Obama's initiative.
What part of "joint" did McCain take as meaning that he could hold that press conference by himself?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Shows federal funding on research broken down by president.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Unfortunately, only Americans can vote on the American election.
Excuse me, unfortunately?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Unfortunate for non-Americans. We have a lot of influence over the rest of the world.
Not that it should be any different, but it is still unfortunate for them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I want to vote in the Canadian elections. And the Israeli elections. And what the heck, the Australian elections!
I hear what you are saying; I still disagree with the word choice.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The sad thing about this is that Rev. Muthee's going to get a free pass on this, while Rev. Wright was driven out of the public sphere in disgrace.
Now that I'm home and have read the entire thing, I agree completely.
It also strikes me as kind of funny that while I found Wright's snippets damning out of context but found most of them not damning (and in some cases not wrong) in context, I found Muthee's snippet not damning out of context but utterly horrific in context.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Which is probably part of why Tom is right -- too many people will only read/hear the snippets.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It also strikes me as kind of funny that while I found Wright's snippets damning out of context but found most of them not damning (and in some cases not wrong) in context, I found Muthee's snippet not damning out of context but utterly horrific in context.
I found Wright's speeches to be damning in context, but not for the reasons that the snippets would indicate. His invocation of the power of racism and slavery to declare that "God Damn's America," were unpleasant and alarmist, and they also promoted the status quo of racial division and distrust of the American government by black people, who he encouraged not to be a part of the political process, because of America's history. Now, he had a lot of that history correct, but it had no bearing on his message, which was hateful and self-aggrandizing. Ultimately, when you listen to those speeches, you just get a sense of someone drunk on his own ability to yell and invoke the name of God, and to feel powerful.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: McCain has announced that he plans to suspend his campaign and return to Washington DC to help with the economic crisis.
What's worse is that he's asking Obama to join him. Especially after its already been confirmed by both campaigning parties that it was Obama who originally contacted McCain about making a joint statement regarding the economic crisis.
I can just see the wheels turning in McCain's head. Instead of having this discussion with Obama and truly making a joint decision, he decides to go on tv and play the situation as if he's the good guy taking the lead.
McCain knows he's behind Obama in the polls in regards to the economy and now he's ducking out of the debates. Could he be more sneaky??
Well that is plausible, but Obama has also said he would help in anyway he can if asked, but that he is wary of introducing, "presidential politics" into an important political development.
Obama seems to disagree with suspending the campaigns and emphatically thinks the debates NEED to happen. I'm not sure how I feel about the matter, my gut reaction is that all the debates need to take place if reasonably possible.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It seems unlikely that a few hours for each debate couldn't be found in all the weeks left, especially if they were held right in Washington.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Of course they need to take place. And they will.
And if the first debate is on a day other than Friday, it actually means more people will probably see it than if it happens Friday.
McCain is doing what he always does in situations like this: he goes to Washington, creates a bipartisan solution that's so far left it ticks off the conservative base, but makes him adored by the mainstream media and the left.
However, he's never been the opposition candidate before, and in presidential elections, people tend to see anything their guy does as being great, and anything the other guy does as being bad.
Ultimately, it's going to come down to whether the McCain solution passes and whether it works. If it does, it will make Obama look as innefectual standing there by himself at the debates as Bush looked during Katrina. McCain will get credit for dealing with a serious issue (and make no mistake--this is a stone-cold-serious issue) quickly and decisively.
If it doesn't pass--and I suspect that in an election year, this is actually going to turn into a huge stand-off against McCain in the senate, a stand-off he's never experienced before when he's reached across the aisle like this--I think he's going to come away looking inneffectual and it's going to delay a solution for political purpouses.
That's actually what I see as the most likely outcome, despite my support for McCain.
But who knows. Maybe with their own jobs on the line this year, some senators won't want to be seen as holding up the show and they'll work with him so they can be seen as helping solve the problem.
Ultimately, the best solution would have been exactly what McCain proposed. Both candidates to go back, both candidates to put their name on the solution, that way everybody could be seen as supporting it in both parties without it giving anybody political motivation to block it or political motivation to get a bad bill passed just to be seen as "the guy who did something."
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
There isn't really a dichotomy between working on a solution for the economic crisis and participating in the debate.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Of course they need to take place. And they will.
I don't get how that goes with this:
quote:Obama ... standing there by himself at the debates
---
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: There isn't really a dichotomy between working on a solution for the economic crisis and participating in the debate.
Or, what Threads said. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:A senior campaign official says that McCain will NOT debate -- no matter what -- if Congress hasn't reached an agreement on a bailout package.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: [qb] Of course they need to take place. And they will.
I don't get how that goes with this:
quote:Obama ... standing there by himself at the debates
I meant to say, ". . . standing by himself at the debate." Meaning this Friday's. Something is going to happen on Friday. Per the Associated Press:
quote:Asked whether the debate could go forward if McCain doesn't show, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs replied, "My sense is there's going to be a stage, a moderator, an audience and at least one presidential candidate."
From there, things will end up being scheduled such that there are still three debates.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: There isn't really a dichotomy between working on a solution for the economic crisis and participating in the debate.
Listen closely to the announcements of both candidates today.
McCain isn't "just" backing off the debates. He's suspending all campaigning, except for (I believe) one appearance. He's not going on Letterman like he was scheduled to, he's not doing commercials, nothing. It's pretty much the same thing as canceling the opening night of the Republican convention because of the hurricane. There's a big crisis, so let's not be seen as going on about our business like we didn't know it was going on.
At the very least, even if the debate happens, I like the idea of changing the topic from Foreign Policy, as the topic is scheduled to be, to economic issues.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: There's a big crisis, so let's not be seen as going on about our business like we didn't know it was going on.
At the very least, even if the debate happens, I like the idea of changing the topic from Foreign Policy, as the topic is scheduled to be, to economic issues.
That sounds like a great idea. It seems like an ideal time to vet presidential candidates by listening to how they think we should respond to an economic crisis.
I can't think of a good reason for McCain not to do this, as those few hours could be instrumental in informing the electorate, hopefully in such a way as to pick the best person to assure this sort of issue is dealt with in skill and competence. I can't imagine a better way for a presidential candidate to spend three hours, actually.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: He's not going on Letterman like he was scheduled to, he's not doing commercials, nothing.
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: At the very least, even if the debate happens, I like the idea of changing the topic from Foreign Policy, as the topic is scheduled to be, to economic issues.
I like that idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We, as human beings and as a country, tend to make bad decisions when we go into "crisis mode." When we suspend regular activities unnecessarily, we may add heat to a situation rather than adding light.
I think it makes sense for both presidential candidates to meet with the president as he has requested and to take care of their senatorial duties - just as other senators are doing and just as they would do for any important vote. Going beyond that would seem to me to be likely to tangle up the mess with politics and hinder rather than help the situation.
edit to add: I also think it makes sense to stick to the foreign policy topic rather than make this financial situation a political football while we are still determining what is going on.
There is a difference between a timely response and a rush to react. Panic and hurried judgments will make things worse, not better.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: At the very least, even if the debate happens, I like the idea of changing the topic from Foreign Policy, as the topic is scheduled to be, to economic issues.
I like that idea.
IIRC, the economy usually comes first -- but both campaigns believed that they would have an advantage if they moved FP to the front and reschedule economy (under "Domestic Issues") last. The schedule was written some time before all of this happened.
I'll see if I can dig up the article.
--j_k
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote: I can't imagine a better way for a presidential candidate to spend three hours, actually.
Then you're not using your imagination.
Don't get me wrong--I absolutely agree that there are a ton of reasons why people will see this as dodging. For all I know, McCain is just dodging.
But imagine that one of the presidential candidates was, say, a key official in FEMA. Should they go on with the debates during Katrina?
Again--I'm not saying the answer is definitively yes or no. I am just saying there's a debate there, with valid reasoning on both sides.
Like I said in my post--I think it's a mistake. I think McCain is going to come out of this looking bad for not debating, and looking bad at the politically-motivated stonewalling he faces in the Senate when he gets back to Washington.
Again, I'm by no means arguing that McCain's response was the only one. However, it also isn't insane. The debates can be rescheduled. Nobody's going to miss out on their chance to see the candidates speak and decide who to vote for. But the situation is serious, and failing to understand the seriousness of situations soon enough is one of the biggest faults the public see in the current administration. McCain's actions are clearly more motivated by the desire to distance himself from Bush in terms of Leadership Capacity than of trying to distance himself physically from Obama and the TV cameras on Friday night.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
McCain, "We are the Mavericks. We will bring CHANGE. We will bring transparency and openness to the dark halls of Washington....hold on...we have a crisis. Excuse me but I must run back to Washington and do some important work in the dark halls there. Um, trust us, what we will get done is for the good of us all, but I have to cancel my open public debate so I can do some back-room deals for blowing $700 Billion."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: But imagine that one of the presidential candidates was, say, a key official in FEMA. Should they go on with the debates during Katrina?
But this isn't Katrina. This is an economic crisis. They aren't the same. We are in one situation right now, not the other, and the constraints imposed by one are not equivalent to the constraints imposed by the other. That is obvious. [ack! don't mean to sound snarky. My apologies. I am confused as to the relevance of the analogy here.]
This is a time of economic crisis which will be dealt with by discussion and debate, and also by actions and proclamations made during regular business hours. Unlike a hurricane, there isn't likely to be anything that comes up unscheduled (like an unscheduled Senate vote -- do they even have those? -- or a foreign leader that absolutely must talk to this particular senator right this very minute (?)) which couldn't be delayed for 2 hours. And scheduled things could be booked around, especially given that the debates could be held at night.
Moreover, even if -- [i]even if -- something unscheduled came up that had to be dealt with by a given Senator right that minute -- well, unlikely to say the least, but then the debate could be postponed right then, especially if held in Washington, and the Senator could do whatever he needed then. I just don't see why or how that could be a problem.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
In order to go to Washington, did he really need to suspend the campaign? Could Palin not have continued campaigning in his stead?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How long does Senator McCain want to postpone the debate?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Shoot, here I am firing off commentary like I expect you to answer for the administration. I don't docmagick, I'm just expressing confusion, bewilderment, and frustration.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:I just don't see why or how that could be a problem.
And I don't see why moving the debates is such a problem.
Again--I'm not saying it's a matter of one thing being obviously necessary to happen right then, and the other being obviously insane to have happening at that moment. Both are movable, and it's just a matter of what your priorities are that determines which one you'd rather have happening--in other words, it's completely subjective.
To me, even though I think it's a political mistake, I think it's better for the country that he's doing what he's doing.
It's the market that some are comparing to a ticking time bomb. Every day we put off the solution is another day of uncertainty and potential harm in the market. Right now, the hope of finding a federal solution is keeping the market tenuously perched, but no one is really certain what will happen if a solution either doesn't happen or gets delayed.
That might be where you're not understanding my comparisons to Katrina--this is seen by those participating in it as possibly preventing an economic disaster comparable to the great depression.
But even that's just speculation. It's a place we've never been before. So nobody's really sure how much action is necessary and how fast in order to provide an effective and lasting solution at as little cost to the taxpayer as possible.
We're just in this huge state of economic uncertainty right now, and so how fast we need to act is as up for debate as, well, whether or not we should move forward with Friday's debate. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
USASurvey I think did a poll earlier today (that was fast, I know) to ask what people think of McCain's move. Personally I thought he'd get great press out of it, but it seems to be backfiring. Only a tiny fraction, 10% or so, of people think that it was a good decision for him to suspend his campaign, and less than that think that the debate should be postponed. Most people think it should either go on as scheduled or that the subject should be changed from foreign policy to the economy.
If the subject IS changed, it'll be a strategic coup for McCain. It was in Obama's interest to have the FP debate at first, and especially on a Friday night to depress viewership, and to have the last debate be on the economy, where Obama is considered to be stronger, just before the actual election is held.
But really, neither McCain nor Obama will be taking point on this, which is part of why McCain's argument is so silly. This is being hashed out amongst dozens of Congressmen and Senators. The idea that the two of them will come riding in to town to break the logjam, when the whole thing hasn't even been laid out yet, is goofy to me.
The biggest differences in the plan aren't between McCain and Obama, though frankly I don't know where either of them stand on specifics since McCain keeps going back and forth on how he feels about a bailout. The biggest problems are going to be between Congress and a Presidency who is threatening to veto if there is too much oversight in the final bill. Bush is holding a gun to Congress' head, and I really don't know which side will blink, but I don't think it's Congress this time.
Republicans and Democrats are about to make for unlikely bedfellows in staring Bush down. Democrats see this as a bailout for the super rich while Republicans see it as over the top government interference. Both of them want a bipartisan oversight board, Democrats want limits on executive pay, and Bush is urging them to pass the measure while threatening to veto if they insist on oversight for Paulson. Neither side is going to so handily give away massive amounts of power and money to SecTreas.
For the good of the country? It probably makes sense to change the debates to do the economy this Friday night, but I don't see how McCain skipping out makes any sense at all. They can spare three hours on a Friday night to go debate and be back to work the next morning. Them not being there isn't going to hurt anyone, anything, or slow the process one bit. So I don't buy the whole "he's doing it at his own expense for the good of the country" bit. That suggests that ONLY he could possibly fix the problem, and that him being away will cause the whole thing to collapse. I think it's highly likely that him not being there won't really matter at all. He can literally phone in his objections and show up when necessary to introduce amendments.
I think his actions are a play to make himself seem like some sort of authority on the economy while portraying Obama as more interested in winning an election. It's part of his whole shadow argument that Obama is unpatriotic and selfish. If he can portray himself as getting ahead of the problem and as being hands on, then regardless of what the final bill has in it, he can claim some credit and hope to neutralize Obama's lead on economic matters. I think he's playing politics, but he's throwing a long ball, cause this whole thing could backfire on him.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
You can't compare this to Katrina. You just can't. Besides, you can't even compare McCain to the position the head of FEMA was in during the aftermath of Katrina. McCain is not a strong economic leader and I don't know what he thinks he can bring to the table in DC. I'm sure that if Washington has any brains, REAL experts are being consulted. I heard that just yesterday McCain had admitted to not yet having read the bailout proposal. And before this week, he was going on about how "strong" the current economy is. He is hardly worth his vote, especially considering how many he has missed in the past year.
This financial crisis is not going to be solved overnight. And the person elected president will be in charge of the aftermath and hopefully leading the country into a brighter economic future where the government doesn't have to bail out banks while the CEOs enjoy their multi-million dollar retirement packages in one of their many homes.
I don't even care if the debates had been canceled and the campaigns temporarily suspended, as long as both candidates had decided together. Its McCain's actions that I find most despicable. From a political standpoint, I know why he did it. So he'd look like a leader and Obama would look like the bad guy more concerned with talk than action. I am so happy that Obama went up there and explained the timeline, making it very clear that it was his plan that McCain took credit for and ran with it into the end-zone of crazy.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik:
quote:I just don't see why or how that could be a problem.
And I don't see why moving the debates is such a problem.
I think my concern is my memory (maybe not accurate?) of past presidential debates having been put off postponed, or delayed to the point that at least one or two were never held. I think that outcome would be a real and significant disservice to the country and its citizens.
quote:That might be where you're not understanding my comparisons to Katrina--this is seen by those participating in it as possibly preventing an economic disaster comparable to the great depression.
No, my quibble isn't with overall significance or impact, it's with correlating the acuity of the potential need to be at a specific other place at night.
From 8-10pm Friday night in Washington during an economic crisis, no matter how huge != from 8-10pm on Friday night in Washington during a hurricane which could cut a disasterous swath through multiple states at any given time. The demands on the individuals involved at that level aren't even in the same ballpark.
quote:But even that's just speculation. It's a place we've never been before. So nobody's really sure how much action is necessary and how fast in order to provide an effective and lasting solution at as little cost to the taxpayer as possible.
Right. So he stays in Washington and has the debates in Washington. No problem.
I mean, it's not like John McCain isn't going to go to sleep for the next few weeks because he! might need to be! immediately at the ready! totally unexpectedly! at any moment! He's (I'm sure) going to sleep for hours at a stretch most nights, because they can wake him if they need him -- just like he could be called away from the debates if they need him. Actually likely more quickly, as he'd already be up and dressed.
[ September 24, 2008, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I may be thinking of 1980, when there were only two presidential debates and no vice presidential debates. I can't quickly find out whether that was the intended scheduling from the beginning.
Regardless, I'll bet a personalized sonnet that we are not going to have all (typically three) presidential debates and a vice-presidential debate this year. At least one of those just won't happen. I'll throw in a pen-and-ink drawing of your choice of subject (PG only, of course), too!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
While I tend to see McCain's actions today as being politically opportunistic, I don't think it's fair to say that the debate is just a few hours on Friday night. The candidates have been drilling, probably several hours every day, for the past week or two and are going to continue doing so until the debate actually happens.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm sure they are. I'd be delighted to see how the persons who want to be the future leader of my country -- during a time of crisis -- handle multi-tasking, competing pressures, and facing questions which they may not have gotten drilled about in advance.
That's the job they are applying for, no?
Especially given that at this point, neither of them are taking point. Yet.
As Lyrhawn stated,
quote:But really, neither McCain nor Obama will be taking point on this, which is part of why McCain's argument is so silly. This is being hashed out amongst dozens of Congressmen and Senators. The idea that the two of them will come riding in to town to break the logjam, when the whole thing hasn't even been laid out yet, is goofy to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Katrina analogy is rather horrible, for all the reasons that Claudia has brought up, plus you're just plan giving McCain the wrong position in this situation. McCain isn't in the Republican leadership, he's not in the Banking committee where the hearings are being held, he's not at the White House where the executive side of things are being taken care of. This might not even hit the floor for open debate until the weekend, and only then would he be able to shape the bill. Besides, there are 99 other senators that are all going to have their say as well when it comes to the floor for a vote. McCain, regardless of his campaign status, isn't going to be the KEY player here, that's going to be the leadership, and likely Dodd as the Chairman of the Banking Committee.
On the trail, he can speak with the power of a potential president, on the floor of the senate, he'll be one voice amongst many. I think he needs to be at that debate.
quote:I mean, it's not like John McCain isn't going to go to sleep for the next few weeks
Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that vampires don't sleep.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Docmajik was wondering why moving the debates is problematic. For one, the University of Mississippi has already been setting up the auditorium for the debate, it would be rather silly for them to have to take down all of the stuff and put it back up on the whim of when McCain is ready to debate. Especially because they probably have other uses for that Auditorium in the coming weeks. They've also already spent something like 5 million dollars setting up so far, should we really force people to eat it?
Another separate reason is the television scheduling. Sure, they can throw in a fun movie or some re-runs if need be, but they schedule around these debates, with weeks of planning ahead. We don't have weeks to plan ahead. We have about 40 days to the election. It's not fair to the television networks.
In a time of crisis like this, it's good for us to see a leader, someone who emanates a feeling of authority and control, a person we can trust. Even though the debate was on Foreign Policy, I think that seeing a man with stable judgement and beliefs we can relate with is more beneficial than knowing that he's fighting the good fight in Washington.
Now for my own note on all of this. It just seems silly to me. Hearing McCain is stopping his campaign to go save the economy is just ridiculous. John McCain isn't going to swoop down into the senate, with a big M emblazoned on his chest and saving the economy. He gives himself too much credit on how effective he'll be. I'm pretty sure that the senate can function and deliberate on the economy without Senator McCain, and to pretend otherwise is pretentious and silly.
(That said, I will play devil's advocate here for a minute, even against my own beliefs. Technically... isn't this what McCain's supposed to be? He hasn't been elected president, he HAS been elected senator. Shouldn't he, y'know, be doing his job in times like this?)
But one more thing that was an interesting point that was brought up. Even during the Civil War, Lincoln campaigned... Our nation was literally broken then. Just some food for thought.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that more constructive work will get done in Congress if the presidential candidates are _not_ there.
Again, there is a difference between deliberate speed and reacting in crisis mode. I am loath to believe this administration (again) when they try to rush their agenda with dire warnings. It is reported that Sec. Paulson had been preparing this plan for some time. Why not let Congress in on the plan then so they had some time to digest it?
quote: Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.
I do agree that something needs to be done and soon, but it needs to be done right and carefully.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: I'd be delighted to see how the persons who want to be the future leader of my country -- during a time of crisis -- handle multi-tasking, competing pressures, and facing questions which they may not have gotten drilled about in advance.
I don't disagree. I just winced every time someone said "a couple hours." It's an unnecessary exaggeration.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There should be a 3am phone call rousing both of them to a surprise debate. I want to see how they fare in that kind of situation.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*grin
Well, okay then. I'll try to avoid putting the cringe on you again. But you could have debates with only a few hours set aside for them -- it would be the minimum. Of course, you could choose to do more.
I'd like to see a presidential candidate make that choice, I really would, if each were faced with the same choice. That sure would be useful to see.
I guess I'm hard on presidential candidates. I'd like to see 'em put through the wringer now just so I can get a better idea of how they'll look in it later.
---
Edited to add: Yeah, Mucus -- what sort of person is answering that phone call? Would be good to know, no?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Lyrhawn, you may have missed my post on the last page, but it was Harry Reid who said they needed McCain to run point for the Republicans on this.
quote:Democratic congressional leaders had been demanding for days that McCain take a more forceful position in favor of a bailout and rally his party behind him. What they did not want was either McCain or Obama in the room -- a prospect that suddenly seemed to materialize yesterday, only to dissipate in a rapid-fire series of events. Instead, negotiators now appear to have gotten more than they could have hoped for: both presidential candidates meeting with President Bush to deliver a forceful statement in favor of a fast, dramatic market intervention.
quote:"We got a good sense last night, even more so this morning," one top aide said. "Got in a position where Democrats were warily circling McCain -- not going to commit to a deal unless McCain does. It was just a time for leadership. So he just stepped up."
There's more in that story--if you're anti-McCain, you'll be particularly interested in the fact that while they want his support, no one really wants him in the room doing any negotiating, as well as that the deal seemed to be all but done, and they were more worried about McCain's potential criticism of the bill than what wisdom he might bring to the party.
But you'll also want to note that it wasn't until Obama came to the table and agreed to the meeting that the tensions actually eased and things started moving forward. We may have a bill passed by Friday, because people eventually came together instead of posturing. The debates may just be able to go on as scheduled.
And the good news is both parties still got to see enough bad about how the other guy handled the situation that they can go on with their partisan bickering, even while they all support the bill. Obama supporters can see McCain as fiendishly stealing credit and ducking genuine confrontation while McCain supporters can see Obama as childishly arguing about who had "dibs" on bipartisanship rather than just being bipartisan.
I hate to bring up something that came up a page and a half ago, but that's the real tragedy to me, since we got talking about about this whole Palin's preacher vs. Obama's preacher thing.
The "terrible" thing isn't that one won't be as well covered as the other.
It's the fact that even if both men were saying the exact same thing, word for word, in every sermon every week, and the words were despicable, people would still find a way to either justify or downplay that their own candidate's preacher was saying them, while demonizing the other guy's preacher for saying them.
Too many people do not use rational thought in deciding these things any more. They go into every situation with the idea already formed in our minds--the other guy is bad: How can I prove it? My guy is better: How can I prove it?
Isn't it a huge surprise how, in this situation, nearly everybody took the side that it was their candidate who handled the situation right, and the other candidate who handled the situation wrong?
And not only that, but people aren't actually reading what other people are saying. They're instead cubbyholing people into the categories they think they fit into, and then arguing with the position they think the other person is taking.
Folks, remember, I didn't use Katrina as an exact analogy. I used it as the other end of a spectrum, in order to show there were conceivably situations where a Presidential Candidate would do well to go do his regular job.
I then went on to acknowledge in my own posts that where this situation fit on that spectrum is up for debate.
My arguement, can be summed up in this paragraph, from my first post on this page:
quote:Again--I'm not saying it's a matter of one thing being obviously necessary to happen right then, and the other being obviously insane to have happening at that moment. Both are movable, and it's just a matter of what your priorities are that determines which one you'd rather have happening--in other words, it's completely subjective.
All I'm arguing is that people can disagree about this and still be moral people.
For example, I think it's safe to say that CT places extremely high value on the debates. She considers them a vital part of the political process. For the record, while I made a generalization earlier, I don't think it applies to CT--I do not think this is an arbitrary thing she arrived at simply because she prefers one candidate over the other. She cares about them enough that she can remember the circumstances of past debates, so I don't think she just arbitrarily decided to care about this one. For her, I think it's safe to say debates rate WAY higher than economic issues.
I think it's safe to say she feels we could put off dealing with this financial crisis until next week, because the potential impact of the debate on who becomes our next president is so great.
For me, I work for a financial institution. Me, my coworkers, and my customers are being crunched by this. My customers shared with me there was a mini-run on the Washington Mutual here in town, to the point where Washington Mutual had to start capping withdrawals, telling people they couldn't take their own money out of their bank. I've been having to explain to the employees I manage that I've been persuading to fund their 401k plans why those accounts are down, down, down. I didn't even go to work today--I just sat here watching the market in the financial sector, waiting for news that congress had passed something. Not for the sake of rich fat-cats, but for the sake of my employees and my customers.
For me, right now, this financial crisis rates pretty high on my list of priorities. I'm fine with a debate getting put off while we deal with it.
I am not saying I'm right and CT's wrong. I'm saying that we have different priorities.
McCain can want to go deal with this crisis and not be a coward. Obama can want the debates to go on and not want to destroy our economy.
This was not a choice between right and wrong. It was just a choice between different priorities. It does not show us who was moral and who was not. It just shows us who values what.
And I don't mean that in a naive, Pollyanish way, where we say, "Oh, McCain values the economy and Obama values the exchange of ideas."
The men are running for President, and obviously that taints their actions. Personally, I see that McCain values being seen as as a leader--he thinks that will help him. And I see that Obama values the opportunity to engage his opponent--he thinks that will help him, too. You've probably got your own list, and it's probably as tilted in the favor of your candidate as mine is of mine.
But believe me when I say that I can absolutely see how this can be seen as cowardly on the part of McCain. I think I've been saying I figured that's how people would take it all along, unless he pulled off some kind of miracle resolution--again, a miracle resolution I've said he was pretty much incapable of pulling off all along.
But like I said, at this point, it looks like there will be a joint meeting, it will allow for the bill to pass without letting it become a political weapon for either party, and it all just might happen in time for the debates to go on.
Here's to happy endings.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Lyrhawn, you may have missed my post on the last page, but it was Harry Reid who said they needed McCain to run point for the Republicans on this.
I did miss that, but I'm not sure I see the relevence. Reid and others want McCain to pressure Republicans and the president to join with Democrats who are okay with the basic idea of the "bailout" but want a lot of changes to make sure it is done right and fairly to taxpayers. Thus far, it looks, at least on the surface, like Congressional Democrats and Republicans are coming together on this one rather well. It's looking like a rare bi-partisan Congress vs. White House rather than Republicans vs. Democrats. As presidential contenders, they figure McCain and Obama have more influence in this situation with Pres. Bush than regular senators.
Chuck Schumer I think summed up a lot of people's criticisms, that a lot of the dealing and negotiating has been done already and will be done soon, but McCain is trying to swoop in to town and claim credit for the work everyone else already has done. That certainly LOOKS like what he's trying to do, but we'll have to wait and see how this thing plays itself out.
....
In other news, has anyone seen anything from the Palin interview with Katie Couric? I've only seen snippets, but they weren't very impressive. I'll have to see the whole thing before I make a final judgment. I don't think this is the whole thing, but here's part of it.
She comes off sounding more like a campaign spokesperson rather than the VP candidate. Couric asked her three or four times to give specifics on McCain's leadership and after attempts to stonewall she was left with "I'll get back to you on that." Weak. She also came off pretty weak on the specific questions that Couric asked her. She had a line for everything, but every time Couric pressed her (which I was a little surprised to see), she either repeated the line or just deflected the question entirely.
She sounds lost. The odd thing is, she's fantastic on the stump when she's giving speeches to a large adoring nearing fanatical crowd, but when she gets out by herself, which the McCain campaign has tried their hardest to limit, and she's asked straight out questions by interviewers, I think she looks like she's regurgitating a script, and when she has to go off script, she's lost. Oddly, I think that's pretty much the exact charge that Obama was hit with a year ago, and even recently, that all he does is give speeches but no specifics. For Obama I think that was and always has been a crap charge. For Palin? She needs to get out there more and make herself more accessible, because these little snippets she gives out here and there make her look more and more out of place on the national scene. I think that when she knows what she is talking about or when no one is challenging her, she's very, very effective. But in a freewheeling debate? I think now more than I did a week ago that Biden will crush her, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot in the process of doing so. Unless she's sandbagging to lower expectations, which is possible, she doesn't look like she has a clue when she has to go off script.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I mean, it's not like John McCain isn't going to go to sleep for the next few weeks
Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that vampires don't sleep.
I am remembering the awesome GTA III radio commercial that starts: "I used to fall unconscious for hours at a time. But not any more!"
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
A note on the Preacher v.s. Preacher debate. For a long time I've heard people of faith stating that it doesn't matter what Faith a candidate has, as long as they have strong faith in God. I've heard those supporting stronger separation of Church and State argue that one's Faith can be a dangerous thing, for you will eventually promote it and its followers over others. This debate about who's minister is most dangerous seems to support that last assertion. They seem to be arguing that "Any Faith is good as long as its strong and heart felt--and agrees with mine."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I really don't get why anyone thinks that Senator McCain suspending his campaign is necessary. I understand that people think that swift action on the financial crisis is very important (I don't necessarily agree. I think we'd likely be better served by a longer consideration, probably with a smaller inital bailout.), but I don't see how John McCain, a man who even by his own admission is weak on his understanding of the economy and, up till what was it, 7 days ago, was saying that the fundamentals were strong, suspending everything else he is doing is going to help this along.
What is it that you see him doing during this time that he couldn't do while campaigning? I'm just really not seeing it.
---
edit: I'm pretty sure this is mainly a political stunt and an attempt to duck the debate, but treating it like a sincere effort, I would also find it worrying.
First, unless I'm greatly underestimating the demands made on him by this situation, if Sen McCain can't handle both that and any campaigning for President, I would worry about his fitness for the job of President, where you are going to be called on to handle many critical situations in overlapping time periods.
Second, I am concerned that people may be seeing this bail out as fixing the economy. Even if it were a good idea (for the country as a whole, I mean, not for the big money men who are definitely going to be helped out by this), this is not some magic wand that is going to make everything all better. The serious work is going to take place after this plan is rushed through and is going to take much longer.
[ September 25, 2008, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Harry Reid in direct statement issued in regards to John McCain and Barack Obama:
quote:This is a critical time for our country. While I appreciate that both candidates have signaled their willingness to help, Congress and the Administration have a process in place to reach a solution to this unprecedented financial crisis.
If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now.
Really pretty much what kmboots has been saying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would almost rather that Sen. McCain's idea to cancel the debates and suspend his campaign were a cynical attempt to look presidential. I think, though, that it stems from his need to do something, take action. The result of that urge is that Sen. McCain has been (as my grandfather would have said) going off half cocked all week.
I would so vote for Sen. Harry Reid except for his funny religion.
(just kidding. I wouild totally vote for Sen. Reid. Except I don't live in Nevada.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It might be worth the problem of injecting the the election politics into the situation if John McCain were an expert on the economy. But he's not. He doesn't understand it.
I think it's this weakness that is probably the biggest motivation for this move. He was looking at getting killed in a debate where the economy was going to be the main topic and this offers him a chance to avoid that.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I like that McCain suspended his campaign. If we are supposed to be going through a national emergency, then let's go through a national emergency. If this is just a matter of business as usual, then I don't feel comfortable funding this bailout.
[ September 25, 2008, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's because you're on the record as favoring useless, symbolic gestures, Irami. Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
Perhaps this is why McCain wants to suspend campaigning and focus on just one thing:
quote:Changes in brain activity that begin gradually in middle age may explain why older adults have a harder time with concentration in busy environments, and are easily distracted by irrelevant information.
(...no I am not suggesting that the economic situation is irrelevant information...)
On a more serious note, everyone seems focused on debating the debate, which makes me wonder if the desired effect was to put up a smokescreen.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Irami, in a time of national crisis, part of the President's job is to speak to the nation. To explain what is happening to the citizens, to reassure them that what needs to be done is being done. In fact, to inspire them -- especially given that one of the worst turn of events right now would be for US citizens to go into flight mode, try to withdraw their money from the banks, and exacerbate a full-fledged panic.
There is already a bank being stormed in Hong Kong as people there are trying to withdraw all their money from it. For goodness' sake, that's the last thing we need here.
It isn't business as usual. It is a vetting for who is to take charge over this whole mess and lead the country -- which, like it or not, is going to include taking time to address the citizenry. That is what a president will have to do. Given that neither of these guys are in a position to solve anything [on their own]*** right now, but are in the position of being vetted for stepping in to coordinate just that, well ... I'd like to see how they handle it.
For if either was President, that is exactly what the business of the day would be for an executive in a time of crisis.
---
*** Of course, they are in a position to have input, just as a President would. Less so than the President himself, I'd guess. But the President still has to juggle addressing the public, as GWB did last night.
[ September 25, 2008, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cerridwen: Perhaps this is why McCain wants to suspend campaigning and focus on just one thing:
quote:Changes in brain activity that begin gradually in middle age may explain why older adults have a harder time with concentration in busy environments, and are easily distracted by irrelevant information.
Which might or might not well be balanced by increased experience, increased resources from more time spent in public office, increased wisdom, etc., depending on the context.
I was concerned about Reagan falling asleep during meetings he attended as President, but I wasn't necessarily concerned because of his age itself. I was concerned about how age seemed to be playing out in his case, and what seemed to be coming along with age in his case.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
God, you know, I'm sitting here thinking still. I would love for McCain to step up to the plate and bash this out of the park on Friday. I'd love to see him be the kind of President I and we need to get the country back on its feet -- smart as a whip, decisive, informed as all get out, savvy, inspiring, a leader.
I don't give a damn about campaign lies, mudslinging, slanderous jokes, whatever, at this point. I just want someone to run the country well. I think Obama is the better candidate for that, but shoot, whoever can best step up to the plate, just do it. Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
Speaking of McCain and Reagan:
quote:Shortly after President Reagan had been diagnosed with the degenerative illness, McCain made the following joke at a Republican fundraiser. “ Do you know the best thing about having Alzheimer's?” he asked. “You get to hide your own Easter eggs.”
Did he really say all those jokes, or is it hearsay?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't know. I do know that my mother, a geriatric nurse with more than 30 yrs of experience under her belt, had called the Alzheimer's by the second term of office. She and the staff where she worked had picked up on some of the speech and facies indicators by then.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The problem is, no matter how good or bad McCain himself is, most of the "running the country" job would be done by all the folks McCain brings with him.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Do you think most of the "speaking to the populace" job would be, too? (Honest question, not a dig or trap. )
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cerridwen: Speaking of McCain and Reagan:
quote:Shortly after President Reagan had been diagnosed with the degenerative illness, McCain made the following joke at a Republican fundraiser. “ Do you know the best thing about having Alzheimer's?” he asked. “You get to hide your own Easter eggs.”
Did he really say all those jokes, or is it hearsay?
It's a good joke and it ain't to offend.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Cerridwen: Speaking of McCain and Reagan:
quote:Shortly after President Reagan had been diagnosed with the degenerative illness, McCain made the following joke at a Republican fundraiser. “ Do you know the best thing about having Alzheimer's?” he asked. “You get to hide your own Easter eggs.”
Did he really say all those jokes, or is it hearsay?
It's a good joke and it ain't to offend.
Joking about Reagan is pretty harmless... His other jokes, however, seem rather tasteless- especially the one about rape. It simply isn't a laughing matter.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The most disturbing part of that whole article was what McCain said to his WIFE. THAT little exchange shows the real man, that he would be so crass and cutting to his spouse, and in public no less.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, in a time of national crisis, part of the President's job is to speak to the nation.
I'm thinking about the Patriot Act and how that was rammed through Congress largely because the congressmen didn't take time or screw up the courage to stop/or at least slow down, the Bush Administration. I'm thinking of all those Senators who inadvertently voted for the war in Iraq for the same reason. Honestly, I find it refreshing that McCain is willing the put on the brakes, fly to Washington, and act like a Senator.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
That comment at the end of the article makes me sick. I don't care who you are, or what POW camp you were in; that was a disgusting comment. Not that the other jokes were any better :/
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
No reason McCain can't go to Washington AND take a break to participate in the debate.
...
No good reason, anyway.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The rush that President Bush is putting on this bail out is probably necessary, but it reminds me about the rush and panic that went into the Patriot Act and the resolution for War that followed 9/11.
It also reminds me of the near panic that they were at when they wanted to "fix Social Security" which would have sent so much of my retirement into the markets that have tanked.
I just don't trust the administration telling us we need to panic.
At least not again.
My money, however, on why Mr. McCain is canceling the debate is not as simple as we have seen. Its not because he needs to tackle the problems. Its because he needs to come up with an excuse to cancel the VP debate next week.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I really don't get why anyone thinks that Senator McCain suspending his campaign is necessary.
This may have already been said (and I missed it in all this somewhere), but my feeling was, from his call to suspend the debate, was that "we (both he and Obama) are Senators first, and candidates secondarily. We need to get back to being Senators for this high priority - working on this issue; then resume the campaign". (those are not his words - that was just the way I understood it, as to why he was calling for the debates to be postponed).
They currently ARE elected officials, you know. They are supposed to be doing elected Senatorial duties right now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Irami, in a time of national crisis, part of the President's job is to speak to the nation.
I'm thinking about the Patriot Act and how that was rammed through Congress largely because the congressmen didn't take time or screw up the courage to stop/or at least slow down, the Bush Administration. I'm thinking of all those Senators who inadvertently voted for the war in Iraq for the same reason. Honestly, I find it refreshing that McCain is willing the put on the brakes, fly to Washington, and act like a Senator.
If Sen. McCain was the only senator capable of putting on the breaks, or willing to put on the breaks, or even the best at putting on the breaks that might be true and it still would not preclude his participation in the presidential campaign.
That is not the case, though. There are lots of senators more useful in the situation. Sen. McCain is more likely to hinder progress than to help matters.
ETA: Farmgirl, of course. If their votes are needed to get a resolution passed (or defeated if necessary), both candidates should be in DC to vote.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: No reason McCain can't go to Washington AND take a break to participate in the debate.
...
No good reason, anyway.
Yup.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If Sen. McCain was the only senator capable of putting on the breaks, or willing to put on the breaks, or even the best at putting on the breaks that might be true and it still would not preclude his participation in the presidential campaign.
That is not the case, though. There are lots of senators more useful in the situation. Sen. McCain is more likely to hinder progress than to help matters.
Yup.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:They currently ARE elected officials, you know. They are supposed to be doing elected Senatorial duties right now.
I think you may have missed the reason I elaborated on in asking this question.
What duties do you think he has to perform that he couldn't do without suspending his campaign?
I've got no problem with a candidate having responsibilities in their current position that supercedes their campaigning and can't be done while the campaign is active. I don't see any indication that this is the case here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I should add that Sen. Obama's presence would be more likely to hinder progress than to help as well. Maybe not to the same extent... Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: My money, however, on why Mr. McCain is canceling the debate is not as simple as we have seen. Its not because he needs to tackle the problems. Its because he needs to come up with an excuse to cancel the VP debate next week.
Here's an idea I saw elsewhere today: switch this Friday's debate with next week's VP debate. Then we get to really see if the VP candidates are truly ready to step in and take over at a moment's notice.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
This just struck me as a funny yet uncomfortable exchange... Pakistan's President Zardari to Palin:
quote:You are even more gorgeous than you are on the ," Zardari said.
"You are so nice. Thank you," Palin said.
"Now I know why the whole of America is crazy about you," Zardari said, as his handler told them to shake hands for the cameras.
"I'm supposed to pose again," Palin said.
"If he's insisting," Zardari said to laughter, "I might hug."
I also had a good chuckle at the use of the word 'handler.' Apparently, politicians, like circus and zoo animals, require handlers.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:They currently ARE elected officials, you know. They are supposed to be doing elected Senatorial duties right now.
I think you may have missed the reason I elaborated on in asking this question.
What duties do you think he has to perform that he couldn't do without suspending his campaign?
I'm sorry if my explanation made it appear that I was in favor of his suspending his campaign for it. I was explaining what I thought was his reasoning, but definitely not saying I agree with it.
I would have to speak with him personally to find out why he feels his presence there is so urgent. Until then, I think he should debate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have a hard time rationalizing McCain's suspending his campaign as anything other than a publicity stunt.
I could rationalize cancelling friday's debate. A debate isn't just about the 2 hours on the air, or even the 4 hours that would include travel and set up time -- its about the preparation time and the focus. I think one could build a rational argument around the need to focus on the legislative business of the Senate in this crisis rather than preparing for and participating in a debate.
But when you add to that the full suspension of his campaign including suspending TV ads (which have no doubt already been made) and fund raising (which is certainly being handled by someone other than McCain) this can only be rationally seen as publicity stunt and nothing more.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:There are lots of senators more useful in the situation.
That's really the key point.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are doing most of the work on the Democratic side, as far as the Senate goes, and it's looking like Shelby and Boehner are doing most of the work on the Republican side. And a lot of them on both sides are saying to keep politics out of this, which means keeping the candidates away. The work is already being done without them.
Usually senate work is done in committee and then reported out to the senate at large. McCain isn't a part of that process, and neither is Obama. Regardless though, the work is all being done right now, and McCain jumping into the middle of delicate negotiations that have been going on for days has a better chance of slowing the process down than speeding it up.
A lot of Republicans now are talking about jumping ship entirely to create a whole new bill, calling Paulson's bill fatally flawed. Pelosi in the House is demanding at least a 100 Republican votes on the measure so they don't get slammed for it later. It's a political move, but considering what's going on I don't really blame her.
Maybe McCain can whip votes for the bill, and in fact that's what a lot of pundits are saying would probably be the best thing he could do, rather than horn in on the negotiations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
edited for double post, my bad.
[ September 25, 2008, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are doing most of the work on the Democratic side, as far as the Senate goes, and it's looking like Shelby and Boehner are doing most of the work on the Republican side. And a lot of them on both sides are saying to keep politics out of this, which means keeping the candidates away. The work is already being done without them.
We are talking about anywhere from 300 million to a trillion dollars of taxpayer/deficit money going into Wall Street pockets with scant restrictions and I'm not sure that Chris Dodd and Boehner weren't tacitly complicit in this mess in the first place. I would like very much to put politics back into this issue because I believe that borrowing more money to bail out these companies and the people involved is very much a political issue.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:with scant restrictions
If that was true, the bill would have passed already. The reason it's taking so long is that Frank, Dodd and others are trying to put a lot more oversight and restrictions into the measure, which Bush is trying to block.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am reading that McCain is going to be appearing on NBC, CBS, and ABC stations tonight. Anyone know if this is just my chain being yanked? (came from an email from a friend in the States)
---
Edited to add more with link (crossposted from elsewhere):
quote:John McCain will appear on all three network newscasts tonight, a top aide said.
McCain is at the White House meeting with President Bush, Barack Obama and congressional leaders now and will tape interviews with NBC, ABC and CBS after the West Wing session.
Now I'm not in the US, and I don't know for myself what's going on in the US media. But from what I'm reading, McCain campaign commercials are still running, fundraising is ongoing, people from his campaign are still doing public appearances. Is this true?
(If it is, I haven't a problem with that. I also haven't a problem with holding the debate as scheduled tomorrow. I just can't resolve my cognitive dissonance if this all really is true, or even some of it. Not with a suspended campaign.)
---
Edited again to add: Mind you, I'm perfectly happy not to have either's campaign suspended. I'm also thinking that maybe this is a single taped short interview to be broadcast on all three networks, rather than 3 interviews (?).
---
And again to add: If that source is correct, Obama is going to do the same, whatever that is. FWIW.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:John McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis.
In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together.
Then a few sentences later
quote:The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday, where Barack Obama’s priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections.
Are the American People so stupid that they can't tell McCain is playing the blame game in this statement.
Edit to not that both of the above are quotes from a statement issued by the McCain campaign which can be found in Threads link above.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From what I read about the White House meeting, the Democratic leadership stayed quiet while Obama argued their stance for 40 some odd minutes (without notes) with the Republican leadership while McCain didn't say a single word until almost a half hour into the meeting when Obama specifically addressed him in an attempt to get him involved.
So not only he is trying to claim credit for Democratic ideas, and for bi-partisan negotiations, but he didn't apparently do a damned thing during what negotiations he was actually involved in. This comes after McCain admitted to both not reading the Bush plan, not reading the Democratic rebuttal, and not even reading the Republican plan! The guy is just plain bonkers.
Edit to add: In other press releases, McCain said that the reason he is attending the debate tonight is because he feels enough progress has been made for him to resume all campaign activities. I'm not sure I get that. He "suspended" his campaign for 24 hours, which basically just involved an eight hour stint in Washington, arrived, the negotiations broke down, he declared victory and left? His narrative of what happened sounds impressive, but the actual chronology of events make him look out of his mind.
[ September 26, 2008, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
David Brooks is one of my favorite columnists. Here's a sample of why.
An excerpt
quote:And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.
What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events - the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.
How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can't, what has worked and what hasn't.
That's one of the things that really been bugging me about the "experience" aspect of this campaign. Experience, by itself, is no benefit. It is merely living through some stuff.
Were I on the Obama campaign staff, it is exactly the prudence (or I was calling it judgement) angle as why Sen Obama is most qualified for President. They should be trying to make the case for this, but it seems like, by an large, they are not going near it.
I think John McCain has made a lot of poor moves lately that call his judgement into question, the biggest probably selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.
---
Incidentally, my predicition is that Gov Palin withdraws from the campaign "For personal reasons" right before the VP debates.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Lyrhawn, can you provide some links for what you have been reading?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll try to link the articles before I leave for work, but if I don't get the chance, check the front pages of CNN, MSNBC and TIME.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Honestly, this doesn't seem like an especially big deal. I'm sure that both the Obama and McCain camps have "Our Candidate Did Great!" ads ready to be run after the debate tonight. My guess is that either some low level staffer with the McCain campaign screwed up when submitting this ad (my guess would be that they specified the date on which the ad should run, not thinking that they also needed to mention the time, or the whoever it is that's in charge of ads on that site screwed up and posted it early.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it might become a bigger deal if John McCain clearly doesn't win tonight.
Premature declarations of success and making decisions before you have sufficient information are a couple of the hallmarks of the Bush Iraq policy. This could be used as another link to the diseased thinking of the Bush administration.
But probably not.
---
I think I'm just upset about the blase acceptance of premeditated outright dishonesty.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
Did Muthee pray over McCain too??
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Actually, I want to talk about that a bit.
Everyone knows that no matter what happens in the debate, the McCain people are going to claim that he won and the Obama people are going to claim that he won. And they have to do this because them not saying it very likely to hurt the candidate, but what they say, as this shows, is meaningless. They've decided how they are going to claim victory before the debate even happens.
The news networks specifically invite campaign members on air to spin their candidates performance, knowing that they aren't going to be honest, but instead will look for any angle to make their guy look good and the other one look bad.
And yet it is important for them to make these worthless statements and partisans on both sides will even point to them to support their chosen candidate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Translating the McCain campaign statement into from the language of political posturing to plain english.
What he said
quote:John McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis.
Plain English version
quote:John McCain's decided to suspend his campaign and go to Washington in the hope that he could take credit for a bipartisan solution to the economic crisis and score big with the voters
What they said
quote:In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution.
Plain in English
quote:When McCain arrived in Washington, he was surprised to find that the members of the house and Senate from both parties who had been working hard to find an acceptable solution to this crisis were unwilling to let him take the credit.
What he said
quote:work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ money to bailout bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices.
Plain English
quote:There isn't a solution to this one that doesn't screw the tax payers one way or another
What they said
quote:Both parties in both houses of Congress and the administration needed to come together to find a solution that would deserve the trust of the American people. And while there were attempts to do that, much of yesterday was spent fighting over who would get the credit for a deal and who would get the blame for failure.
Plain English
quote:You should believe that John McCain's the only man in Washinton who wants to solve problems rather than win political points.
What they said:
quote:There was no deal or offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress. There was no deal yesterday that included adequate protections for the taxpayers. It is not enough to cut deals behind closed doors and then try to force it on the rest of Congress — especially when it amounts to thousands of dollars for every American family.
Plain English
quote:My intervention wasn't welcomed by the committees who've been working long hard hours on this problem while I've been out campaigning
What they said;
quote:The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday, where Barack Obama’s priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands
Plain English:
quote:Its all Barack Obama's fault
What they said
quote:John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners.
Plain English
quote:McCain didn't know enough about the details of the proposals to make any useful contribution to the debate so he just sat a listened
What they said;
quote:Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections
Plain English
quote: It's all the democrats fault.
What they said
quote:Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the senator will travel to the debate this afternoon.
Plain English
quote:John McCain realized that he wasn't going to be able to win any political points here so he decided to make some excuses to save face and return you to your regularly scheduled campaign antics.
What they said:
quote: Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners."
Plain English
quote:You should vote for John McCain because he cares about regular people like you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But in a freewheeling debate? I think now more than I did a week ago that Biden will crush her, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot in the process of doing so. Unless she's sandbagging to lower expectations, which is possible, she doesn't look like she has a clue when she has to go off script.
It occurs to me that she may just not have a clue, period. If her answers to Charlie Gibson are any indication of her judgment, honestly, she is an idiot.
Her answers to interviewers have been consistently ignorant of their questions, and clearly misleading- with her sticking in her pro-McCain slants, and not getting called on it because she's making so many other mistakes. AT one point in the latest interview, she says, "I love John McCain's idea of Bipartartisanship on this bill." Not his idea. But whatever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Incidentally, my predicition is that Gov Palin withdraws from the campaign "For personal reasons" right before the VP debates.
You and Kathleen Parker.
quote: Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
Honestly, to me, in these interviews she sounds like a beauty show contestant, who has the lines that she's been told to say and tries to work them in no matter what the question actually was and is almost incoherent if she has to go off script.
---
This probably isn't fair, but I've gotten a very Britney Spears-ish air from John McCain this past week. His moves just feel so desperate and clueless.
I think he's moved too far away from his core and people are suggesting to him to "clever" tricks that don't seem to be working out as expected.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
According to Mr. McCain's senior advisor to CNN, his visit to Washington was largely ineffectual.
But hey, at least he tried. Fortunately tonight's debate is about foreign policy, so I doubt we will hear much about this weeks events. The debate should be a good one, though it's depressing to think that both candidates have likely been instructed not to answer the questions they are posed, but to answer the questions they wish they'd been asked.
Though the current and future status of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will probably dominate the podiums tonight, I hope both candidates are asked what they plan on doing in response to North Korea and Iran.
Since I'm greedy, I also hope they are asked what America's role should be in regards to country's with terrible human rights records but with whom we have a strong trade relationship. China, for example.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't think Palin is an idiot. I think she is working with a lot of material that is unfamiliar to her, in a context that is both unfamiliar and high stakes. She can't say the wrong thing, but it is almost impossible not to say the wrong thing when this is mostly new information to her, so she has to fall back on scripts and repeating herself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I don't think Palin is an idiot. I think she is working with a lot of material that is unfamiliar to her, in a context that is both unfamiliar and high stakes. She can't say the wrong thing, but it is almost impossible not to say the wrong thing when this is mostly new information to her, so she has to fall back on scripts and repeating herself.
I don't think she is stupid either. But ignorance certainly seems to attend her.
That's not a death sentence to a presidency, many of our presidents have been very "hands off" when it comes to the office, Washington and Reagan come to mind. But in order for a "hands off" approach to work, a president has to be mindful of what men and women he/she has around them and what strengths and weaknesses they bring to the board.
Palin seems to have a bit of cronyism underlying her appointments, (re: appointing a childhood friend with a background in real estate to the head of the agriculture department because she, "liked cows as a child.") but her ability to manage people is not something I have seen investigated thoroughly enough.
I want to believe she could be a good "hands off" president, but I remain unconvinced.
edit: And can I just say English needs a gender neutral term that is analogous to he/she, him/her. That way we don't have to write both words out every time?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I don't think she's an idiot, I think she is a dilusional fool. Why would anyone who even gives lip service to family values choose to run for VP when she has a newborn special needs child and pregnant teenage daughter? Why would anyone but a fool accept the VP nomination when she is so unfamiliar and unprepared to address national and international issues?
She says she didn't hesitate for a moment when McCain invited her to share the ticket. Wouldn't any person who understands the enormity of the job of VP hesitate for at least a moment to consider whether they were up to it? Wouldn't any responsible person who understands the responsibility and potential consequences of the job hesitate for at least a moment to consider whether they had the experience and skills necessary to do the job well. I would think her family situation alone would have been enough to cause any responsible parent at least a few moments of hesitation. I know plenty of people, both fathers and mothers, who've turned down valuable career opportunities because of the needs of an infant or a troubled teenage child.
Her "I didn't hesitate for a moment comment", just made her look like a fool who doesn't even bother to think about her decisions and the impact they will have on others before jumping in head first.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
She's also been extremely dishonest and has held onto her lies long after they been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false.
To me, that's a pretty big black mark.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB,
quote:According to Mr. McCain's senior advisor to CNN, his visit to Washington was largely ineffectual.
But hey, at least he tried
What do you think he tried to do? According to the reports, he didn't actually do much of anything.
edit: Which, given his poor grasp of economic issues, is probably a good thing. If he tried to have a more active hand, he'd likely have been more disruptive than he already was.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB,
quote:According to Mr. McCain's senior advisor to CNN, his visit to Washington was largely ineffectual.
But hey, at least he tried
What do you think he tried to do? According to the reports, he didn't actually do much of anything.
Went down there and actually sat in the room while policy was being discussed. According to the NYTs he didn't say anything for 40 minutes and the few sentences he uttered after that were at worst undamaging if quoted.
I am unconvinced McCain could have explained effectively why it would have been better for him to have simply collaborated with Obama on a joint statement and done nothing else. At least he showed up, attempted to help, realized he couldn't, and left.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: And can I just say English needs a gender neutral term that is analogous to he/she, him/her. That way we don't have to write both words out every time?
You could go with 'they/them.' You know, "My friend went to the store and bought a new dresser; they later told me it was a disappointment."
With the whole Sarah Palin debate, while I agree that it seems she really has been making a lot of mistakes, and has been creating more problems than solutions, I'm wary to say she was a bad choice. The VP debate is soon, and I have to wonder if her 'scripted' appearance is naught but a way of playing the expectations game. It could be that they're having her pretend to be this ignorant so that when the VP debate comes up, she will bust out of the gates and surprise us all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I realized he couldn't help before he even got there and I'm just some guy.
If this wasn't just a dishonest political stunt and he really thought that he needed to take drastic steps like suspending his campaign in order to help here, John McCain betrayed some pretty terrible judgement.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: And can I just say English needs a gender neutral term that is analogous to he/she, him/her. That way we don't have to write both words out every time?
I sometimes use "they" or "their", as in "... a president has to be mindful of what men and women they have around them ..."
I don't know if thats common or if its even grammatically correct but the dictionary has an explanation that is somewhat related here
quote:The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts ...
Vadon, I think there's a difference between playing down one's abilities and being a trainwreck. Right now, Gov Palin is falling firmly into the second category.
But, she's also acting consistent with everything we know about her. She was barely vetted by the McCain campaign. She is far out of her depth and from what has come out from her background, it is not surprising that she is dishonest or extremely ambitious.
It's possible that this really is all just an act (which has it's own problems, for me at least), but I'd estimate that the probability of this is very low.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And can I just say English needs a gender neutral term that is analogous to he/she, him/her. That way we don't have to write both words out every time?
I use he.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:And can I just say English needs a gender neutral term that is analogous to he/she, him/her. That way we don't have to write both words out every time?
I use he.
I do too but then I feel guilty about excluding women. They/their seems like the solution to my problem, I just haven't incorporated it into my manner of speaking completely.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Another alternative is 他 (ta) or 佢 (köü5) Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"They" is perfectly acceptable and has been for a very long time.
I used to use "yeye", which I understand is Swahili, back in the days of GEnie. Long ago. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Another alternative is 他 (ta) or 佢 (köü5)
Maybe that's why I said English needs a gender neutral term. I'm so used to having one when I speak Chinese.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Another alternative is 他 (ta) or 佢 (köü5)
The ta you use is female ta is fine but the character is female.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Don't underestimate the role McCain played behind the scenes, talking face-to-face with the conservative house republicans and other parties, with whom he has more experience than anyone else in Washington in working to get bipartisan legislation passed. McCain did need to be there, and probably should go back after the debate, to make sure the deal does not fall apart again.
Sen. Obama is not really needed, because he is such an uninfluential lightweight, being only a freshman senator. He probably does not even know most of the members of the House.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ...
Sen. Obama is not really needed, because he is such an uninfluential lightweight, being only a freshman senator. He probably does not even know most of the members of the House.
And yet this uninfluential lightweight somehow managed to become the Democratic presidential nominee...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Another alternative is 他 (ta) or 佢 (köü5)
The ta you use is female ta is fine but the character is female.
Nope, the female "ta" has the nu radical on the left whereas Mucus' has the ren zi pang. Thus making it male or gender neutral.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
O-emmgeezles Am I going crazy?
My chinese is becoming horrible (at least my characters, pinyinis much easier.)
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Don't underestimate the role McCain played behind the scenes, talking face-to-face with the conservative house republicans and other parties, with whom he has more experience than anyone else in Washington in working to get bipartisan legislation passed. McCain did need to be there, and probably should go back after the debate, to make sure the deal does not fall apart again.
Sen. Obama is not really needed, because he is such an uninfluential lightweight, being only a freshman senator. He probably does not even know most of the members of the House.
I'm comforted that McCain will have something to do after the election.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
So they switched the topic to the economy? I thought tonight was about foreign policy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
They both seem to be doing OK. Minor annoyances so far are McCain's smirking and Obama's interrupting.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Watching the debate now. I'm having a hard time following McCain's arguments. His points are all over the place.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: So they switched the topic to the economy? I thought tonight was about foreign policy.
Yeah, I wanted to see that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe that's why I said English needs a gender neutral term. I'm so used to having one when I speak Chinese.
It is weird actually, since I learned Cantonese first before learning Mandarin, I thought it was pretty weird when they said that spoken Mandarin doesn't normally use a specific he/she. Only then I noticed that spoken Cantonese didn't do it either. Its like a cultural blind spot that you don't notice until someone points it out.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Nice work, Lehrer. Both candidates are bad about talking about cutting spending, it requires ticking people off, but Obama is just abysmal. I think Obama will pick up for the rest of the debate, but the first third showed McCain as more fiscally responsible.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I wish Obama would stop focusing on the start of the Iraq war. McCain rightly called him out that the current issue is how to get out of Iraq and Obama has dodged it so far. Bleh...
EDIT: But Obama has done a good job calling McCain on his bull.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Was that Godwin's Law? "We can not allow another Holocaust."
ETA: It's kind of annoying that McCain's repeated defense against Obama regarding Topic A is that Obama just doesn't understand Topic A. Just make your point already.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Yeah, that was ridiculous.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
How is sitting down with Iran equal to "they're doing the right thing?"
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It's not. I think Obama is handling that point really well. McCain's argument against negotiations without preconditions was exceedingly weak.
EDIT: Augghh.... it's driving me insane how McCain starts all of his points with "See, what Obama doesn't understand is..."
EDIT2: And wow... McCain dropped a huge strawman mock conversation on negotiations with Iran. "Iran: We want to wipe Israel off the map | US: We don't want you to" (paraphrase of course). Ridiculous (like Obama's really going to be such a bonehead when talking with Iran's president).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm sure that's a strategy thing, just like how Obama keeps addressing McCain directly as "John".
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
He does that when he's speaking to McCain. When speaking to the audience he refers to him as Senator McCain.
EDIT - Re-watching the debate, and I was wrong. Obama does indeed refer to Senator McCain by his first name while addressing the audience.
[ September 27, 2008, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Right, but it's unique to Obama. McCain isn't doing that. He only addresses the audience.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Both candidates want it both ways with Russia. They want to let surrounding countries in NATO, even bomb happy Saakashvili and Georgia. To a certain extent, Russia has a right to be upset about our monkeying around in Georgia and the Ukraine.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I see how using 'John' could be a strategy thing, but it doesn't seem negative, whereas using the 'doesn't understand' line does.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I've noticed other politician's do that. I'm not sure what, if anything, it's supposed to signify.
And either way, McCain speculating on what Obama might or might not understand is a bit more annoying. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
America is safer today than the day after 9/11?!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: America is safer today than the day after 9/11?!
What about that doesn't make sense to you? You can disagree with him - personally I'd like to know how people come to that conclusion or the alternative - but it's not exactly an outrageous claim.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The day after 9/11 all flights were grounded, emergency and military services were on high alert, and fighters were patrolling American airspace.
I think it would be hard to argue that it's safer today than the day after 9/11.
Safer than a few weeks after 9/11? Maybe.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
That's taking things too literally.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I know. But I think that was what vonk was trying to say, what with italics and all.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Obama's closing piece was exactly what I wanted to hear. America's sense of self respect and pride in the world is the most influential part of his platform for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I missed the first half of the debate, I was at work. The last 45 minutes or so have been interesting.
It's hard to nail down a winner. From the last 45 minutes, I'd say it's maybe tied, but possibly with a slight lead for McCain. Why do I say that? He landed more hits, and did so in a manner that, for the casual observer that doesn't spend a lot of time looking into these issues, will be far more effective than Obama's rebuttals. I like complicated answers, and I thought Obama could have gone on even more at length with the problems of McCain's arguments, but I'm glad he didn't for the sake of the people he was trying to reach.
If anything, I think the story will be that McCain had a strong performance, and Obama held his own on what is supposed to be McCain's turf. I'll have to see the first half. I'll probably comment more at length later when I catch the rerun.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Only saw the end. While I appreciate that Obama's strategy appears to be avoiding personal attacks (or at least the appearance thereof), the continued "experience" snarfing really calls out for a response about the responsibility for the current situation held by "experienced" men like McCain, and the worth of experience in people who repeatedly make the same mistakes.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Obama pointed that out multiple times toward the middle of the debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm watching the rerun right now, and I'm about 20 minutes in.
For the most part they've kept the factual errors to a bare minimum. McCain threw out the first one at 26 minutes in that I saw when he said that the last big Energy Bill had billions of breaks for oil companies. That's true, but it actually had a net INCREASE in taxes for oil companies, and I think Obama should have mentioned that.
One thing I really like thus far is Jim Lehrer's moderating. First off I like the format a LOT better than the last two elections had. It's slightly more freewheeling, a LOT less regimented in times and lights and warnings and such. He's trying really hard to push them to address each other, and Obama at least is responding. McCain seems reluctant to even LOOK at Obama let alone address him. I'm not sure why.
Stuff I like from McCain: Cutting ethanol subsidies. Corn based ethanol is an expensive mess. I wonder if he'd say that if Iowa was still up for grabs, and I suspect he would. I like what he has to say on defense procurement. It's a huge mess and they spend vast sums of money inefficiently.
I was a little spooked when McCain was talking about Obama being so far to the left that he can't reach that far across the aisle, because I made the same joke earlier tonight. I'm channeling John McCain...
Stuff I liked from Obama: I'm glad brought up his "Government Google" thing, because I don't think a lot of people know about it, and I think it could really change the excuses people make over spending. I liked his "using a hatchet when you should use a scalpel" line. That was crisp and on target.
More to follow...
Edit to add: I wish Obama would have slapped down that goofy line about the government controlling your healthcare. Has any serious Democrat with any real clout ever suggested that six guys in a subcommittee hearing get together to discuss your individual medical file and dole out treatment? It's a ludricrous hyperbolic statement that doesn't even describe FRANCE's medical system let alone what Obama and others are suggesting we do here in America. I'm sick of that line, and I'm sick of the people who are being attacked not slapping it down as patently false.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It's good that both candidates are pro-nuclear energy.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
On healthcare, can someone please point out that right now insurance companies are making health decisions, not doctors and patients? At least if it is the government, I can vote them out. I had a non-emergency surgery a few years ago and the insurance part was very unpleasant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I see how using 'John' could be a strategy thing, but it doesn't seem negative, whereas using the 'doesn't understand' line does.
Referring to McCain familiarly could demonstrate, (as Stephanopolis suggested) that Obama is relaxed and unafraid of him. The fact that McCain has studiously ignored both the camera and Obama could make him look uncomfortable, in comparison. He, as far as I can recall, never referred to Obama as "Barack," and only addressed him a few times. On the whole, I think it made him look rather rigid. He also stuck to a larger array of key phrases and sayings, and showed the prep-work by repeating them a few times, including a couple of jokes he had rehearsed, and then maybe forgot he'd used them. With an audience that was told not to laugh, I think the smarter move was Obama's, leaving prepared humor out of his remarks.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: It's good that both candidates are pro-nuclear energy.
I was absolutely in love with Obama when he talked about a plan to go energy-independent in ten years. It absolutely could be done, if we really committed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess my nuclear power post got eaten, but while they are pro-nuclear, Obama is decidedly less enthusiastic about it, and for a lot of good reasons. Nuclear power has a lot of serious drawbacks that SHOULD limit our widespread use of nuclear down the road. I'm far more interested in wind, solar geothermal and biomass as a mid to long term solution to carry the bulk of our needs. And it seems Obama agrees by and large.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I missed the first half of the debate, I was at work. The last 45 minutes or so have been interesting.
It's hard to nail down a winner. From the last 45 minutes, I'd say it's maybe tied, but possibly with a slight lead for McCain. Why do I say that? He landed more hits, and did so in a manner that, for the casual observer that doesn't spend a lot of time looking into these issues, will be far more effective than Obama's rebuttals. I like complicated answers, and I thought Obama could have gone on even more at length with the problems of McCain's arguments, but I'm glad he didn't for the sake of the people he was trying to reach.
If anything, I think the story will be that McCain had a strong performance, and Obama held his own on what is supposed to be McCain's turf. I'll have to see the first half. I'll probably comment more at length later when I catch the rerun.
The first 45 minutes were largely to do with the economy, and Obama owned it. You notice later in the debate, on the foreign policy front, McCain starts name dropping and bringing up a lot of personal stories and personal experiences, which Obama obviously can't have- none of that was true in the first 45 minutes or so.
I want to say that it is one thing for McCain to point out all the experiences he's had and the issues he has dealt with in his career, but bringing up stories in which veterans, or in this cas veteran's mothers say "don't let this death be meaningless... etc" is tactless and, I think, misleading. It could hardly be surprising that soldiers and parents of dead soldiers who meet with McCain would express such things to him- and when they do, I don't think that should be used as moral authority for his positions on the war in Iraq. Anybody who loses a family member searches for meaning, and anyone who is fighting in a war, as Lyrhawn related in a different thread (about his brother), may want very much to believe in the cause or to make it a cause worth fighting for. However, the support of soldiers for war is not a justification for war, and it is not moral authority for a commander in chief to put them in harm's way, even if they are asking for it. When John McCain told a similar story to Jon Stewart, Stewart quite appropriately called him on it, and pretty much blew up at McCain over McCain's exploitation of stories such as these.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe that's why I said English needs a gender neutral term. I'm so used to having one when I speak Chinese.
It is weird actually, since I learned Cantonese first before learning Mandarin, I thought it was pretty weird when they said that spoken Mandarin doesn't normally use a specific he/she. Only then I noticed that spoken Cantonese didn't do it either. Its like a cultural blind spot that you don't notice until someone points it out.
mm!
edit: As for the debates, alot of talking heads are saying, "A tie = Obama won." I'm not sure that's necessarily true, and the reason I just came up with somehow fled my head while I was typing this sentence. It must have not been a very good one.
As for calling Mr. McCain, "John." I've seen a few politicians do it. President Bush back in 2000 annoyed me with his constant attempts to interrupt Mr. McCain in debates with, "John, John, John, Juh Juh, John." I could be wrong but I think Mr. McCain called Bush George just as often. I'll have to look that up.
It's unfortunate that Mr. Obama stutters in debates. I think it's a function of him VERY carefully selecting his words on the fly. But it makes him sound alittle weak when he really isn't. It's especially noticeable when he attempts to forcefully attack somebody. I was glad he called Mr. McCain out on several remarks, but I wish he could do it a bit more rhythmically like say Chris Rock minus the swearing.
It would have been nice for Obama to be a bit clearer on "the surge," since he used the phrase, "Lets be clear" multiple times. But "clearly" he is opting to not extrapolate on it. Also it's a pity Mr. Obama attempted to agree with McCain when he could, but McCain seemed only interested in marginalizing Mr. Obama's accomplishments as well as Mr. Obama as a person.
[ September 27, 2008, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by closeyourmind (Member # 5916) on :
Obama also accidentally referred to John Mccain as Tim and Jim while also referring to the President as George Bush instead of President Bush. This probably won't hurt him, but I thought the mistakes pointed out his tendency to say things that he doesn't mean. And calling the President by first and last name made him look a little arrogant to me.
Patrick
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Originally posted by closeyourmind: Obama also accidentally referred to John Mccain as Tim and Jim while also referring to the President as George Bush instead of President Bush. This probably won't hurt him, but I thought the mistakes pointed out his tendency to say things that he doesn't mean. And calling the President by first and last name made him look a little arrogant to me.
Patrick
Arrogant to me was when Palin referred to McCain as her running-mate and talked about the Palin-McCain administration.
That aside, whether intentional or not, by referring to Bush as 'George Bush' instead of the ponderous 'President George Bush' had the effect of making Bush's legacy seem less than presidential, and by association, Republicans.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Friday morning, on CBS’s “The Early Show,” Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator, said the bailout had been derailed by internal Republican politics.
“I didn’t know I was going to be the referee for an internal G.O.P. ideological civil war,” Mr. Frank said, according to The A.P.Thursday, in the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.
“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”
Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”
It was the very outcome the White House had said it intended to avoid, with partisan presidential politics appearing to trample what had been exceedingly delicate Congressional negotiations.
--j_k
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by closeyourmind: Obama also accidentally referred to John Mccain as Tim and Jim ...
Kansas City has a transcript of the debate up. I see Obama saying "Jim" when he is speaking directly to the host, whose name is "Jim Lehrer." I don't see a reference to "Tim."
---
Edited to add: McCain also addresses the moderator as "Jim.":
quote: Well, thank you, Jim. And thanks to everybody. ... And, Jim, I -- I've been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. -- Senator John McCain
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I guess my nuclear power post got eaten, but while they are pro-nuclear, Obama is decidedly less enthusiastic about it, and for a lot of good reasons. Nuclear power has a lot of serious drawbacks that SHOULD limit our widespread use of nuclear down the road. I'm far more interested in wind, solar geothermal and biomass as a mid to long term solution to carry the bulk of our needs. And it seems Obama agrees by and large.
Woah woah woah Nuclear power HAS NO DRAWBACKS. There's an entire episode of Penn & Teller that go over this.
quote:Originally posted by closeyourmind: Obama also accidentally referred to John Mccain as Tim and Jim while also referring to the President as George Bush instead of President Bush. This probably won't hurt him, but I thought the mistakes pointed out his tendency to say things that he doesn't mean. And calling the President by first and last name made him look a little arrogant to me.
Patrick
Arrogant to me was when Palin referred to McCain as her running-mate and talked about the Palin-McCain administration.
That aside, whether intentional or not, by referring to Bush as 'George Bush' instead of the ponderous 'President George Bush' had the effect of making Bush's legacy seem less than presidential, and by association, Republicans.
Wow, to me this seems like your just hunting for any tiny thing to justify taking offense. America is a country where we rarely use titles and calling people by their first name is generally considered friendly not disrespectful.
In a country where we have airports named after Presidents (Ronald Reagan, George Bush, John F. Kennedy) none of which use the title "President", where we have called seated Presidents and VPs consistently by nick names (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Dick Cheney), where former Presidents have campaigned with nick names like Ike and Tippacanoe and we remember our past presidents with initials (JFK, FDR, LBJ) it hardly seems reasonable to take offense by Obama's leaving out Bush's title. Puhleeese!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
All other strategy and considerations aside, John McCain wouldn't call Barack Obama "Barack" because he generally goes by "Barry." And calling him "Barry" undoes a lot of work.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was under the impression that he stopped going by "Barry" as far back as law school, and has gone by "Barack" ever since.
quote:From Blackblade: As for the debates, alot of talking heads are saying, "A tie = Obama won." I'm not sure that's necessarily true, and the reason I just came up with somehow fled my head while I was typing this sentence. It must have not been a very good one.
As for calling Mr. McCain, "John." I've seen a few politicians do it. President Bush back in 2000 annoyed me with his constant attempts to interrupt Mr. McCain in debates with, "John, John, John, Juh Juh, John." I could be wrong but I think Mr. McCain called Bush George just as often. I'll have to look that up.
It's unfortunate that Mr. Obama stutters in debates. I think it's a function of him VERY carefully selecting his words on the fly. But it makes him sound alittle weak when he really isn't. It's especially noticeable when he attempts to forcefully attack somebody. I was glad he called Mr. McCain out on several remarks, but I wish he could do it a bit more rhythmically like say Chris Rock minus the swearing.
It would have been nice for Obama to be a bit clearer on "the surge," since he used the phrase, "Lets be clear" multiple times. But "clearly" he is opting to not extrapolate on it. Also it's a pity Mr. Obama attempted to agree with McCain when he could, but McCain seemed only interested in marginalizing Mr. Obama's accomplishments as well as Mr. Obama as a person.
I'm loathe to disagree, only because so often I try to use logic to predict the outcomes of these things so often and find myself coming up short when real people get their hands on things but:
In THIS debate, a tie is as good as a win for Obama in some respects. Why? Because of the common belief that Obama might be great on everything else, but he can't handle himself on foreign policy. That's been a major selling point of McCain's. For Obama ti hold his own and in effect tie, it means that he's gained a ton of ground. He didn't have to pull ahead, he had to pull even on that specific issue, and if you consider a tie doing that, then it's close enough to a victory.
Technically it's Senator McCain, not Mr. McCain . But I had no problem with Barack calling him John. I might have had a problem if they weren't coworkers doing the same job, and I expect that Joe Biden won't call Governor Palin "Sarah" and she won't call him him "Joe," but Obama and McCain work together, and are on equal footing. I doubt Obama calls him Senator McCain to his face when they're in a back room discussing something, that'd be awkwardly formal. I don't think it was a sign of disrespect.
As someone who has repeatedly brought up Obama's stutters before, I have to say I was soundly impressed by the sharp downtick in stutters and uhms. I think he came across as cool and collected, and while there were a couple stutters when he was revving up, once he got going he went full bore just fine. A lot of that was probably his debate prep showing, but actually I think a lot of that was a genuine improvement in his debating and off the cuff speaking skills that comes as a result of the 16,000 debates he had in the primary.
The whole agreeing with McCain so much is a sketchy one. Personally I liked it, because I think it's absolutely silly to disagree just to disagree. If someone says something you agree with, don't try and disagree just to draw a contrast, say you agree and then point out the REAL distinction in positions, and if there isn't one, move on! I know that Republicans will take that and run with it, and that's the risk Obama took, but compared to McCain's hostility, I think it came off well. I think in general it'll look better to women than men, which probably plays to his strength. I think men look for declarative positions whereas women will like his demeanor better than the hostility they might have gleaned from McCain.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by closeyourmind: Obama also accidentally referred to John Mccain as Tim and Jim ...
Kansas City has a transcript of the debate up. I see Obama saying "Jim" when he is speaking directly to the host, whose name is "Jim Lehrer." I don't see a reference to "Tim."
---
Edited to add: McCain also addresses the moderator as "Jim.":
quote: Well, thank you, Jim. And thanks to everybody. ... And, Jim, I -- I've been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. -- Senator John McCain
If I remember correctly, Obama accidentally called McCain "Tom" once and either accidentally called him "Jim", or changed who he was talking to in mid-thought.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
Something that I was unclear about during the debate was McCain proposing a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.
I was unclear about his position. Did he just mean other federal departments/programs won't get additional funds (i.e. the money you already got is all you'll get) or did he mean a general cutback on the federal budget to funnel more money towards defense, VA and entitlement programs?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If I remember correctly, Obama accidentally called McCain "Tom" once and either accidentally called him "Jim", or changed who he was talking to in mid-thought.
There is one place in the debate where Obama has been talking about Tom Coburn and he then says "Tom -- of John". It's not clear in the transcript whether he has made a slip of the tongue and called McCain, "Tom" or is the statement is meant to apply to both Coburn and McCain.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.
This sort of statement really pisses me off. First off, this sort of study wasn't either a criminal issue or a paternal issue, its an endangered species issue. The study was done to determine whether there was enough genetic diversity in the bear population to be confident of the bears' survival as well as to determine how genetically isolated the bears of the greater yellowstone ecosystem are from bears in Glacier and the Canadian Rockies. This was part of the work being done to determine whether the Grizzly bear could be delisted. It was important scientific work not some boondoggle pork that was wasting the tax payers money.
I see this over and over again. Politicians stumping for budget cuts and decrying government waste pick out scientific research projects that constitute less than 0.001 % of the federal budget to make fun of either because they are scientifically illiterate or because or they are confident that 99% of Americans don't know enough science to know why its important.
I don't know whether this particular project was a line item in the budget or a project approved by one of the funding agencies. There are lots of problems with research projects that get approved at the line item budget level and I'd much rather see that money put into places like the NSF where the proposals are subject to scientific review rather than political review. Nonetheless, there are valid scientific and societal reasons for studying Grizzly Bear DNA that should be understood. It's find to debate whether or not protecting the Grizzly Bear should be a something paid for the Federal Government. It's fine to discuss whether or not a DNA study is an important contribution to protecting the bears. What gets my goat, is those who choose this as an example of government waste solely because they don't have the scientific literacy to understand why it isn't a joke and the politicians who cater to their ignorance.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.
This sort of statement really pisses me off. First off, this sort of study wasn't either a criminal issue or a paternal issue, its an endangered species issue. The study was done to determine whether there was enough genetic diversity in the bear population to be confident of the bears' survival as well as to determine how genetically isolated the bears of the greater yellowstone ecosystem are from bears in Glacier and the Canadian Rockies. This was part of the work being done to determine whether the Grizzly bear could be delisted. It was important scientific work not some boondoggle pork that was wasting the tax payers money.
I see this over and over again. Politicians stumping for budget cuts and decrying government waste pick out scientific research projects that constitute less than 0.001 % of the federal budget to make fun of either because they are scientifically illiterate or because or they are confident that 99% of Americans don't know enough science to know why its important.
I don't know whether this particular project was a line item in the budget or a project approved by one of the funding agencies. There are lots of problems with research projects that get approved at the line item budget level and I'd much rather see that money put into places like the NSF where the proposals are subject to scientific review rather than political review. Nonetheless, there are valid scientific and societal reasons for studying Grizzly Bear DNA that should be understood. It's find to debate whether or not protecting the Grizzly Bear should be a something paid for the Federal Government. It's fine to discuss whether or not a DNA study is an important contribution to protecting the bears. What gets my goat, is those who choose this as an example of government waste solely because they don't have the scientific literacy to understand why it isn't a joke and the politicians who cater to their ignorance.
quote: Former Montana Gov. Judy Martz, a Republican and a McCain supporter, said the bear had been used to block the use of the state's abundant natural resources, when all along the animal was plentiful. She asked former Republican Sen. Conrad Burns to help secure the funding, which was paid for in part by add-ons and a $1.1 million earmark for the Forest Service in 2004.
Burns is the McCain campaign's chairman in Montana.
"If it is going to remove it from the list, it is money well spent," said Martz. When asked about McCain's stance, Martz said "unless you live among these issues it is pretty hard to understand what is going on."
[ September 27, 2008, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Cerridwen ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That bear thing pissed me off last night too, but I didn't have the time to look up what it really was and then I forgot about it.
To be fair, there IS some pretty stupid stuff in these earmarks sometimes. But a lot of the time, even the stuff that looks stupid is actually pretty worthwhile when you look beneath the surface.
Edit to add:
Looks like Palin and McCain disagree on Pakistan policy:
quote:The governor got a more serious interrogation moments later when Temple graduate student Michael Rovito approached her to inquire about Pakistan.
"How about the Pakistan situation?," asked Rovito, who said he was not a Palin supporter. "What's your thoughts about that?"
"In Pakistan?," she asked, looking surprised.
"What's going on over there, like Waziristan?"
"It's working with [Pakistani president] Zardari to make sure that we're all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border," she told him. "And we'll go from there."
Rovito wasn't finished. "Waziristan is blowing up!," he said.
"Yeah it is," Palin said, "and the economy there is blowing up too."
"So we do cross border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan you think?," Rovito asked.
"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin responded, before moving on to greet other voters.
Considering McCain skewered Obama on just that point last night, that might have been a mistake.
[ September 27, 2008, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As for the debates, alot of talking heads are saying, "A tie = Obama won."
Without explicitly endorsing it, this is what that means: McCain is doing awful in the polls. Obama needs to gaffe big time or McCain has to be a superstar. You have to reverse the trend to such an extent that McCain recovers electability with the general populace in states such as Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania.
Neither happened, Obama wins the trade. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
One thing I noticed during a small friendly debate I had this evening.
When Senator Clinton was running against Senator Obama, there were many like myself who argued, "Yes its time for a woman to be President, but not This woman."
That statement, in my opinion, goes double for Governor Palin.
Yet I have never heard the same said about Senator Obama from any of his competitors. I have never heard "Yes its time for an African American to be President, but not this one."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am just going to import a series of my posts into a Sam Megapost and I'm going to let it stand as a summary of just how good I think the McCain/Palin presidency bid is going.
quote:I am legitimately baffled! People are telling me and showing me polls which cause my jaw to drop! Only 10% of the people polled in this nation agree that the debates should be postponed. TEN PERCENT. There are few statistical differences across the groupings. The highest group was the Republicans at a whopping 14%. What. What.
Think about this.
Put yourself in the shoes of one of McCain's GOP campaign managers.
Okay, there you are. You're analyzing Palin. Perhaps you have been prepping her for her next conference or other showing in front of the press. You are gauging her capacity to stand up against Biden in the vice presidential debates.
How badly must you be sure that would go down before you are willing to commit to stalling in a manner that 90% of Americans will disapprove of, rather than have her debate as anticipated. How positive do you have to be that Palin would be a disaster before you go for this option.
quote:Watching these videos and reading her transcripts, it's evident to me that she's not ready for prime time. To put it more adamantly: watching those videos and reading her transcripts, it's evident to me that even her governorship is a fluke, a happy accident involving favorable circumstances in Alaska's uniquely pork-addicted political environment.
Her leadership in AK shows how she would make the presidency a fun modern version of Tammany Hall style rule-by-bludgeoning. A vacuous alternation between gorging, and keeping posts attuned through cabal. She's far from being meritless, but her negatives outweigh her positives. She's the exact description of the sort of person who can only get elected for terrible reasons. Her baggage is evidence of this. Troopergate was nothing. Even though Palin organized a defiance of subpoena in order to stall the investigation until after the election (something that would cause the Republican commentators to howl in outrage were it committed by a Democratic candidate), it was still peanuts compared to what would come out afterwards. The unearthing of her modus operandi.
She, on her own, does not inspire confidence in her compatibility and capacity to a federal post. She's being coached by a desperate squad of campaign managers and tacticians, but it's barely helping.
Crib time. Watching these interviews I get the impression that when on the spot, she cannot speak in complete sentences or even complete thoughts. At least Bush, when at a momentary loss, just kinda sits there until he reboots. Palin seems to to just charge on ahead with HEY I AM WORDS LET'S COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH I HAVE FRIENDS
quote:Kathleen Parker is a conservative columnist who does frequent editorials on NRO and is syndicated nationally by The Washington Post Writers Group. She makes appearances on Fox News programs and especially Chris Matthews.
She just exclaimed that Palin has to go.
quote:Ever since John McCain named Sarah Palin to the ticket, it has been a given that she has energized conservatives, particularly conservative women.
So nationally syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker's blistering assessment in the National Review Online today is sure to sting -- especially coming on the heels of growing discontent among other conservative intellectuals who had been "wildly stoked" about her selection just weeks ago.
Parker, after a scalding critique of Palin's readiness for high office, begs the Alaska governor to step down from the Republican ticket.
"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first," Parker advises, pleading: "Do it for your country."
Palin has given virtually no free-form interviews, but her sit-downs thus far have provided critics with ample fodder. Until quite recently, those critics have been largely partisans. Republicans have not just stood by her -- they have adored her.
Parker says: No more. She has declared her cringe reflex exhausted.
"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," Parker writes.
"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there," she continues. "Here's but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: 'Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.'
"When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama's numbers, Palin blustered wordily: 'I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?'"
"If BS were currency," Parker concludes, "Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
quote:CBS, CNN, Mediacurve, GQR and Luntz are all saying their data shows an Obama win.
Sigh.
I don't ------- believe it. The data shows an Obama win because these debates are, in the end, not about substance. To most people the specifics of the debate are only noise. They are looking for/responding to style. Tomorrow it'll be all about how 'mccain was slouched and didn't look at his opponent!' as opposed to stuff that isn't ultimately irrelevant.
I mean way to go Obama for apparently "winning" but apparently he knew he had to do this using some sort of scientific appeal to image marketing for the lowest common denominator. So the strategy was to a semi-gracious patsy, 'agreeable' to a fault, and let McCain sink himself.
The debates have been engineered perfectly into pablum.
ok that should do it.
Now just pretend I'm in this thread laughing at anything Ron Lambert says and you've basically got me covered until mid-october.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I haven't heard about comment about it, but what did you all think of the format last night compared with previous years?
I thought it was leaps and bounds better than previous more structured and restrictive formats. A lot of people might not have noticed the differences, but it was far more open than the last couple years. Usually it's a 90 second answer with a 30 second response and 30 second rebuttal. Last night was a two minute answer, two minute response, and five minute open ended back and forth. Amazingly, the candidates had equal voice time despite the restrictions, and I think allowing them to directly address each other was a great improvement, though McCain doesn't seem to have taken full advantage of it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ab-so-lute-ly, and about time.
Jim Lehrer was fantastic. Apparently all of the debates are going to be structured to get the candidates discussing things with another like this. Good on the CPD.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Obama doesn't know the difference between a tactic and a strategy" --McCain
wha? Its a collaqial term! 90% of the time you can use it interchangably grrr, foolish git.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Blayne, rein it in on the name-calling, okay? Please?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You don't find it childish that Senator McCain choose to incorrectly and foolishly criticize Senator Obama over the usage of a collaqual and for the most part interchangeable term?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
"git" != "childish"
It's a term of abuse from the British, for a foolish or worthless person. That isn't a descriptive assessment of actions, but rather an assessment of the whole person.
I'm not going to debate this with you. I will say my opinion of your actions is dropping, despite our agreement politically, for whatever that may be worth to you.
---
Edited to add: Say he is acting "foolishly" or "childishly?" Fine. But don't use a word that denotes "a worthless person," please.
That's all I have to say on it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Indeed. Wait a second, calling someone a foolish git is tautology and no different from calling someone "foolish". I think your overreacting. The potential meaning of "worthless" entirely depends on context and is also ironically a collaqual term which also in context doesn't nessasarily mean "worthless".
In short I think your overreacting and taking it a bit too personally and how should I say it, childishly. "my opinion of you is dropping" thank you very much oh pretentious Queen of the Universe.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Yeah, that's the way to respond. Call her names. That will get everyone on your side.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The two terms are not exactly interchangable and the difference in the debate was an important point. Think of strategy as the what and why - the big picture. Tactic are the how, the actions, the specifics of how you implement the strategy.
In this case I think that the different uses of the word told us a lot about the two candidates. Sen. Obama was, I believe, correct, that the surge is one tactic in the strategy of bringing about a stable Iraq which part of a larger strategy of bringing about a more stable Middle East which is part of a safer more peaceful world. That tactic, the surge, has succeeded; the broader strategy has not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Another way to put it: Blayne, even Yahtzee doesn't talk like that all the time.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It seems to me that the "strategy vs. tactic" line was predetermined by McCain's handlers to point out that McCain has a military history and understands military terminology. If it could be used as part of a "gotcha" on Obama's understanding of the situation in Iraq, then so much the better. As it was, it was clear McCain was just looking for an opportunity to use it. All Obama had to do was to use either word, and McCain jumped on it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Blayne, this is a battle you cannot win. Life is not about trying to one-up or insult everyone who disagrees with you. Especially since you know you have personal weaknesses in this area, you should ALWAYS give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
-Bok
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There is a difference between calling someone's opinion foolish and calling that someone a fool. The first is an opinion, the second is a personal attack.
If you have an inability to perceive that difference, further arguing of the point will be of little use.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Personally I think Blayne is right in this case. I think CT overreacted. Presidential candidates are targets for criticism, and calling McCain a "git" is hardly provocative.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What Chris said.
Also, as I think more about it, the strategy/tactic argument is a metaphor for this election. Both candidates are now talking about change. Sen. McCain is talking about tactical changes to what the present administration is doing; Sen. Obama is talking about strategic change.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Blayne, this is a battle you cannot win. Life is not about trying to one-up or insult everyone who disagrees with you. Especially since you know you have personal weaknesses in this area, you should ALWAYS give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
-Bok
Nonsense, victory is always possible.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Blayne, this is a battle you cannot win. Life is not about trying to one-up or insult everyone who disagrees with you. Especially since you know you have personal weaknesses in this area, you should ALWAYS give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
-Bok
Nonsense, victory is always possible.
It is, but you're going to have to change your strategy, and hence your tactics to achieve it. Pride is not one of your assets in this fight.
You can't really use the terms interchangeably in the context McCain and Obama were discussing it. I too think McCain was trying to demonstrate his superior knowledge of foreign affairs by saying Obama doesn't know the difference between the two. Fortunately Obama did in fact know the difference and demonstrated that knowledge, unfortunately I am willing to bet MOST Americans actually don't know the difference, so a few likely think McCain's criticism was apt.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Nonsense, victory is always possible.
Yes, but it's not always necessary. You're overreacting to her overreaction.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
I also read and studied Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clauswitz Von Krieg and read numerous essays by Hart and Guderian so STFU.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
I also read and studied Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clauswitz Von Krieg and read numerous essays by Hart and Guderian so STFU.
Blayne, it's common knowledge that you can be intelligent without being juvenile. Please try for that dynamic when you post. Yes Speed was kinda rude for saying that, but you can prove the ignorance of the statement without being mean about it.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
I also read and studied Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clauswitz Von Krieg and read numerous essays by Hart and Guderian so STFU.
Anyone else reminded of A Fish Called Wanda?
quote: WANDA: You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
OTTO: Apes don't read philosophy.
WANDA: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Personally I think Blayne is right in this case. I think CT overreacted.
By asking him please not to call someone else names?
Brace yourself, Glenn -- I might ask someone else to refrain, please, from doing something else rude at any minute. I'm kinda wild that way -- you might want to be prepared.
*amused
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Personally I think Blayne is right in this case. I think CT overreacted.
By asking him please not to call someone else names?
Brace yourself, Glenn -- I might ask someone else to refrain, please, from doing something else rude at any minute. I'm kinda wild that way -- you might want to be prepared.
*amused
I can't imagine this is anything other than a false positive on my sarcasmometer. I haven't registered a reading from CT ever since I started posting here.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, you know, it's my wild and crazy side. I call her "DT."
Ridin' off the rails and raisin' tarnation wherever she goes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Spoken like someone whose political opinions were formed by a lifetime of playing video games in his parents' basement.
I also read and studied Sun Tzu's Art of War and Clauswitz Von Krieg and read numerous essays by Hart and Guderian so STFU.
Anyone else reminded of A Fish Called Wanda?
quote: WANDA: You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
OTTO: Apes don't read philosophy.
WANDA: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
And I bet your one of those people who thinks Normandy was crucial for defeating the Nazi's.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Does anyone else ever get confused when Blayne Bradley is talking to BlackBlade and momentarily think that someone is just talking to himself, before you check the SNs again?
No, just me? 'Kay sry, carry on.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:WANDA: You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
OTTO: Apes don't read philosophy.
WANDA: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
Thanks Speed. I needed a good laugh. That is a great show and oh so appropriate.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote:WANDA: You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
OTTO: Apes don't read philosophy.
WANDA: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
Thanks Speed. I needed a good laugh. That is a great show and oh so appropriate.
Screw you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think the mistake you guys are making is your attempt to appeal to Blayne as an individual who cares about and/or is largely capable of being mature.
You go get papa janitor to tell him to chillax, or you don't interface with him at all. Those are your options that don't involve derailing the thread.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I should say that just now, I have asked Papa Janitor to review the thread. Not because I think it necessarily needs to be locked or specific posts deleted, but because it seems to me to be at a point where his gaze would be usefully turned.
I wouldn't mention this publicly, except Samprimary has (rightly, I think*) raised the issue, and it won't do Papa J any good to get multiple messages cluttering his inbox.
---
*but then again, you know me. I did just remove Hank Paulson from my Christmas card list, not once, but thrice. "Take that, sir, and no more of this lack of oversight**, or I shall subject you to the cut sublime!" And, in truth, I might indeed raise my eyes to gaze at the seagull winging past, should he step in front of me.
---
Edited again: ** FYI, as Dagonee notes elsewhere, [there is common incorrect characterization of this.]
[ September 28, 2008, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
To try to bring this topic back on track.
Gallup's new results today have it at +8 for Obama (50-42), a +3 jump. One-third of their polling sample came from yesterday, after hearing the debates, so this may be a beginning sign of how the debate was received nationally rather than the specific voter groups watching it that we saw the night of the debate. (Rasmussen has Obama at +6 still, by the way.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
CT, I hope I was clear that I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the lack of judicial review in the bill.
It's only one particular argument - that it's somehow unconstitutional - that I was addressing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, for sure. It's just that I'm well aware of how such seemingly small distinctions can actually change big matters significantly, and how irritating that can be to someone in the field. I've punted healthcare reform about on the site for years, and such stuff always comes up.
I'm a bit tongue-in-cheek above (no, really ), but I did wince when I remembered you'd raised the issue before, and why. It reminded me of a couple of hairs pulled out of my own head through the years, eh?
---
Vadon, I'm reading that we won't see a full effect in the polls until around Tuesday. Does this ring true to you?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Yes, we won't see a full-effect until Tuesday, because 2/3 of the polls right now are taken from before the debate. But tomorrow, on Monday that will be 1/3, and then on Tuesday all polls will have been taken after the debate. I'm just saying that 1/3 of the sample of Gallup has seen the debate now, and with just that 1/3 difference, the poll number jumped by 3.
Edit: Well, the new third may not have seen the debate, but the debate happened before they were polled. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Papa J already has been looking.
quote:Does anyone else ever get confused when Blayne Bradley is talking to BlackBlade and momentarily think that someone is just talking to himself, before you check the SNs again?
No, just me? 'Kay sry, carry on.
me too.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Blayne, you're the furthest out of line with a couple of posts on this page, though you're not really the only one. Dear participants, one and all, I remind you to make your arguments without personal attack, please. Thank you.
--PJ
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pursuant to my post yesterday on Palin's Pakistan comments, we get this from McCain:
quote:"She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest," McCain told ABC's George Stephanopoulos of Palin. "In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position… This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin."
Uh oh!
First off - The only situation that's been discussed has been one viewed through the lense of what is in America's best security interest. And I bet if he was the one making that argument, country, duty and honor would be plastered all over it like a bad 60's wallpaper job.
Secondly - Apparently you aren't allowed to record offhanded comments that politicians, especially major presidential ones, make when they don't have notecards in front of them, because off the cuff answers are useless and they don't really mean them.
I really thought he would have been able to walk that one back better, but it was the perfect storm of bad timing. It's kind of hard to walk that back when one night you're attacking Obama for being a naif and then the next day your supremely qualified VP candidate says the exact same thing. Oops!
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
That or he only wants to back off the comment enough to keep Pakistan happy. I'm sure there are plenty of neo-cons who like hearing the "we'll go where we want" rhetoric.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Bush is a model of leadership. He wanted Faith based initiatives, he got them. He wanted NCLB, he got it. War with Iraq and Afghanistan, check. Oil profits, check. Patriot Act, check. And in the middle of a lame-duck presidency, he still has enough juice to whip the Senate and the House into 700B bailout. It's really something. Every year or so, Congress does something to remind me how small they really are. Thanks guys.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
A friend sent me word of a rally against Palin held in Anchorage a couple of days ago, something which I suspect is not going to get a lot of mainstream press attention.
Posted by closeyourmind (Member # 5916) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by closeyourmind: Obama also accidentally referred to John Mccain as Tim and Jim ...
Kansas City has a transcript of the debate up. I see Obama saying "Jim" when he is speaking directly to the host, whose name is "Jim Lehrer." I don't see a reference to "Tim."
---
Edited to add: McCain also addresses the moderator as "Jim.":
quote: Well, thank you, Jim. And thanks to everybody. ... And, Jim, I -- I've been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. -- Senator John McCain
I'm sorry I'm making this response so late. I would have PMed you if I knew how. Using the transcript you linked to, one of Obama's responses was
OBAMA: "I just want to make this point, Jim. John, it's been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending."
This was a direct response to Mccain. He was looking at Mccain when he said Jim. And then he corrected himself by saying John. There was no comment by Jim Lehrer between Mccain's statement and Obama's. It's easier to pick this up while watching rather than reading the debate since he was looking at Mccain. Obama even sounded like he was correcting himself since there was barely any pause between Jim and John. The pause came after he said John. If I wrote the transcript, I would have made "It's" the beginning of the sentence.
And when I looked back at the transcript, it turns out Obama called him Tom, not Tim.
OBAMA:"...They did it on the Medicaid prescription drug bill and we have to change the culture. Tom -- or John mentioned me being wildly liberal."
Obama mentions Tom Coburn in the same statement, so maybe that's why he accidentally called Mccain, Tom.
Both quotes can be found on the last page of the transcript.
Patrick
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I got the impression (as I watched) that Sen. Obama was basically saying, "hold on" to the moderator so he could address that point to Sen. McCain.
Posted by closeyourmind (Member # 5916) on :
I agree that it could have been taken a couple of different ways. But the reason for my interpretation is that there was no pause between him saying Jim and John. It was like he said JimJohn, which is what my mother does when she can't remember which son she is talking to. The pause came after he said John and then he made his statement.
I could be remembering wrong, though.
Patrick
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it could have been either. I do think that Sen. Obama was making an effort to address Sen. McCain directly as the moderator requested.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm sorry I'm late to the game but I only remembered last night that there was a debate on Friday so I found it on the internet and watched.
I actually thought it was an even match -- and I'm leaning heavily in favor of Obama. Here's what I liked and didn't like from each of them:
McCain + : He touted his experience and his record, especially the old McCain who I respected. He reminded us of his vast military experience.
McCain - : I hated how he kept saying that Obama didn't understand things. I wish he would have gotten into the spirit of the debate and addressed Obama more directly, as Obama was trying to do.
Obama + : He comes across as so polite. I loved that he got into the spirit of things and directly addressed McCain. I thought he did a good job at refuting the points McCain brought to bear against him. Great job on alternative energy!
Obama - : Even though I like his ideas on foreign policy, he definitely comes across as less experienced, in contrast to McCain.
Obama also reached for his answers, but I can't call that a bad thing since I think considered answers are a good quality in a leader. I didn't mind him calling McCain "John" (was amused by his "Jim" trip-up) because they are both Senators and equals. In fact, I think Obama using McCain's first name highlighted this fact and was probably a good thing.
Now, as for the actual issues they discussed, I agree with Obama more often than McCain so my opinions haven't changed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Bush is a model of leadership. He wanted Faith based initiatives, he got them. He wanted NCLB, he got it. War with Iraq and Afghanistan, check. Oil profits, check. Patriot Act, check. And in the middle of a lame-duck presidency, he still has enough juice to whip the Senate and the House into 700B bailout. It's really something. Every year or so, Congress does something to remind me how small they really are. Thanks guys.
Apparently not. The House rejected the bill with more than two thirds of Republicans voting against it as the DOW is plunging 600 points and more.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I got the impression (as I watched) that Sen. Obama was basically saying, "hold on" to the moderator so he could address that point to Sen. McCain.
I interpreted it this way as well and, at the time, it didn't register that it could be interpreted another way.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Apparently not. The House rejected the bill with more than two thirds of Republicans voting against it as the DOW is plunging 600 points and more.
It officially closed down 777.68. That's the biggest one-day point drop in history - I'm not sure about percentage wise...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
My pension fund has dropped more in the last quarter than the $2000 the bail out would have cost me and that's without the recent plunges in the stock market.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Apparently not. The House rejected the bill with more than two thirds of Republicans voting against it as the DOW is plunging 600 points and more.
It officially closed down 777.68. That's the biggest one-day point drop in history - I'm not sure about percentage wise...
It's the biggest percentage drop since the 9/11 drop. That makes sense though. The DOW has gone up considerably since 9/11, which means it'd have to lose a lot more (and it only lost I think 100 more point wise) in points to meet or beat the percentage.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The DOW is going to plunge, it was inflated to begin with. If we are going to bail out the housing market, I want it to come with strings-- and the sketch of a planned economy(just a sketch)-- and if that means the upper third of the entire world is going to be a little poorer for a while until we work it out, then so be it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Part of me thinks maybe we should be focusing help plans to deal with the cleanup process, rather than stopping the mess from happening.
The idea of keeping people in their homes when they never should have gotten those homes to begin with is abhorrent to me. Let them get kicked out, as they should be, but don't leave the on the street, help them get into a house they CAN afford. People are complaining because credit card limits are being dramatically slashed all over the place as credit tightens up. Frankly I think this is a great thing since people were already borrowing way too much on credit cards, but maybe we should be helping them with their debt problems (not by giving them handout in cash per se) rather than ensuring that they get MORE debt by easing the credit crunch.
Home prices are falling, and they should be, as they were inflated to begin with. Some people are going to get screwed in the process, but a ton of people (hopefully me included in the next couple years) are going to get great deals on homes that were previously way out of their price range. I think that's how things should work, and there shouldn't be artificial interference with the value of homes.
I think some sort of measure to ease the credit crunch and stop a wholesale meltdown is necessary, but I'm wondering if that can't be done for a whole lot less money by letting a mild meltdown happen, let the market reset itself, and then help pick up the pieces. In other words, don't stop it entirely, don't let it go as it would without help, but take the edge off of it. There has to be a middle ground that doesn't leave people thinking that they can continue living a higher standard of living financed by debt and blinders.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The issue for me, Lyhrawn, is that I wish the government would decide the next thing. We've done agriculture booms and busts, we've done information technology, and we've done real estate. I wish, if we are going to go through a general industry bail out, the government would guide a bit and steer the capital towards energy and technology innovation, as opposed to letting real estate continue to hold so much sway.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I wish, if we are going to go through a general industry bail out, the government would guide a bit and steer the capital towards energy and technology innovation, as opposed to letting real estate continue to hold so much sway. "
I can get behind that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The DOW is going to plunge, it was inflated to begin with. If we are going to bail out the housing market, I want it to come with strings-- and the sketch of a planned economy(just a sketch)-- and if that means the upper third of the entire world is going to be a little poorer for a while until we work it out, then so be it.
I share your sentiment but doubt it has any practical application. If the affects of this could be limited to the top 1/3 of the world's population, then yes I say we should take the hit. The point is that it won't be limited to the top one third. Any economic down turn tends to hit the poor hardest and I doubt this will be an exception.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I still think that while a bailout plan could make good economic sense, there's no way that Congress is going to pass something that does it well. It's going to cost more than it needs to, profit people it shouldn't, and create even more political bickering.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Any economic down turn tends to hit the poor hardest and I doubt this will be an exception.
This is usually a safe assumption, but I still think this downturn is aimed at the parvenu class.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
" If the affects of this could be limited to the top 1/3 of the world's population, then yes I say we should take the hit. The point is that it won't be limited to the top one third. Any economic down turn tends to hit the poor hardest and I doubt this will be an exception."
I fail to see how financing speculators' bidding up the price of oil to above $150 per barrel could possibly help the lower 2/3rds.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The idea of keeping people in their homes when they never should have gotten those homes to begin with is abhorrent to me. Let them get kicked out, as they should be, but don't leave the on the street, help them get into a house they CAN afford.
What if they can't afford a house? Sure, a lot of the subprime thing was to put middle income people in McMansions, but to a lot of people it was an opportunity to do right by honest people who weren't able to escape poverty. Home ownership can go a long way in that department.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I wonder how one would really go about analyzing that kind of claim. The top 1/3 would really only cover North America, Europe, Australia, and some other outliers scattered around the world such as Singapore, Hong Kong, some places in the Caribbean and such.
The lower 2/3rds would include the roughly two billion in China and India, Africa, and a patchwork of the rest.
Granted, there are a lot of outliers, but my first rough estimate is that, yes, this will indeed level out the playing field. The developed world may well fall behind in growth and the developing world in India and China may very well catch up.
On the other hand, the growth in much of China at least is somewhat dependent on exports to the developing world. A real collapse in demand would crush the very newly industrialized peasants that have just moved out of poverty.
So I dunno. But I think it is safe to say that none of the posters here should be "amazingly" keen on a collapse in the top 1/3rd, because as a group we're probably concentrated in like the top 1/4th or even 1/5th.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Since when are we propping up oil speculators -- this bailout is aimed at mortgage brokers and bankers.
I'd first like to note that I have always favored a bottom up solution to this problem that would have started by finding ways to help homeowners avoid foreclosure -- but people find it so repugnant to reward ordinary people who made bad financial decisions that this isn't even on the table. Instead we are looking at top down solutions that reward the uber rich who made not only bad but deliberately deceptive financial decisions and leaving the ordinary tax payers holding the bag.
If you don't understand how a wall street collapse will end up hurting the poorest people the most you don't understand economics. If companies fail, people loose their jobs. If the rich stop hiring nannies and maids and butler, stop buying cars and ipods and designer cloths amd so on, all the people who were employed making cars and cleaning houses, loose their jobs. And so while the rich end up cutting back on the luxuries in their lives, the poor end up unable to pay the rent and feed their kids.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:The idea of keeping people in their homes when they never should have gotten those homes to begin with is abhorrent to me. Let them get kicked out, as they should be, but don't leave the on the street, help them get into a house they CAN afford.
What if they can't afford a house? Sure, a lot of the subprime thing was to put middle income people in McMansions, but to a lot of people it was an opportunity to do right by honest people who weren't able to escape poverty. Home ownership can go a long way in that department.
So you want to use this program to backdoor discounted homes for the poor? I'm not necessarily saying I'm for or against the idea, I'm just curious as to your stance. Who decides who shouldn't own the home they own? Or do we just let everyone keep their house? How do you separate out the ones who would be in a shelter right now from the ones who would just be in a smaller house that is actually within their means?
If you could actually prove that someone absolutely couldn't afford a house and they were already living in a modest house, I'd probably be in favor of keeping them in that home, as it would probably be better for the city, as they'd keep collecting property taxes with someone in the home than with it being a bank owned empty property, and the bank itself would probably still get more money over the life of the loan even with say a 20% discount.
But sorting out the needy from the greedy would I think be an impossible task.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree with The Rabbit. The longer term fix is bottom-up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Since when are we propping up oil speculators -- this bailout is aimed at mortgage brokers and bankers."
And precisely where do you think the speculators got the cheap money to gamble with? Note that oil prices have dropped nearly 50% since the credit crunch began. Credit is credit, and the paper profits generated by the financial institutions' Ponzi scheme hadda go somewhere as the pool of new mortgage borrowers dried up: cheap money for speculators to jack up food and commodity prices, to hyperinflate farmland prices. Since food and fuel costs affect the poorest the most, revamping that gambling fever by bailing out the financial-sector will hurt the poorest the most.
[ September 30, 2008, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
50%? Wasn't the highwater mark of oil prices around $150? And didn't the price just fall to $96? I don't know the exact price drop in percent terms there, but it's probably what, 35%?
And haven't there been some pretty huge contributing factors to the price of oil? You could argue I think that the tension with and poor performance of government backed stocks and the volatility in the market led to people all piling on the oil bandwagon. Calming down the markets and increasing interest rates could get people to back off oil and put their money elsewhere. Maybe not, but I'm nowhere near convinced that this bailout will spike oil prices again.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Saw this the other day. He's uncharacteristically blunt here.
--j_k
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, caught me thinking backwards from ~$100to$150 of the 50%rise due to speculation insteada the ~150to$100 of the 33%fall caused by speculators having their lines of credit cut off. Personally I think the influx of speculators started to severely distort the oil market much earlier -- say at $70 per barrel -- and the rapid run-up after $90 per barrel (as massive numbers of pension and mutual fund managers began pouring in on "a sure thing") was commented upon only after people started hurting enough to reduce gasoline purchases.
Bailing out the home purchasers having trouble making their ballooning payments by freezing their interest payments to the initial rates would solve the problem. Unsophisticated investors (typical home buyers) got in with eg 6% interest payments by signing contracts that ballooned their payments to eg 24% after eg 2years, along with verbal promises from sophisticated investors (mortgage lenders) that they could refinance at eg 6or7% when the two years was up. And those sophisticated lenders once again proved that "a verbal contract is worth the paper it's written on." Jacking up mortgage payments from eg 40% of the borrower's income to 160% of the borrower's income. Now those sophisticated lenders are pretending to be poor little naifs, while running a massive media campaign branding the new homeowners as crafty bandits who should be punished (for trusting the lenders).
Bailing out the banks directly would just allow them to continue making foreclosures to prop up fake paper valuations that generate fake HIGH profits through false accounting about what a mortgage bond is really*worth, creating even more cheap money for speculators to gamble with.
* A contract requiring that a borrower pay 160% of their income as interest is worth less than zilch, should be subtracted from profits.
[ September 30, 2008, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
aspectre (or anyone), I've heard lots of people say why we need this bailout, and now I'm hearing you say why we don't, (I know you're not the only one.) and what will happen if we DO the bailout. But I'd like to hear what your prediction is if we DON'T have a bailout. What will happen for those of us at or near the bottom?
And someone said on the last page that they hope to be one of the ones to be able to finally get into a house they afford. That's what I hope, too. Will a bailout help or hurt those of us who are waiting until house prices fall enough that we can get a place?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Help.
House prices will continue to fall even with the bailout though possibly it will stem that tide somewhat, but without the bailout you won't be able to get a loan unless you have near perfect credit, and even if you do, the interest rate will be higher than you'd like. The main purpose of the bailout, or at least, the main desired effect, is to free up the credit crunch going on.
So, while housing prices will totally bottom out without a bailout, and might not do so with one, it may not matter much if you can't secure a mortgage loan to buy that house, regardless of its price.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It isn't clear that housing credit will have such a crunch. Loans will require somewhat more credit, but anyone who can meet the requirement of a conforming loan will have no problem getting a loan, since local banks aren't all that badly capitalized, and the FMs are still in business.
I don't think the bailout will have all that much impact either way on the long-term equilibrium of housing prices, really.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "Since when are we propping up oil speculators -- this bailout is aimed at mortgage brokers and bankers."
And precisely where do you think the speculators got the cheap money to gamble with? Note that oil prices have dropped nearly 50% since the credit crunch began. Credit is credit, and the paper profits generated by the financial institutions' Ponzi scheme hadda go somewhere as the pool of new mortgage borrowers dried up: cheap money for speculators to jack up food and commodity prices, to hyperinflate farmland prices. Since food and fuel costs affect the poorest the most, revamping that gambling fever by bailing out the financial-sector will hurt the poorest the most.
Aspecte, While that's an interesting theory it doesn't fit the data at all. The credit crunch associated with implosion of these bad lending practices was well under way a year ago with several bank failures during the first quarter of 2008. Yet the price of oil continued climbing through mid-July. Right now oil prices, even with the dramatic drop in recent weeks, are still higher than they were at the beginning of the year. So while its very reasonable to conclude that the recent drop has been happening because of fears of a general economic collapse caused by the housing debacle, there really is no evidence that the skyrocketing oil prices this summer were caused by the availability of cheap easy money. Cheap easy money from these lending practice had dried up months before oil prices peaked.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Watching McCain continue to spin Palin's Pakistan comments is really quite amusing. He had an interview with Palin and himself with Katie Couric where she asked them about the Pakistan comment, and both of them blamed it on "gotcha journalism." Well, first of all, even if a journalist HAD asked the question, it wasn't a "gotcha" question, which I think has become an overused term for any line of questioning that forces an actual ANSWER out of the candidate. But the point is that it was a regular voter, not a journalist who asked the question. McCain seemed to have the situation confused, not knowing where the event was (he thought it was at a pizza parlor, but was actually at a rather famous cheesesteak place (which is DELICIOUS)), and apparently what even happened.
Then, McCain attacked Joe Biden for comments he made in a nearly identical situation, where Biden made comments about "clean" coal on a rope line off the cuff, exactly the same way that Palin had. Lovely double standard.
THEN, McCain was asked again about the issue by CNN's John Roberts.
quote:McCain, in the interview, suggested that Palin was responding to a general question about whether or not a McCain administration would go after terrorists.
However, Rovito, who had asked Palin two previous questions about her thoughts on Pakistan and Waziristan, asked the governor specifically: “So we do cross border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan, you think?”
Palin’s answer: "If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should.”
McCain’s final point was that his administration would never publicly declare a pending attack within Pakistan’s borders.
“What she said was that she was going to respond to terrorist attacks,” he told Roberts. “And I'm saying we're going to respond to terrorist attacks. I'm not going to announce that I'm going to attack Pakistan.”
So come to find that McCain and Obama agree! He just said he agrees with what has been Obama's position the ENTIRE TIME. I always thought that he just fundamentally opposed the idea of attacking Pakistan under any condition, but now we see that he IS okay with attacking Pakistan is there is actionable intelligence, and that he is ALSO misrepresenting Obama's position by apparently claiming that Obama thinks we should just attack Pakistan for some unstated reason when Obama has said all along that attacks on Pakistani territory would only come under a certain set of conditions.
It's too bad more people aren't interesting in what is happening with Pakistan and Afghanistan, as I suspect if they were then this would be getting more press coverage, but it's a fascinating evolution of positions and words from McCain.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So come to find that McCain and Obama agree! He just said he agrees with what has been Obama's position the ENTIRE TIME. I always thought that he just fundamentally opposed the idea of attacking Pakistan under any condition, but now we see that he IS okay with attacking Pakistan is there is actionable intelligence, and that he is ALSO misrepresenting Obama's position by apparently claiming that Obama thinks we should just attack Pakistan for some unstated reason when Obama has said all along that attacks on Pakistani territory would only come under a certain set of conditions.
Now, wait a minute. I thought that was obvious from the debate. Here's what McCain said:
quote:He [Obama] said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.
Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.
McCain didn't say that he was against attacking Pakistan if necessary, he said that it was unwise to make statements about it.
--Mel
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think McCain's totally right. I don't think we should ever let anyone else know our true intentions, be they enemies, friends, family or lovers. We should keep all our thoughts hidden. Say one thing to those we deal with, while always plotting and keeping other plans hidden from sight. That way, whenever we want to, we can spring a great big surprise on them. I feel all human interactions can benefit from this type of relationship. Think of the fun we can have!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:McCain’s final point was that his administration would never publicly declare a pending attack within Pakistan’s borders.
“What she said was that she was going to respond to terrorist attacks,” he told Roberts. “And I'm saying we're going to respond to terrorist attacks. I'm not going to announce that I'm going to attack Pakistan.”
Who is he arguing with there? Obama has never said he'd declare the day before he attacked that he'd attack, he was just saying that if they had to go in, they'd go in, which is what McCain is saying.
It sounds like he's trying his damndest to parse words in a way that make Obama sound inexperienced when on the whole, it looks like they are lock step. It would appear his major sticking point is the announcement of when an attack would be made, but so far both of them have said they'd attack under hypothetical circumstances, so where is the difference? I think he's trying to paint it like Obama announced that if made president he'd for sure attack Pakistan, which isn't close to what he actually said.
He's making a big deal out of nothing.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"McCain didn't say that he was against attacking Pakistan if necessary, he said that it was unwise to make statements about it."
Clearly he's learned his lesson after saying over and over that we'd attack Iraq, and then that we'd be attacking Iran.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I suspect he'd say that this is different, as Pakistan is an "ally." And a nuclear ally at that.
It's only unwise if your target has the ability to hit you back with sufficient force as to give you pause.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So you want to use this program to backdoor discounted homes for the poor?
What program? The banks have been promoting sub-prime mortgages to the poor, the middle class and the rich. The poor generally didn't think they could afford to buy a house in the first place, but when presented with the opportunity, they took it. But that's in the past.
I'll return to your previous statement:
quote: The idea of keeping people in their homes when they never should have gotten those homes to begin with is abhorrent to me. Let them get kicked out, as they should be, but don't leave the on the street, help them get into a house they CAN afford.
Your statement seems to place the blame on the borrower, rather than the lender, and it doesn't take into account that losing the house on an upside-down loan wouldn't just put poor people in cheaper housing, it would bankrupt them, and ensure an additional cycle of poverty. Very likely it would put those people into the street. It's easy for the rich and the middle class to downgrade to smaller houses, and I hold them more responsible for their situation than I do for the poor.
Do I think that the bailout should be used as a program to get the poor into homeownership? Well certainly not going forward from this point. And I really don't know what the solution is. But I don't think that there is anyone that doesn't deserve a home, leastwise merely because they happen to be poor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think there are many people who don't deserve specific homes they happen to be in, when the only way they got such homes is by signing loan agreements that would involve absurdly high monthly payments they stood no chance of making (but that wouldn't enter into effect for five years).
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Apparently Jerry Falwell Jr. has decided to turn his university into one large McCain machine. They are pushing to register every student at their university in Virginia. Giving extra credit if students do so, and have canceled classes on election day and are busing students to the polls.
quote:"Liberty students have never been permitted to register locally in the past. The recent change in election law is giving Liberty University the chance to make history," Falwell stated in an e-mail addressed to faculty and staff. "Liberty University's 11,000 students and 4,000 faculty and staff could cause Liberty to become known as the university that elected a president!"
Since when does an entire university back a single candidate?
I can only imagine the uproar if some "liberal" university in Pennsylvania pushed every student to register in state and vote for Obama.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
If this financial crisis has been caused by people not being able to pay their mortgages after their interest rate jumped, why not give people their original interest rate, freeze it there, and forget about the bailout?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In some cases, the original terms is that they pay interest-only. So, if the loan is frozen at that state, they never actually pay back any of the principle. That's bad for them because it means they will never, ever own their house - all they pay is interest and they will never build equity in the house.
In some cases, what they pay back isn't even all of the interest, so the longer the loan is frozen that way, the deeper in debt they will become with nothing to show for it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I also agree with fugu - many people bought houses they couldn't afford at ruinous terms. WHY should I continue to rent to try to save for a home when my tax money is going to subsidize people in homes they couldn't afford?
You might as well kick them out and give the house to me. I'd agree to that plan much sooner. Renting isn't killing me, and it wouldn't kill them.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree somewhat. But also disagree. When you go into a bank to talk about a home loan the first thing they do is help you figure out “how much you can afford.” Now, yes, ideally everyone would know enough about finances to figure that out for themselves and not take the banker’s word for it. When we bought our last house the price range we set for ourselves was about half what the bank was willing to loan us. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that some people who aren’t particularly financially savvy are going to think “the banker says I can afford $x and he knows a lot more about this sort of thing that I do.” And when the banker says “We can do this type of mortgage, your payments will be $x for five years, after five years they will go up to $y, but if housing prices continue to rise as they have been you’ll have z thousand dollars of equity in your home and can refinance at a lower rate,” even with the caveat “if” in there, the person thinks, “well the bank is willing to make the loan, and they know a lot more about this than I do, so it must be a pretty safe risk.”
So yes, there are people in homes they can’t afford. And no, they don’t “deserve” to be in those particular homes. But neither do they deserve to go bankrupt while the people who they trusted to “know more” are cushioned from the consequences.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Katarain: because that isn't the problem. The problem is that far too many assets are priced to depend on those higher payments, and they aren't coming in. It doesn't matter if you keep a lot of people paying on their mortgages if what they're paying is squat.
dkw: that's part of the reason I support a gov't agency buying up troubled mortgages of certain types/meeting certain criteria, then instead of foreclosure when the family can't make payments, converting the mortgages to rental properties for the family still in them.
At the same time, this is one of the biggest financial decisions of a person's life, so I expect a certain amount of personal judgment. Particularly as for many people to get such high terms there are well-documented cases of financial documentation coming back from the mortgage broker with additional assets and income listed for the person to sign. Anyone who either doesn't look over that paperwork, or knowingly signs a lie, doesn't garner much sympathy from me. And for those who made not a single misrepresentation but still got a house beyond what they can pay, there isn't always going to be an option. Keeping everyone in houses beyond their means will be horrendously expensive for the country as a whole, and is abrogating far too much personal responsibility from the people involved. I'm fine with also starting civil proceedings on the behalf of such people against mortgage brokers where there are documented cases of misleading assurances about ability to refinance, though.
I also support repealing the bankruptcy 'reform', which makes bankruptcy at least less painful.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What about adding to the bailout a walk-away clause for homeowners? If you’re in over your head the bank buys back your home for whatever you still owe on it. If you do have any equity you lose it, but no foreclosure and no bankruptcy. And for people who are really on the edge a 60 day grace period before you have to move out during which you can put the money you would have spent on the mortgage payment into the deposits for rent and utilities at an apartment.
I’m not thinking of this as a permanent change, but as an option that’s open for maybe six months, to extend the bailout to the people at the bottom of the financial totem pole as well as the top.
Edit, as this was posted at the same time as fugu's: when I bought my first house with two friends the bankers and realtors were surprised (and seemed rather annoyed) that we read every word of every paper before we signed it. Less so when Bob and I bought the house that we're currently trying to sell, but the folks running the closing certainly seem to expect that you'll just take their word for what's in each document and sign at every place they point to.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Notably because the value of the mortgages is typically far less than what are owed on them, given the changes in property values. Especially as most of the people in trouble on mortgages right now have absolutely no equity (and often didn't have any to start with, much less after the valuation dropped).
That means that every mortgage bought back by the bank is at a net loss, putting the country in even more of a credit & capital hole, and there are a lot of distressed mortgages. And the ones feeling the pain the most, unlike now, would be the local banks that are still managing to do brisk business in personal and commercial lending. It wouldn't extend the bailout to those at the bottom, it would wipe out a good chunk of the bailout's ability to get the economy back on track (or, if there isn't a bailout bill, put the economy even further in the hole).
This is assuming the bank can even come close to selling it, which is unlikely. Foreclosed houses (which these effectively are) are much harder to sell than non-foreclosed houses.
Now, if the bank owned the mortgage, the real effect would at least be lower, but the particular problem right now is that banks don't own the mortgages, and every mortgage-backed security has trigger clauses if mortgage payments are no longer forthcoming
There might be something that could be worked out along those lines, but it would probably require the gov't purchase the houses and considerable complicated details surrounding the trigger clauses.
I should point out that walking away right now does not entail bankruptcy at all, only the foreclosure hit on one's credit history, and I think you'll find people such as rental agencies will be remarkably understanding about that particular credit mark. I don't think such a credit hit is an overly large price to pay for the option to walk away, and it seems to be enough of a wall to prevent an outright stampede, though I suspect a lot of that is more social stigma.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Notably because the value of the mortgages is typically far less than what are owed on them, given the changes in property values.
Quite.
For an illustration, I mentioned in my previous post the house that we’re trying to sell. We knew about six months in advance that we’d be moving this summer, so we consulted with a realtor and did a little research on average days on the market of similar houses in our town and decided when to list the house to have the best chance of selling it by the time we needed to move but not too much before then. We’d only been in the house three years, so we didn’t have a lot of equity, but I paid an extra $100-200 on the principle every month so we had some. We picked an asking price that our realtor assured us was “priced to sell” rather than trying to get out of the house what we’d put into it, including the $20,000 or so worth of repairs and upgrades. No offers. When it got close to the time we needed to move we dropped the price to what would just cover what we still owed plus the realtor’s commission. Still no offers. After we moved out we dropped the price to just cover what we still owed on the mortgage, knowing we’d have to pay the realtor’s fees out of pocket. Still no offers. Our realtor is now telling us that to sell it we would have to drop the price another 10-20 thousand dollars, which would mean we’d have to pay the bank that much in order to be able to close the sale. So we took the house off the market and contracted with a property manager to try to rent it.
Financially we’re okay for now. But Bob’s job is dependant on government contracts. If the property manager can’t find a renter and the government cuts spending so Bob’s boss can’t meet payroll we could be in trouble. And if that happens, we will likely let the bank foreclose rather than running up other debt in order to pay the mortgage.
And we weren’t part of the sub-prime lending problem. We have good credit and bought a house well within our means with a reasonable fixed-rate loan. We just got undercut because of needing to move at the same time that housing prices plummeted and the tightening of credit meant that the two people who expressed interest in the house couldn’t get financing.
quote:I should point out that walking away right now does not entail bankruptcy at all, only the foreclosure hit on one's credit history, and I think you'll find people such as rental agencies will be remarkably understanding about that particular credit mark. I don't think such a credit hit is an overly large price to pay for the option to walk away, and it seems to be enough of a wall to prevent an outright stampede, though I suspect a lot of that is more social stigma.
Bankruptcy becomes a factor when people start using credit cards to pay their other bills in order to keep making mortage payments in a desperate attempt not to default on their mortgages.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, and probably won't be avoided if people have done that prior to walking away, even without a foreclosure. I don't think there's a good way to avoid that, only a responsibility to (re-) strengthen the bankruptcy safety net, and perhaps to educate people about if they can really afford their current mortgage and make them aware they can walk away if they can't.
Plus my aforementioned gov't agency buying up troubled mortages (through the securities backed by them) subject to particularly egregious loan terms almost certainly involving deception by the bank, then converting them into rental properties without foreclosures (similar to what you've suggested, but through the gov't, proceeding by unwinding the securities behind the mortgage first, and structured to prevent people having to leave their homes for a while if they aren't ready to quite yet).
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
How about if everyone steps down a level in housing? Family A is in a 500,000 house, so they step down to family B's 400,000 house. Family B steps down to family C's 300,000 house. Family C steps down to family D's 200,000 house. Family D steps down to family E's 100,000 house. Family E buys one of the many 50,000 houses on the market.
Yeah, I know that wouldn't work for many reasons.
My budget for buying a house is pretty small. I'd like to keep it around $50,000, but I can see going up to around $60,000. The houses in the price range are getting better, but still in mostly crummy condition. I'm hoping that as prices drop, we'll be able to get a nicer house for our money. I remember that around 10 years ago, my brother and his wife bought a cute little cottage for around $40,000. It was small, but had a living room, kitchen, three bedrooms, and 2 bathrooms. That would be nice.
Back before all this started, I probably could have qualified for a loan double that or more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Family E buys one of the many 50,000 houses on the market.
*giggle* And moves to a state where there are $50,000 houses? A three bedroom, 2 bath house in Madison that isn't falling down but is still in the worst local neighborhood is, at minimum, $120K.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
There's lots of $50,000 houses where I am. But I suppose they'll have to rent if they live somewhere else.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I was telling my husband the other day that I think we should wipe out everyone's debt and assets and start everyone out with $500,000. He said, so go to communism? I said no, start out with communism, and then switch back to capitalism. Everyone starts over! It's a brilliant plan.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Geez, $50,000 houses? I somehow wish that the Canadian housing market would get that bad then I could pick up a house on the cheap. Of course, if the housing market got that bad, the economy as a whole would probably be much suckier, and my job much more at risk...
Too bad, one cannot simply live in the US and commute to Canada Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You can get a three bedroom, two bath in halfway decent shape in a pretty good neighborhood around here for $100K. If you take away a bathroom you could probably knock ten to twenty off that price. Even more if you aren't concerned about a basement (though almost every house has one around here). The price varies wildly by neighborhood, and the local property tax can make all the difference in the world.
I pass probably one to two hundred houses for sale on my short seven mile drive to work every day. I think on my block alone there are a dozen. I guess that isn't much of a surprise to anyone who has seen news reports on the housing market in Michigan, and in the Detroit area especially. A friend of the family, an elderly woman, just sold her house recently for $118K. It's in a great neighborhood, close proximity to the local downtown area, great schools, low crime, has a basement, three bedrooms and one bathroom. A couple years ago that would have been in the high $190s, if not in the low $200s. But she didn't have time to wait years and years for it to sell for what it would have years ago since she was moving down south.
Everything seems to be in the crapper around here lately. Business is tanking at the restaurant where I work, every third house is up for sale, and the prices of those homes are in freefall, and it seems like every time we make the national news it's either because the Big Three are about to collapse or because Detroit's mayor just broke another law. Add to that I think our unemployment is highest in the nation.
It's not good times in the Mitten at the moment.
Mucus -
Lots of people live in the US and commute to the US around here, and live in Canada and commute to here. I guess it helps to live by the bridge.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On another note, in the backdrop to this financial crisis, Canadian, American, and European agencies have essentially outlawed the short-selling of certain financial stocks to reduce downward pressures on their stock prices. And each time one of these big crashes happens, margin calls occur and people have to sell their assets to meet them.
Meanwhile in China, they just *started* allowing short-selling and borrowing on margin in order to attract money to the market. *shrug*
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I paid under $50k for my house, but that was 20 years ago before home markets went insane.
Annoyingly, after two decades of paying a mortgage and refinancing to bring the percent down (and borrow another $10k) I finally have the balance down to... under $40k. Sigh.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Median price for houses/condos in my town is $350,000.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The ban on short selling is fear-mongering.
There's nothing wrong (and quite a bit right) with some leverage. The problem is with too much leverage. The single biggest mistake the gov't made that led to this disaster was probably back in 2004 to allow certain investment banks to use extremely high amounts of leverage. You might recognize some of the list: Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Didn't the US government also increase access to zero-down-payment mortgages in 2002 or thereabouts?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The ban on short selling is fear-mongering.
I'm not sure I understand that point. As I understand it, the ban on short selling is to prevent massive short selling of a stock, which would drastically drive down its price. In a case where you are seeing panicked driven sell offs like that on Monday, wouldn't this be more than fear mongering?
Of course, it's likely I don't understand the situation that well.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:There's nothing wrong (and quite a bit right) with some leverage. The problem is with too much leverage. The single biggest mistake the gov't made that led to this disaster was probably back in 2004 to allow certain investment banks to use extremely high amounts of leverage. You might recognize some of the list: Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley.
Some of the stuff I've read suggests that it's not so much the amount of leverage, but rather the risk to leverage balance that was the big culprit.
That is, 10 to 1 leveraging might be okay if you're dealing with extremely conservative/secure securities, but leveraging 4 to 1 or really much of anything on the proposition that housing prices would never decline was always a bad idea and, if done in large enough amounts, pretty much guaranteed to cause a crisis.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, too much leverage varies by the quality of security. But having a global cap makes a lot of sense given the difficulties in estimating that risk in many securities. Indeed, I have a hard time imagining what would warrant 10 to 1 (without counter-positions) other than treasuries.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I haven't really worked out the mechanics and consequences of the short-selling thing, I just thought it was interesting to note the differing responses to the stock market drops.
Lyrhawn: True, unfortunately, I'm roughly two hours away from either the Niagara border or the Sarnia border. Of course, prices would probably drop to 100K as you move closer to the States to either Sarnia or St. Catherines anyways.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure if this link will work or not, you might have to click on the link that says "John McCain: Straight Talk." Here is a link to an interview done between McCain and the Des Moines Register's editorial board where McCain defends what is widely viewed as an untruthful, negative ad campaign against Obama.
I realize this will probably come down to opinion, but I think that whole attack against Obama for wanting to teach sex ed to little kids is utter crap. Given that opinion, there are only two things I can glean from McCain's statement. Either he's lying, or he really believes that this is the case, in which case I have serious doubts about his judgment. I'm not sure if I would rather him come right out and admit that the ad is misleading, as I can't imagine he'd actually do that, though I might appreciate the honesty, but sticking to his guns and asserting that his ad is 100% truthful I think smacks of very poor judgment. I think he's seeing whatever he wants, and is telling himself whatever he can in order to soothe what moral problems he might have had with this, and that's spooky to me.
Meanwhile, Obama is gettign some great polling numbers. He's ahead by a few points in most tracking polls now, but the real nuggets of good info are in the demographic questions and in the specifics, like how many see him as a strong leader, or how many women support him, and he's made strong, strong gains in many of those groups. The biggest jump I see is among women. He was +10 with women pre-convention, +1 post convention, and is currently +17. That's a dramatic jump in the last month.
More of the Coric/Palin interview is coming out today. CBS claims they have even more damaging footage of Palin from the interview, but it's unknown whether or not they'll show the worst of it, if it exists. CBS is really dragging this one out. Here is a snippet of what is still to come.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The biggest jump I see is among women. He was +10 with women pre-convention, +1 post convention, and is currently +17.
I get the impression that many women are viewing the selection of Sarah Palin, as it comes out how entirely unsuited she is, as an insult.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think that might be part of it, but I think the larger part is that women are more likely to change their vote based on the state of the economy, and more women trust Democrats with the ecnonomy than Republicans.
I think it it's a push/pull. At the beginning of the month, women were excited about Palin, and in the weeks following that announcement, more has come out about her and they were given pause (pushed away) and then this economic mess came about and that pulled them towards Obama. Put all that together and you get the big shift away from McCain and towards Obama.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Two things:
1. I'm honestly expecting to see an ad staring Wright/Rezko/Ayers sometime this month, and 2. I think Palin won't do as badly in this debate as everyone seems to expect.
--j_k
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The biggest jump I see is among women. He was +10 with women pre-convention, +1 post convention, and is currently +17.
I get the impression that many women are viewing the selection of Sarah Palin, as it comes out how entirely unsuited she is, as an insult.
You betcha.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
jtk -
That same poll suggests that McCain's negative ad campaign isn't having the effect that he'd like. The article in that link suggests that McCain's better move might be a POSITIVE ad blitz. Why? Because Obama's favorables, how many people have a favorable opinion of Obama, have gone up sharply over the last couple weeks, and McCain's have gone down.
That might suggest a couple things, but what many are assuming is that it's a backlash to the negative campaign, and that McCain's getting tagged for it.
He's gone negative hardcore for the last month and a half and Obama has the highest polling number he's ever had. Maybe it's time to shift tactics.
As to your second point, that's impossible to say. I think it'll be one of three things:
1. She'll do awesome, and everything we've been seeing has been her sandbagging. 2. She'll adequately regurgitate the prepackaged answers she's been memorizing for the last week and she'll get a pass. 3. She'll absolutely implode all over the stage and will come off horribly.
I don't see any middle ground for it to not be one of those options, and most people are expected 2 or 3. The thing is, we've seen several horrible interviews with her, we've seen her make awful off the cuff comments that McCain has had to spend multiple days explaining away, and we're hearing rumblings from Sedona that campaign staffers are in panic mode from her horrible performances at debate prep. Given the first couple things there, I'm led to believe that those panicky staffers aren't just out lowering expectations. Her actions have already lowered them to subterranean levels.
Now it's entirely possible that tomorrow night's debate will be a civil discussion between the two of them and everyone will be pleasantly surprised, but for the most part I'm expecting a gaffe off. I think Palin will try to use prepackaged answers and will deliver many of them flatly, and I think when Biden presses her, she'll give the same kinds of bad answers she has been giving. I also think that Biden will press home his attacks too much and will say something quite stupid.
I'm interested to see how tomorrow goes.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
With how low the expectations have gone on Sarah Palin, I think all she'd have to do is get through the debate without any large gaffes and it would be considered a win. Even if Biden completely drowns her with his knowledge of the issues, if she comes out with an articulate, although vague understanding, she'll have beat expectations.
I'm fairly confident that Biden will 'win' the debate as far as arguing his policy positions better and showing a better understanding of the issues. What I'm afraid of will be the headlines and post-debate talk. I would more easily believe that it would be "Palin defeats expectations and performs in the debate" over "Biden wins debate."
In my mind, there are only two ways Biden can 'win' the debate. Either Governor Palin meets her abysmally low expectations and becomes a laughing stock, or Biden creates such a gap in performance that the story the next day can't be about Palin's beating expectations, but about Biden's superior hold on the issues.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:As to your second point, that's impossible to say. I think it'll be one of three things:
1. She'll do awesome, and everything we've been seeing has been her sandbagging. 2. She'll adequately regurgitate the prepackaged answers she's been memorizing for the last week and she'll get a pass. 3. She'll absolutely implode all over the stage and will come off horribly.
I don't see any middle ground for it to not be one of those options, and most people are expected 2 or 3. The thing is, we've seen several horrible interviews with her, we've seen her make awful off the cuff comments that McCain has had to spend multiple days explaining away, and we're hearing rumblings from Sedona that campaign staffers are in panic mode from her horrible performances at debate prep. Given the first couple things there, I'm led to believe that those panicky staffers aren't just out lowering expectations. Her actions have already lowered them to subterranean levels.
My thinking is that expectations for her are now so low that it's fairly difficult for her to fail. I've seen a few clips of her debates in Alaska -- she seems to do OK when she isn't overprepped. Granted, many indications seem to suggest she is being overprepped, but I think campaign has learned from the CBS interview.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:In my mind, there are only two ways Biden can 'win' the debate. Either Governor Palin meets her abysmally low expectations and becomes a laughing stock, or Biden creates such a gap in performance that the story the next day can't be about Palin's beating expectations, but about Biden's superior hold on the issues.
Both of those are very, very possible though.
I don't know, I think sometimes we overemphasize "expectations." I don't think anyone expects Palin to do anything but fail except for a few of her fans, but I don't think that means that if she doesn't do horribly that people will declare her victorius and hail her success at the debate. I think that average people will judge this thing differently than politicos, likely including me. There's a big difference between not having an epic fail and commanding the issues. If she just charts a middle of the road course, I don't think that counts as a win, not with Biden there likely giving insightful informative answers. She can't just be a talking parrot, she has to show that she can think on her feet, which is her biggest criticism at the moment.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
In the grand scheme of things, how important have VP debates been, historically? Lloyd Bensen mopping the floor with Dan Quayle wasn't enough to win Dukakis the presidency in '88.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But Palin may turn out to be very good at supplying catchy sound bytes that will play well, and she may be able to play off Biden until he makes his own gaffes or otherwise reacts to her poorly.
As for the Des Moines Registers video, it bugged me. Not because I didn't agree with their questions, but they were so badly phrased. You can't ask McCain about his lies and follow it up with "You know, when you ran that ad." Give him specifics and demand an answer.
"Your ad was clearly meant to suggest that Sen. Obama favored teaching kindergarten children about sexual intercourse, when the legislation actually stressed age-appropriate education and called for teaching young children how to avoid sexual predators, with an opt-out option for any parents who disagree. Since the curriculum was not defined, would you consider it honorable to suggest the absolute worst interpretation is in fact the case?"
"Why do you continue to stress that Gov. Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere without ever mentioning that she first supported it for 11 months and even used it as a talking point in her candidacy, and that she only stopped it once it became politically expedient? I believe the road leading to the suggested bridge was completed only this week, would you characterize the funding for that now-useless road as an earmark?"
"You have stated many times that Sen. Obama's tax plans would raise taxes for people making over $42,000 a year, despite the fact that every non-partisan fact-checker has declared this to be wildly inaccurate. Why do you still stand by this figure?"
So far the best interview McCain has experienced has been from The View.
(I also get terribly aggravated at the White House press corps. They continue to ask such rambling, mulit-parted questions that there's no chance they'd ever get a straight answer. Ask yes or no questions, people.)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: Gov. PALIN: I have quite a few people who are giving us information about the record of Obama and Biden, and at the end of the day, though, it is–it’s so clear, again, what those choices are. Either new ideas, new energy and reform of Washington, DC, or more of the same.
Well, she's right about that!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:So far the best interview McCain has experienced has been from The View.
An editorial in Time Magazine makes this exact point. I believe it was James Poniewozic
The Gray Lady also ran an article today about Palin and Biden's debate performances in the past. The bits concerning Palin's governor debates were pretty interesting. I honestly want her to perform well on Thursdays debate, as I believe John McCain had some good reasons for selecting her as his running mate rather than purely tactical ones. If she does crash and burn, I hope Biden lets her dig her own grave rather than laying into her.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:1. I'm honestly expecting to see an ad staring Wright/Rezko/Ayers sometime this month, and
Thanks for those links Blackblade. That video about the debating styles was cool. I didn't know that Biden was practice debating vs. Jennifer Granholm. That should be good practice. Granholm is smart and tough. I'm a big Granholm fanboy. If only she weren't Canadian born! She should have been a perfect choice for Obama as a VP.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I bet this will go down as one of the debates with the highest viewership ever. People are interested, for whatever reason each has. It will be a riveting night, even if nothing special happens.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: In the grand scheme of things, how important have VP debates been, historically? Lloyd Bensen mopping the floor with Dan Quayle wasn't enough to win Dukakis the presidency in '88.
Not very. I know that I personally haven't watched the last two.
But then, when was the last time the hype was this big? In other words, when was the last time a lot of people were actually paying attention?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:1. I'm honestly expecting to see an ad staring Wright/Rezko/Ayers sometime this month, and
That's what they call split? The only people who raised their hands for McCain did so because they anticipated Obama's name being called first.
Nice try, schmucks. Even the people in the diner are laughing at them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Two hands went up, one of which came down immediately and then enthusiastically went back up for Obama, and the other which also came back up for Obama.
That was just plain goofy.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It just seemed to be tongue in cheek to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The difference? Palin's answers weren't wrong per se (except that I think she confused Federalist and Anti-Federalist with her states' rights thing). The differences between them I think were in the details. Biden spoke for the same amount of time but went into the thick of it, whereas Palin provided adequate answers (for church and state at least) but didn't really get into it. The differences on the supreme court decisions were probably the best example. Biden went into it like a constitutional law professor, which he was, and Palin answered on the periphery, though I think her answer was probably fine.
That could be a little preview of how the debate will go. If so, Biden could come off professorial, but not long winded, he kept his answers detailed but brief. And Palin will come off, well, more cogent than she has in the past, but not incredibly knowledgable.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: It just seemed to be tongue in cheek to me.
Could be. I'm gonna tell myself you're right until it sticks.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Seriously.
George W. Bush did such an amazingly horrible job, even John Mccain, a man I respect, admire, like and wish were in charge of our armed forces, doesn't have a chance.
It was neck and neck, until the oops, we need to give Wall Street $700 billion or we all die.
Now, Republicans ONLY have a chance in hell.
I am enjoying the Conservative spin of "This Crisis is Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter's" fault, and yes, i understand how it started the ball rolling, but come on, a decade of letting the Mafia regulate itself? GENIUS!
10 Trillion dollars in the hole.
We owe the Blockbuster in Iraq like 20 billion a month.
Does anyone else remember Bush standing up in 2004 and projecting a 15 Trillion Dollar surplus for 2012?
Clinton is a slime ball. For sure. But i'll take 1992 to 2000 over 2000 to 2008.
And Joe Biden? What a douche.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: We owe the Blockbuster in Iraq like 20 billion a month.
Not me. I've got Iraqi Netflix.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: We owe the Blockbuster in Iraq like 20 billion a month.
Not me. I've got Iraqi Netflix.
Careful dude, their late fees are astronomical.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I heard part of a radio interview on NPR this morning with McCain where, when questioned about what advice he might solicit from Palin on foriegn policy matters he states that he has sought her council on foreign policy matters "many times" in the past.
Well, he's either lying or, I don't know. He only talked to her twice prior to naming her his VP a month ago. So I have two reactions to this. 1. He's full of it. What could he possibly have asked her for advice about over the past month? And why would he have called her BEFORE this month for advice? 2. If he's not full of it, then that's friggin scary. Why would a self proclaimed master of foreign policy issues need to call a woman totally out of her depth on those issues and ask for advice?
***********************************************
On another matter, has anyone been watching Jon Stewart for the last couple nights? He's been pretty pissed on a number of matters and he's been ranting about it pretty loudly (and I think correctly and cogently). But one point that he touched on last night was when he was talking about Palin and McCain trumpeting small town values, and this struck a chord with me.
Why do the Republicans, and for that matter why do people respond so well to the idea of "small town values?" They say it while in the same breath decrying the elitist notions of the big city folk, but to me it suggests two things: 1. They in fact think they are better than me because of some inherent positive quality in growing up in a small town. 2. That they work hard for a living while somehow people like me have things handed out for free.
That second part was evidenced when Palin was talking about her world travels. She said that when she graduated high school, unlike other kids whose parents handed them a passport and sent them off to Europe with backpacks, she worked for a living. What is up with that stereotype?
I don't come from small little town in the middle of nowhere, but that doesn't mean I don't have a set of moral values equal to or better than whatever she grew up with, and it doesn't mean I have things handed to me without working for them. I've had a job since I was 16. I would've liked to go to Europe myself, and have had a couple chances ruined by circumstance. What does that even have to do with anything?
Trumpeting small towns as bastions of some idyllic version of everything we champion in American society, and as the last redoubts of a good strong upbringing full of some vague notion of what make up "good values," and at the same time decrying everything urban smacks of elitism. Rural elitism. And that's not even touching on far larger issues, like politicians giving complicated answers to complicated questions being called "professorial" or "elitist," and championing the simple platitudes as representative of small town upbringings. The fact that we hold that up as the higher standard rather than education I think shows a certain mental degradation in our society.
Anyway, [/rant]
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
What's up with the silence from Card regarding Palin?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Lyrhawn: I honestly don't even know what they're talking about when they say "small town values." Maybe it's because I was born in a city and raised in the suburbs, but I don't get what the number of people who lived in your hometown has to do with much. Maybe more people know one another in a small town. If you want to talk stereotypes, I can get negative on small town stereotypes as easily as someone could go positive. For example: gossip, fear of outsiders, and pressure for everyone to be the same.
I hate emotional "feel good" politics. That's one reason that I like Obama. The other night on the debate I remember one part where McCain was talking about this time when he received a bracelet from a dead soldier's mom who asked him that her son's sacrifice not be in vein....a real tear-jerker effort. I recognized the move for what it was and loved Obama's response -- he had a bracelet too from a mom who asked him not to let other moms lose their children. The way he said it, I clearly understood him to say, "We shouldn't make strategy decisions based on grieving mother's wishes." and also "There's always another side."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
what's up with all the silence on Biden? Or on the links to Obama from Fannie & Freddie with his advisors, donations, and pressures to make exactly the kinds of loans being demonized now?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: We shouldn't make strategy decisions based on grieving mother's wishes."
Cindy Sheehan was a Democrat celebrity specifically because she was a grieving mother.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: what's up with all the silence on Biden? Or on the links to Obama from Fannie & Freddie with his advisors, donations, and pressures to make exactly the kinds of loans being demonized now?
There are former financial lobbyists in prominent positions of both campaigns, which is probably why we're not hearing too much about it. If it became a bigger story, I fear it would look a lot worse for McCain:
quote:Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.
And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.
For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."
quote:Why do the Republicans, and for that matter why do people respond so well to the idea of "small town values?" They say it while in the same breath decrying the elitist notions of the big city folk, but to me it suggests two things: 1. They in fact think they are better than me because of some inherent positive quality in growing up in a small town. 2. That they work hard for a living while somehow people like me have things handed out for free.
A friend once told me that this country could be boiled down to this: we hate them because we think they are stupid and they hate us because they know we think they are stupid. Of course, both sides are wrong, the liberal intelligent elite and the hard working farmers of the midwest cannot be placed into such easy groups nor can the labels I used here perfectly describe each group, and yet, it is true that there is a divide between small town America and those who live elsewhere. The difference can be seen in states like Texas and Missouri where Obama will win the cities and lose the countryside.
In some sense, it's a reaction to academic elitism because if a politician is from a small town, then they know that politician doesn't think they are stupid like all those other elitists. Didn't we have this debate though lyrhawn? And don't you think that maybe Jon Stewart was talking to you too?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if a politician is from a small town, then they know that politician doesn't think they are stupid like all those other elitists
Yeah, they've just got a law degree from one of those podunk, small-town colleges. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980.
According to OpenSecrets.com, from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama, who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.
In contrast, McCain warned of the coming mortgage crisis as he pressed in 2005 for regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
McCain would still come off worse in a comparison, and the influence of those three execs has been exaggerated and debunked.
Actually I recommend snopes.com's pages on Obama and McCain. Very handy. And interesting to see which candidate is getting more lies spread about him.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:According to today’s voter registration reports, Democrats now hold a 60,068 voter registration advantage in Nevada. That is almost 14 times the voter registration advantage held by Republicans in the 2004 election, when George Bush narrowly won the state.
I'm not quite sure how old that press release is, but this morning I heard on the local NPR station that number now exceeds 80,000. I know I can't go to a mall, supermarket or even walk down the Las Vegas strip without encountering volunteers asking people to register to vote...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
whens the debate on MSNBC?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
We're being inundated with voter registration people in Philly. From what I've seen, they're looking specifically for college age kids and blacks, although are obiously willing to help anyone. It's been funny seeing the voter reg people swooping down on the 20+ people hordes of college freshman tentatively exploring the city.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The campaign contributions are not exaggerated for Obama.
Anyone can donate money to anyone. That alone isn't any indictment, though it certainly should draw scrutiny. Lobbying however, is unambiguous, and McCain's staff includes much more of the lobbying types that McCain blames the crisis on than Obamas.
I suggest reading the article I linked.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:posted by Humean In some sense, it's a reaction to academic elitism because if a politician is from a small town, then they know that politician doesn't think they are stupid like all those other elitists. Didn't we have this debate though lyrhawn? And don't you think that maybe Jon Stewart was talking to you too?
We had a debate that was similar, but I don't think the same. The difference is that I don't think small town people are any stupider by nature than the average America. I think you might be right to a degree that they think that city people think they are stupid, but I think their reaction to that was to instead entrench themselves in the idea that THEY are in fact better because their lifestyle or values or morals and what not are inherently better than the city snobs, despite the fact that there are just as many if not more hardships in city living than there are in rural living. They've reacted, when hearing that someone thinks they are better than them, by coming up with a way to downplay that and insist that THEY are actually better. It's an ironic reaction, but I guess not surprising when you look at the history of sectional reactions in this country.
This is only a rehash of our last debate if you start with the assumption that I think all rural people are stupid, which is far from the truth. But where does the idea come from that everyone not from a rural lifestyle is an elitist? And where do they get off assuming that they are better than everyone else for having grown up in a small town? And for that matter, how is that NOT a type of elitism?
I'm not sure what you meant about Stewart. He was ranting in general.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The campaign contributions are not exaggerated for Obama.
Anyone can donate money to anyone. That alone isn't any indictment, though it certainly should draw scrutiny. Lobbying however, is unambiguous, and McCain's staff includes much more of the lobbying types that McCain blames the crisis on than Obamas.
I suggest reading the article I linked.
I read an article that put side by side the amount of money contributed from FM to Obama and McCains campaigns, Obama had roughly 9000$ McCain had 200,000$
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I would bet it's more than that but it's the lobbyists' pockets that are really full. McCain's fundraisers and staff made millions lobbying on behalf of the mortgage industry. Normally I say "so what?, that's politics" but then McCain blasted the lobbyists, saying:
quote:The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
He then attempted to blame Obama for his ties to lobbyists, which are largely baseless, while ignoring the fact that his own campaign manager and several others on his staff were directly involved in the behavior that he's so upset about.
I don't care that McCain has former lobbyists on his staff. I care that he's being a hypocrite.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:We had a debate that was similar, but I don't think the same. The difference is that I don't think small town people are any stupider by nature than the average America. I think you might be right to a degree that they think that city people think they are stupid, but I think their reaction to that was to instead entrench themselves in the idea that THEY are in fact better because their lifestyle or values or morals and what not are inherently better than the city snobs, despite the fact that there are just as many if not more hardships in city living than there are in rural living. They've reacted, when hearing that someone thinks they are better than them, by coming up with a way to downplay that and insist that THEY are actually better. It's an ironic reaction, but I guess not surprising when you look at the history of sectional reactions in this country.
Do you know why I asked you about Kerry or whether you think Obama's lead would be bigger if people did their duty? It's because the notion that people become entrenched in their beliefs when faced with people who think they are better is not something that is confined to small town people, it is a phenomenon that is truly non-partisan and unbiased, and it is something that allows a more utilitarian look at politics in general. People become entrenched in their beliefs all the time, they face a logical paradox or evidence to the contrary and instead of rationally seeking an answer, they become more entrenched in their own belief, but the real interesting part of that is the reasoning behind it. If you have ever wondered why it was easy to divide America it is because people view their own beliefs through the lens of entitlement, and then that lens affords people a sense of entitlement to the truth. The truth I speak of here is not *the* truth of course, it's *my* truth or *your* truth, and when those truths don't mesh, people can easily become entrenched.
To me, that's the problem, it's the debate we had, and to an extent it is thesis of Stewart's arguments the last few days. For instance, Stewart talked about McCain last night and used a quote from his acceptance speech as an example. McCain said: "I will appoint judges that will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench". Of course, Jon was correct in saying that what that really meant was that he would not allow gay marriage and overturn Roe, but more to the point, this is the kind of politics we now face everyday. Politicians speak to us as if we were children, they don't engage themselves in *big* debates about abortion or gay marriage, they hide behind gaffes their opponents make and behind lines meant to appeal to as many groups as possible, and unfortunately now, that includes Obama. He has failed to raise the level of discourse just as McCain has, and the simple fact that McCain failed does not justify Obama's negative tactics and failure to do so.
That's how our debate's come together because your belief that some of the American people are stupid does impact how we view politics and the nature of the divisions we face. Of course, the solution is to trust the American people and to bring about hope and a better political discourse. How so? Have the big debates, have the debates we *need* to have, and trust that the American people are smart enough to tell the difference. If you don't, you will lose anyway...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:your belief that some of the American people are stupid
Well, that's sort of a mischaracterization. I don't think you'll find a single person on this board that doesn't think SOME American people are stupid. I don't see how you could argue that any population of people doesn't have its share of stupid people. My argument was that people are LAZY, which is considerably different. The reason you asked me about Kerry/Obama was because you wanted me to say that yes, Obama and Kerry would have a bigger lead because anyone paying attention and anyone smart enough would naturally pick the two of them as their candidate. But the fact of the matter is, like I've said before, if everyone paid attention and really looked into the issues to form their own opinions instead of forming them from the prepackaged bits they get from the candidates and the untruths and misrepresentations they do of each other then I have no idea how the country would realign, but I think it would be a major shift in the fundamental nature of American politics. I also think it would dramatically change how the candidates treat us. Candidates don't give us straight out debates on the issues because they know from a century or more of history that platitudes and non-statements both earn them votes, and that they'll never be pressed for more.
But still, I feel like this argument is different than the rural vs. urban argument. That presupposes that I think all the stupid/lazy people are in the rural areas, and that all the smart attention payers are in the suburbs and cities. Again, that's wrong. *********** In other news, McCain pulls his campaign out of Michigan. Not really a surprise. With how the map was looking, he was either going to have to pick between PA or MI and MI's numbers were looking a lot more scary.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
When Biden said that he supports the government's ability to adjust the principle, how would it work?
[ October 03, 2008, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I have to say, these two are both good at debating. I'm enjoying watching them go back and forth.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:The reason you asked me about Kerry/Obama was because you wanted me to say that yes, Obama and Kerry would have a bigger lead because anyone paying attention and anyone smart enough would naturally pick the two of them as their candidate. But the fact of the matter is, like I've said before, if everyone paid attention and really looked into the issues to form their own opinions instead of forming them from the prepackaged bits they get from the candidates and the untruths and misrepresentations they do of each other then I have no idea how the country would realign, but I think it would be a major shift in the fundamental nature of American politics. I also think it would dramatically change how the candidates treat us.
Let me ask you something then, if a candidate were to argue that abortion comes down to a choice between life and murder, then how are we going to have any kind of argument or debate? You claim that if people got past the untruths and misrepresentations that there would be a fundamental shift in the nature of American politics, but it's not like you think that shift would be for the worse, especially given that you argue *for* this line. That shift you speak of is one that you endorse because you think it is the right thing to do and because you think it will be better than what we have now. I mean it's not like you run around arguing things you don't believe in or believing something that you believe to be wrong because that's not a rational approach to knowledge or debate and you are a rational person. However, if the debate you get into is the one I presented above, then how is the American citizen going to get past the lies and misrepresentations and into that new American political landscape you seek?
Here's an even better question, what do you think of those people who disagree with the fundamental tenet of our argument (that the political landscape is perfect the way it is)? And isn't it clear then how they might think, whether it's true or not, that we think they are stupid?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: When Biden said that he supports the government's ability to adjust the principal, how would it work?
This is just my guess, but I suppose there would be a means test to determine how much principle the homeowner could afford and if that value was greater than or equal to the amount that the bank could reasonably raise by foreclosing and auctioning the property then the mortgage would be refinanced to that lower principle.
Alternatively, they could reduce the principle to the fair market value of the home (assuming it's less) and make it up to the homeowner to meet that payment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Let me ask you something then, if a candidate were to argue that abortion comes down to a choice between life and murder, then how are we going to have any kind of argument or debate?
Well I think once you get to that point, most of the debate has probably already broke down. We never got into the nitty gritty of specific issues, but I think we might have to make a distinction between certain kinds of issues. Abortion is one of those things that doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer, it's based on a particular person's world or moral view. Where does life begin? Science doesn't have an answer, it's opinion based, entirely opinion based. We put an arbitrary line into Roe v. Wade on what constitutes acceptable limits on what we can legislate when a termination is okay or when it's too late and say that in the beginning, we won't make that decision as a nation. But it's a discussion, like many other social and moral issues, that I question can be reasoned by logic, as it's a philosophical debate, rather than a recitation of facts built into a cogent argument.
I think the way to bring that particular debate back into focus is to change the rhetoric we use to shape it. It's politicians, like so many times in the past, who rile people up by using such inflammatory language that pushes people into camps where they can then draw support from them on issues like this. Not referring to the opposition as baby killers or on the other side as ignorant Bible thumpers or what not is how we at least return the debate to civility, even if we can't come to a satisfactory agreement. So often how we frame the debate can be just as important in succeeding as the debate itself.
quote:However, if the debate you get into is the one I presented above, then how is the American citizen going to get past the lies and misrepresentations and into that new American political landscape you seek?
Like we've said in discussions past, I think it's far, far too easy for middle of the road politicians who try to build consensus to be edged out by extremists. A guy comes along and says that he doesn't think abortion is murder, so supporters aren't baby killers, and his own side will reject him for not supporting them enough, and the other side will reject him for not supporting them at all. It happens all the time. The way past it is for regular people to reject the premise of the debate entirely. It's either that or politics has to change whole cloth, entirely, because all it takes is one guy to take advantage of the system and it all comes apart again, and it's been that way for 200 years.
quote:Here's an even better question, what do you think of those people who disagree with the fundamental tenet of our argument (that the political landscape is perfect the way it is)? And isn't it clear then how they might think, whether it's true or not, that we think they are stupid?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Okay, this had to have been done consciously. In response to the Obama campaign putting out an add with a clip for Sen Biden talking about John McCain's healthcare plan rasing middle-class healthcare payments (which the McCain campaign denies but independent organizations says is correct - and it looks pretty obvious to me that it does), a McCain spokesman said:
quote:Whether Barack Obama and his running mate are voting in favor of higher taxes on Americans making just $42,000 or telling bald faced lies, Americans know failed leadership when they see it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have to say, these two are both good at debating. I'm enjoying watching them go back and forth.
Palin was absolutely not good at debating, she was a pretty face that memorized talking abouts, which as far as I can tell were mostly false.
And she sounded like Ned Flanders.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have to say, these two are both good at debating. I'm enjoying watching them go back and forth.
Palin was absolutely not good at debating, she was a pretty face that memorized talking abouts, which as far as I can tell were mostly false.
And she sounded like Ned Flanders.
She was brilliant, actually, and I say that realizing full well that she was memorized and rehearsed and used her pretty face for all it was worth. She dodged questions, brought the topics around to what she wanted to talk about, and did a great job making the emotional masses forget all the bad things about her. Anyone watching the debate with a logical eye could see through what she was doing, but it doesn't change the fact that these tactics work. She's a terrific politician. It's the best thing I've come up with to say about her! Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: In an interview with CBS News that aired last week, Biden described how Franklin D. Roosevelt had appeared before the country on television in 1929 to explain the stock market crash. But Herbert Hoover was president in 1929, and televisions sets did not start appearing in American homes until a decade later.
quote: In that same interview, asked about an Obama campaign commercial that mocked Sen. John McCain's lack of computer skills, Biden called the ad "terrible." A few hours later, after McCain's campaign highlighted the remark in several news releases, Obama aides put out a statement under Biden's name in which the senator from Delaware said he had not personally seen the commercial and did not have any concerns once he watched it.
The next day, confronted with a interview in which Biden had said he opposed the bailout of the insurance company American International Group, a move that Obama supported, the Democratic nominee said that "I think Joe should have waited" before commenting.
And Obama aides spent much of the week defending the candidate's backing of the construction of "clean coal" plants, after a video surfaced on the Internet that showed Biden at a campaign event saying he opposed clean coal. The coal industry is a major employer in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two key swing states where Biden is doing much of his campaigning, and Obama has pledged support for coal plants that emit less carbon dioxide than traditional plants.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have to say, these two are both good at debating. I'm enjoying watching them go back and forth.
Palin was absolutely not good at debating, she was a pretty face that memorized talking abouts, which as far as I can tell were mostly false.
And she sounded like Ned Flanders.
She was brilliant, actually, and I say that realizing full well that she was memorized and rehearsed and used her pretty face for all it was worth. She dodged questions, brought the topics around to what she wanted to talk about, and did a great job making the emotional masses forget all the bad things about her. Anyone watching the debate with a logical eye could see through what she was doing, but it doesn't change the fact that these tactics work. She's a terrific politician. It's the best thing I've come up with to say about her!
That was my view watching it. She was a fluffball, but Americans will love her (yes, I have become a little cynical and jaded).
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: That was my view watching it. She was a fluffball, but Americans will love her (yes, I have become a little cynical and jaded).
Oddly enough that is what I think of Obama.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Palin has also brought out the very worst in McCain, forcing him to -- and I do not use this word lightly -- lie about her. In an interview broadcast Wednesday, National Public Radio's Steve Inskeep asked McCain if there would be "an occasion where you could imagine turning to Governor Palin for advice in a foreign policy crisis?"
McCain replied: "I've turned to her advice many times in the past. I can't imagine turning to Senator Obama or Senator Biden, because they've been wrong."
" Many times in the past?" McCain met Palin only twice before he selected her. What McCain said could not be true. And would anyone who listened to her last night really consult Palin on foreign policy?
quote:Part of reassurance is intellectual. Like Palin, he's a rookie, but in his 19 months on the national stage he has achieved fluency in areas in which he has no experience. In the foreign policy debate with McCain, as in his July news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama held his own -- fluid, familiar and therefore plausibly presidential.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president.
Me, I'm not so sure. I expect to see a blitz of anti-Obama ads featuring Ayers, Wright and Rezko soon after the last debate between Obama and McCain. It's not at all clear if they can have an impact any longer. But it's not clear that they can't have an impact, either.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: That was my view watching it. She was a fluffball, but Americans will love her (yes, I have become a little cynical and jaded).
Oddly enough that is what I think of Obama.
Most graduates of Harvard Law School are fluffballs, and the ones that were tapped to be president of the Harvard Law Review are usually even more lightweight than most of their peers, so it wouldn't be surprising if Obama were on the fluffy side.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Lyrhawn, I think Ebert's right. Palin came across more as Jerry Lundegaard than Ned Flanders.
I love reading stuff Ebert writes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: That was my view watching it. She was a fluffball, but Americans will love her (yes, I have become a little cynical and jaded).
Oddly enough that is what I think of Obama.
Most graduates of Harvard Law School are fluffballs, and the ones that were tapped to be president of the Harvard Law Review are usually even more lightweight than most of their peers, so it wouldn't be surprising if Obama were on the fluffy side.
Wow there's no possible way to make that more offensive, and believe me I've tried.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well that's fascinating. Obama is "disqualified" to be Commander in Chief. To be fair, it DOES look to me like he was insinuating that that's all our troops have been doing. I think it was a flippant comment (which Palin should know all about) but at the same time appears to be backed up by facts (which Palin might not know about). I think he would have made his point better by being more careful in his wording.
quote: “I did feel there were a lot of things she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are that are represented in our ticket," Palin said. "I guess I have to apologize for being a bit annoyed, but that’s also an indication about being outside that Washington elite, outside that media elite also, and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."
Those are her comments on Couric's interview and her questions. I think she pretty much just specified the difference between two sides in this election. Couric asked her policy questions, asked her to show a command of issues, and she wanted to talk about values. And apparently actually KNOWING THINGS means you're a Washington insider, where as being a folksy charmer means you're exactly the right person for the job.
She just dropped the veneer and said straight out that she's running as a folksy down home vapid America's best friend type, and that anyone who talks about policy or experience is a "washington elite." How she makes that claim and someon exempts McCain is beyond me.
Edit to add: Here's a video of her comments. I take back part of what I said, I was wrong. She apparently doesn't want to talk about her values or her positions, she wants to spend the entire time "clobbering" Barack Obama's positions. Because that's TOTALLY outside what the Washington elite and media elite do and say. She's learning fast.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
But Blayne, he was being sarcastic...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: But Blayne, he was being sarcastic...
How am I supposed to know with you internet folks?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Blayne, in most cases, you can match what you know of a person, their positions, how they usually write and match it up against something that seems outrageous to you.
It's not like Noemon is someone whose usual style or views are a mystery, what with a post count of over 14,000 and all. Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
George W. Bush speaks like a very bad VicePresidential candidate, he even makes Dan Quayle sound like a genius.
Did you by any chance vote for Bush, DarkKnight?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
That second part was evidenced when Palin was talking about her world travels. She said that when she graduated high school, unlike other kids whose parents handed them a passport and sent them off to Europe with backpacks, she worked for a living. What is up with that stereotype?
Well, except for the part where I got the passport myself and picked the backpack up at REI, and planned the trip and did the applications for language schools and all that... I do fit the stereotype- I went to Europe four times before I was 22. But I don't see how that's a bad thing at all. My parents could afford to send me, and when I graduated from school, I liquidated my assets and sent myself back again. I wouldn't personally trade those experiences for the morally invigorating life of work in a small town. I have worked in a small town- I was a local camp counselor for 5 years, and a teen center supervisor for 3, and it mostly sucked. Now, I'm glad I had both experiences, but one is not better than the other; they are patently different.
The issue is that Palin is quite narrow-minded. Her experience is inherently better because it belongs to her. That's kind of the whole republican ethos: the vast middle class sees the fragility of their social status and position, but those who are set in either rural communities of limited socio-economic mobility, or those born into inherited wealth, can't believe there is any other way to live than they are living now. The thing about middle class families is that they weren't always the way they are now. The middle class comes from something unlike itself, and knows something about changeability. In some ways I don't think that's true of small towns. I grew up in a small town (though it was in the shadow of a major city) and it had a real effect on people's social mobility, not having connections outside such a small group.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't have the link, but Palin is expressing disappointment with McCain's decision to pull out of Michigan.
Personally, I'm pleased with the decision if for no other reason than the fact that we'll finally get to see something other than presidential ads on TV! Huzzah! I'm sick to death of all the ads. Every 30 seconds there's another ad, we're drowning in them. The good news for Obama is that he gets to pull most of his resources out of the state too to press the attack in states McCain is defending.
No more ads! Yay!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't have the link, but Palin is expressing disappointment with McCain's decision to pull out of Michigan.
Personally, I'm pleased with the decision if for no other reason than the fact that we'll finally get to see something other than presidential ads on TV! Huzzah! I'm sick to death of all the ads. Every 30 seconds there's another ad, we're drowning in them. The good news for Obama is that he gets to pull most of his resources out of the state too to press the attack in states McCain is defending.
No more ads! Yay!
Move out to Utah Valley then, the lack of politically diverse dialogue has long depressed me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blame the electoral college. If we weren't sliced and diced as an electorate, you'd get more attention, and with the spreading of resources, I'd get less.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Ah, the delightful smell of desperation. Better hope the wild dogs don't catch the whiff, dears.
How long until she claims he's a witch?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
A moment ago there was a banner ad on the bottom of my screen for McCain-Palin reading "The Orignal Mavericks".
...
...How old is McCain claiming to be, these days?...
I think maybe he needs to have a word with his slogan people...
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Snopes has a messload of debunking articles on Obama.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, so not only is Obama a secret Muslim, but now he's a secret Muslim with terrorist friends!
Frankly I have to imagine there are more subtle ways to attempt to paint your opponent as a terrorist sympathizer, let alone an actual terrorist.
Moreover, her attacks on Obama in recent days have been blunt and ridiculous. It's like she harps on what MIGHT be a good point, and then takes is melodramatically over the top.
Obama makes a comment about the US army killing civilians in Afghanistan. Okay, Obama's point was actually that independent and US reports confirmed that the US was reponsible for as many if not more deaths than the Taliban and her affiliates lately, which isn't a particularly good mark for us. He didn't say it very well, which Palin would have been smart to jump on, but instead she says that now he's totally disqualified to be Commander in Chief. Because in a McCain-Palin Administration there'd be no questioning the high civilian casualty rate? Way over the top.
And now saying he 'pals around with terrorists'? It looks like she's trying to make up lost ground way too fast and might even end up losing more.
Tina Fey reprised her role as Sarah Palin again on SNL earlier tonight. It was pretty funny, as was the parody of Biden.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I live in the neighborhood with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne. I've spoken with them both. He spends his time advocating on behalf of education, while she works in juvenile justice. As civic engagement and responsibility goes, one can do worse. 30 years ago, they bombed buildings in the US to draw attention to the massive violence we were inflicting a half a world away. I look at the way they've lived their lives, and I still consider them good, thoughtful, courageous people acting boldly in a complicated time. I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
[ October 05, 2008, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
You mean he's too pragmatic to come out and say how brave these people were for blowing stuff up? He's being branded as a terrorist sympathizer just for having met Ayers and working with him briefly. Coming out and saying he actually approves of their actions is tantamount to forfeiting the election.
Even if I agreed with you about Ayers, which I don't, I'd still consider his character perfectly in tact for keeping his mouth shut about it and winning the White House than trying to take some high road and giving up the presidency to someone I consider anathema to the White House. Sometimes the price is too high, and I think it has nothing to do with character.
Edit to add: Joe Biden's mother-in-law just died.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: I think it has nothing to do with character
To quote Aaron Sorkin: being President of this country is entirely about character.
quote:I still consider them good, thoughtful, courageous people acting boldly in a complicated time. I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
That assumes two things: that Obama agrees with you about Ayers and that he doesn't come out and say that for specious reasons. And I don't think you can assume either about Obama...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: As civic engagement and responsibility goes, one can do worse.
You're right. What's a little blowing up buildings between friends.
quote:I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
"I wish McCain would win handily."
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
So, is anyone holding Obama not taking public financing against him? Because Palin was in California today fundraising...for the RNC. Which is spending all it's money on McCain.
In fact, you can still contribute money on McCain's site, it just doesn't technically go to his campaign:
"For Individuals- The first $28,500 will go to the RNC, the next portion will be divided evenly between the Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania state parties' federal accounts up to a maximum of $9,250 for each Committee, and the final $2,300 will go to the Compliance Fund."
So McCain pretty much got, what - 80 million dollars of taxpayer money for no loss?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Gotta love those campaign finance laws he put into effect eh?
The real irony? The RNC is demanding a half billion dollar audit of the Obama campaign, claiming they've broken several fundraising laws even though the McCain campaign has had to give back more than a million dollars that it illegally collected.
I'd love to see them duke it out in a debate, but I think it'd get too technical for either side to score any points.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If this is all true... Jeez! How does someone who crashes one plane and accidentally clips a power line with a second manage to stay in the military?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For the sake of completeness, I would like to add the third non-combat plane-ground incident.
1. Stall into water 2. Clip power lines 3. Stall into trees
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That Rolling Stones article is the worst article I've ever read. It is biased, vindictive, and poorly cited. Complete trash.
To answer your question, the article got it wrong. I'm embarrassed for journalism that absolute rubbish like that got printed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: ]Most graduates of Harvard Law School are fluffballs, and the ones that were tapped to be president of the Harvard Law Review are usually even more lightweight than most of their peers, so it wouldn't be surprising if Obama were on the fluffy side.
I'd love to know your qualifications for that assessment. There is virtually no chance of you being correct.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He was being sarcastic.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I live in the neighborhood with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne. I've spoken with them both. He spends his time advocating on behalf of education, while she works in juvenile justice. As civic engagement and responsibility goes, one can do worse. 30 years ago, they bombed buildings in the US to draw attention to the massive violence we were inflicting a half a world away. I look at the way they've lived their lives, and I still consider them good, thoughtful, courageous people acting boldly in a complicated time. I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
Whatever their reasons, they were foolish to do what they did, in my opinion. Obama, as a lawyer and almost certainly as a student has read Henry David Thereau' "On Civil Disobedience," and understands what real advocates of democratic action have understood for centuries. Violent uprising is a replacement of one tyranny over another if it is not democratic. That is the whole reason why terrorism is wrong. Sometimes I think you only see a problem with terrorism when it isn't your side doing the terrorizing. Infecting people with fear and the threat of violence is no good solution for any of our problems.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: He was being sarcastic.
It really didn't register.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That Rolling Stones article is the worst article I've ever read. It is biased, vindictive, and poorly cited. Complete trash.
To answer your question, the article got it wrong. I'm embarrassed for journalism that absolute rubbish like that got printed.
It's Rolling Stone. I'm Canadian and even I know it's (political sections) are in the tank hard for liberals.
quote: "As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we've really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."
Do you think she realises what she's saying?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The Rolling Stone article is certainly poorly written, but I don't believe there's any question about the plane crashes. He definitely crashed into the ocean and clipped the Spanish power lines, they didn't get that wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That Rolling Stones article is the worst article I've ever read. It is biased, vindictive, and poorly cited. Complete trash.
To answer your question, the article got it wrong.
Kat, I agree that the article is biased, vindictive, and poorly cited. However, I'm not sure where it "got it wrong," at least regarding McCain's flight record. Which assertions aren't factual?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: ]Most graduates of Harvard Law School are fluffballs, and the ones that were tapped to be president of the Harvard Law Review are usually even more lightweight than most of their peers, so it wouldn't be surprising if Obama were on the fluffy side.
I'd love to know your qualifications for that assessment. There is virtually no chance of you being correct.
Noemon's post was so thick with overblown sarcasm I'm not sure how you could have missed it. Maybe you didn't and I'm completely missing the sarcasm in your response.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I live in the neighborhood with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne. I've spoken with them both. He spends his time advocating on behalf of education, while she works in juvenile justice. As civic engagement and responsibility goes, one can do worse. 30 years ago, they bombed buildings in the US to draw attention to the massive violence we were inflicting a half a world away. I look at the way they've lived their lives, and I still consider them good, thoughtful, courageous people acting boldly in a complicated time. I wish Obama would come out and say the same thing, but that's not in the quality of his character.
Thank you for that lovely self-definition. I wish I could say that I had thought you better than that, but I really hadn't.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Palin's arguments and name calling is not going to gather any Democrats to vote Rep, nor convince many independents.
The Rolling Stone article won't get any Republicans to vote Dem, or convince many independents.
This is the same stuff I saw in the VP Debate. With 30 days left it seems that the race is on not to target undecided, but to scare the base into caring enough to vote against the other side.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: He was being sarcastic.
It really didn't register.
How could it possibly not have? It's an utterly absurd assertion, intended to underscore the ridiculousness of the post it was written in response to.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
We should decide this election on two issues, and two issues only....
Abortion and Gay marriage.
If we elect Palin/Mccain - Abortion will be illegal (Abortions will stop an thousands of innocent babies will be saved! Teens will wait until marriage to have sex!) and Gays will no longer use their Marriage Speculation techniques that drive up the divorce rate! The constitution clearly states, No dude dude marriages. If russia sees that we can't stop gay guys, they'll think they can invade!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From LSM's link:
quote:"My response to her, I guess it was kind of flippant. But, I was sort of taken aback, like, the suggestion was, 'You're way up there in a far away place in Alaska, do you know that there are publications in the rest of the world that are read by many?' And I was taken aback by that because, I don't know, the suggestion just was a little bit of perhaps we're not in tune with the rest of the world."
Her head must not be screwed on right if Katie Couric asking "what do you read for news?" somehow translates into "you're a stupid hick." It's a perfectly fair question to ask any candidate. Are you reading the Wall Street Journal or Mad Libs? No one knows until you ask. It's especially fair after having a president for eight years who revels in the fact that he's disdainful of print media.
On the Rolling stone article -
I only got halfway through and stopped. I didn't see any documentation, as it looked like most of it either came from interviews with people who hate McCain or from McCain's own book, but is everything in the article perfectly refutable? At least the flight record stuff seems to be true. Excusing the dozen or so different times that McCain's motivations are assumed for him, are the actual events ALL fictitious?
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Her head must not be screwed on right if Katie Couric asking "what do you read for news?" somehow translates into "you're a stupid hick." It's a perfectly fair question to ask any candidate.
I am surprised that she didn't name at least one publication. Perhaps she is so on the defensive when it comes to the media that she felt that she would be ridiculed no matter what she answered so she preferred not to answer? I'm surprised this "small-town girl" didn't think to name a local newspaper - I think that would have played perfectly to her image.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:On the Rolling stone article -
I only got halfway through and stopped. I didn't see any documentation, as it looked like most of it either came from interviews with people who hate McCain or from McCain's own book, but is everything in the article perfectly refutable? At least the flight record stuff seems to be true. Excusing the dozen or so different times that McCain's motivations are assumed for him, are the actual events ALL fictitious?
Rolling Stone should just give up on political coverage.
Its high-water mark was in 1972. They will never match the coverage of that year and it's said to see how low they've fallen.
quote:Perhaps she is so on the defensive when it comes to the media that she felt that she would be ridiculed no matter what she answered so she preferred not to answer?
Well she pretty much said exactly that in the interview. Using supposed "gotcha" journalism as an excuse never to give a straight answer is pretty damned weak though. You can't just ignore any question that demands a potentially damaging answer. I guess in that respect she IS a maverick. Instead of giving the usual BS answer we usually get from politicians, she refuses to answer at all. Granted the regular people of the country would rather have a maverick that actually ANSWERED the question, it's still different than the norm!
sndrake -
I never read Rolling Stone for political coverage. Frankly I wasn't even aware that they really even tried that hard at it (and apparently they don't). Like I said I only read half of it, figuring I didn't need to read the other half because I saw where they were going with it. It read like a stream of tabloid rumors. I suspect there were several kernels of truth in the article, but were so buried in obvious bias against the man that I couldn't begin to guess where they might be.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Lyrhawn,
They really did make an attempt, back in the day, but the coverage wasn't for the faint of heart.
Hunter S. Thompson's coverage of the '72 campaign is a classic - but it's heavily interspersed with some ravings about his drug use and wild claims about candidates he didn't think anyone would take seriously (like claiming Ed Muskie was addicted to ibogaine).
The parts of the coverage that aren't the ravings of a drug maniac are a really great look at the inner workings of a political campaign.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
Cool article. I never knew the history of the word.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I think we all know what is going on here.
This 'financial crisis' is a liberal media facade, fabricated to take our eye off the REAL subject. Barack Hussien Bin Laden Obama laid plans in the 60's with American terrorists to become President right before 2012, then NUKE AMERICA when we elected him.
Republicans always put America and the Children first, and Democrats always hate America and enjoy killing babies.
The choice is clear.
Palin/Mccain 2008-2016
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans."
Man, Obama doesn't even have to make the point that McCain is out of touch. His campaign is doing it just fine on its own.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Its high-water mark was in 1972. They will never match the coverage of that year and it's said to see how low they've fallen.
I deny this sentiment! They've produced some really wonderful, bile-filled exposes.
quote:Man, Obama doesn't even have to make the point that McCain is out of touch. His campaign is doing it just fine on its own.
It's even more blatent when Palin says it. She's the one who said 'I don't want to answer all these questions, I want to bash Obama' because that's what Americans want to hear. She's more blatent, but at least she smiles and winks when she says it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Thought this was an interesting poll of Asians in the States:
quote: This morning, the 2008 National Asian American Survey (NAAS) was released by researchers from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley); University of California, Riverside (UC Riverside); and University of Southern California (USC) which surveyed Asian American voters:
* 41 percent of Asian Americans are likely to favor Obama, while 24 percent support John McCain. * In battleground states, where either candidate could win on Election Day, Obama leads with 43 percent of Asian Americans supporting him and 22 percent favoring McCain. * The research shows that support for the candidates does vary by Asian American ethnic groups. Among those who have made up their mind on a candidate, two-thirds of Vietnamese Americans support McCain; Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, and Indian Americans support Obama by more than a three-to-one ratio; and Korean and Filipino Americans who are likely voters also support Obama over McCain, but the gap is much smaller, with ratios less than 1.4 to 1. * About 80 percent of likely voters who are Asian American list the economy as one of the most important problems the nation faces, followed by the war in Iraq. * Overall, 32 percent of all Asian Americans identify themselves as Democrats; 14 percent as Republicans; 19 percent as independents; and 35 percent as nonpartisan, not fitting into any of the major party categories.
What is the difference between independent and nonpartisan?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, the questions that lead to that distinction are phrased like this, "Question: "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat, Independent, some other party, or do you not think in these terms?"
So I guess an Independent might be a self-identified member of the Green Party, the Rhinosaurus Party, or the Marijuana Party, someone that has clear political views but hasn't signed up with the Democrats or Republicans.
The non-partisan group would be people that do not have clear political views or do not participate in the process. As a guess, the relatively large size of this group may reflect immigration from countries where people do not have a political voice, marginalization from the political process (not like there are a lot of Asian Americans in politics), or a holdover from racial segregation when Chinese Americans preferred to avoid taking sides.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: We should decide this election on two issues, and two issues only....
Abortion and Gay marriage.
If we elect Palin/Mccain - Abortion will be illegal (Abortions will stop an thousands of innocent babies will be saved! Teens will wait until marriage to have sex!) and Gays will no longer use their Marriage Speculation techniques that drive up the divorce rate! The constitution clearly states, No dude dude marriages. If russia sees that we can't stop gay guys, they'll think they can invade!
I believe recreational chemistry is considered a no-no here at Hatrack, but whatever works for you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Has sarcasm detection been disabled on this thread?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The biggest Obama booster yet is coming in the mail soon: your 401(K) quarterly report.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: The biggest Obama booster yet is coming in the mail soon: your 401(K) quarterly report.
Chris,
George Will made the same point on "This Week with George Stephanopolous."
Great minds think alike. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Has sarcasm detection been disabled on this thread?
So it would seem.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Seriously?
I hadn't noticed.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: splutters :: But...but the evidence has been right in front of you! How could you have missed it?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
See, I like the term used on another forum, for when someone misses sarcasm:
"Dude, you just fell into the sar-chasm!"
-Bok
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
My recent readings of some of Ben Franklin's political essays must have dulled my appreciation for sarcasm and satire.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's probably it. The moment this trouble started I thought that Ben Franklin was probably at the root of it.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
If it helps, when others don't get appreciate your wit, think of yourself as Ben Franklin and the others as John Adams on a particularly humorless day.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:
quote: The biggest Obama booster yet is coming in the mail soon: your 401(K) quarterly report.
Chris,
George Will made the same point on "This Week with George Stephanopolous."
Great minds think alike.
I already got mine, and as I commented a few days back -- $2000/per family is a bargain assuming it works.
And just to preempt the "Doesn't that mean your 401K was already over inflated" let me add that I've always been very conservative with how I've allocated my funds and my portfolio has only barely out earned my fixed rate annuities over the past decade. Luckily I still have a lot of years before retirement so I can hope it recovers. My colleagues who are at retirement age now won't be so lucky.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: If it helps, when others don't get appreciate your wit, think of yourself as Ben Franklin and the others as John Adams on a particularly humorless day.
Which would pretty much have been any day between his birth and his death? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: If it helps, when others don't get appreciate your wit, think of yourself as Ben Franklin and the others as John Adams on a particularly humorless day.
[Edited to make it clear what I was smiling in response to]
[ October 07, 2008, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Noemon, To which post does that smilely refer?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I haven't looked at my 401(K) report more than a few times in the last couple decades, so I won't be traumatized in any event. Got some co-workers who are sweating it, though...
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: The biggest Obama booster yet is coming in the mail soon: your 401(K) quarterly report.
Mine surprised me. My conservative and moderate stocks have only lost about as much interest as they'd earned int he last two years (as long as I've had this 401k), but two of my aggressive stocks have yet to lose as much as they had previously earned. Here's the emerging markets and overseas markets! Whatever that means.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, I don't really see the "gloves coming off" so far. If anything McCain is slightly less rancorous than he was in the first debate, and I think Obama is doing a much better job of parry/thrusting than he did in the first debate.
I think they're actually getting more into the issues than they did in the first debate as well. The problem with "specifics" is that if you get TOO specific, people get turned off, but if you speak in generalities, they complain that you aren't giving real answers. It's a pretty fine line.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Did he seriously just associate Obama with Hoover?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, that was pretty amusing.
I REALLY hope that Obama finally smacks him down on that damned Energy Bill. It had a net INCREASE in taxes for oil companies!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
McCain's got jokes.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I do like McCain's $5,000 health care credit. It frees workers and employers. If administered well, it would be a huge boon.
[ October 07, 2008, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm finding it surprisingly entertaining.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
When we had to pay the full amount of our health insurance coverage for two months this summer (in between end of job and start of school) it cost $1300 a month for our family of four. And it was adequate, but not great, insurance. $5000 a year isn't going to cut it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The trouble is that individual health insurance is not affordable, only group health plans are remotely affordable. I've bought insurance on my own before -- OUCH!
The debate bored me so I stopped watching a few minutes ago. The format isn't a very good one. They don't seem to have enough time to really answer the questions, let alone get any good back and forth. Both of them are frankly sticking to their talking points and not doing a terrific job of answering the actual questions. I'd be surprised if anyone's opinions changed based on this debate.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:When we had to pay the full amount of our health insurance coverage for two months this summer (in between end of job and start of school) it cost $1300 a month for our family of four. And it was adequate, but not great, insurance. $5000 a year isn't going to cut it.
For a single guy, it's a fine start. It still sounds like a win/win. Employee benefits packages will change markedly, and it'll still ease the burden off of mid-sized businesses.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The health care plan might help a single guy, but for a family, it does not work.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The health care plan might help a single guy, but for a family, it does not work.
Not alone, but as a voucher to add with employment benefits, it stirs the pot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do like McCain's $5,000 health care credit. It frees workers and employers. If administered well, it would be a huge boon.
This will screw working families. Why? Because a $5,000 tax credit is worthless to people who, after all their other tax credits -- like, say, the ones you have for having kids, or paying interest on a house -- are only paying about $5,000 in tax. They'll bump up against the AMT. And if you've got two kids, you're paying $5,000 in insurance anyway -- and now you don't have the buying power of your employer behind you, or the expertise of your HR department, so you're at the mercy of insurance marketers.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
It's my understanding that some people with certain pre-existing conditions have trouble getting any individual health insurance at all, let alone an individual plan that will cover the illnesses they already have.
Also, the talk of not having a government bureaucrat between me and my doctor is silly. I already have a bureaucrat between me and my doctor.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:The health care plan might help a single guy, but for a family, it does not work.
Not alone, but as a voucher to add with employment benefits, it stirs the pot.
Not when McCain is taxing your employer health care benefits as income it won't. Besides, how is this going to help the poor that don't pay taxes anyway? A tax credit for them is imaginary money. Unless he's just giving out $5,000 checks to everyone, but I can't fathom that's what he is suggesting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The $5,000 health care credit is a great way to slap another bandaid over our current model and keep it vaguely solvent for a few years longer, while not really actually fixing things for families or for the long-term viability of the actuarial model.
I love 'solutions' like that. We're throwing money at the system to keep it buoyed, but in order to prevent the appearance of leftist nationalism from being too prevalent, we're socializing it in the least efficient ways possible.
/edit - not that this is any more lol than 'i wish obama had it in his character to give a thumbs up to domestic terrorism and arson' but still, all the same
[ October 08, 2008, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: He was being sarcastic.
It really didn't register.
How could it possibly not have? It's an utterly absurd assertion, intended to underscore the ridiculousness of the post it was written in response to.
Maybe I was jetlagged ok? What's the problem, I understand now that it was sarcasm, so leave me alone.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
I love 'solutions' like that. We're throwing money at the system to keep it buoyed, but in order to prevent the appearance of leftist nationalism from being too prevalent, we're socializing it in the least efficient ways possible.
This is my single most fundamental objection to our current system of government. This is the kind of crap that will go on forever if you choose to let it. When did government start working to preserve itself, rather than for us? Or did it ever work for us at all?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:When we had to pay the full amount of our health insurance coverage for two months this summer (in between end of job and start of school) it cost $1300 a month for our family of four. And it was adequate, but not great, insurance. $5000 a year isn't going to cut it.
For a single guy, it's a fine start. It still sounds like a win/win. Employee benefits packages will change markedly, and it'll still ease the burden off of mid-sized businesses.
But a single guy wouldn't get $5000. That's the family level, a single guy gets $2500. That's $208/month, which I believe is less than my monthly premium, although I admit I'm not sure. I'll check when I get to work. Regardless, it would pay for a nice chunk of my premium, but it's not enough for a single person without employer-provided insurance to buy it.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:When we had to pay the full amount of our health insurance coverage for two months this summer (in between end of job and start of school) it cost $1300 a month for our family of four. And it was adequate, but not great, insurance. $5000 a year isn't going to cut it.
For a single guy, it's a fine start. It still sounds like a win/win. Employee benefits packages will change markedly, and it'll still ease the burden off of mid-sized businesses.
Factcheck.org says that McCain was wrong about this -- it's not 5,000 for an individual. It's 2,500 for an individual, 5,000 for a family. Both numbers are woefully short, especially when you toss in the fact that he's taxing employer health benefits. Plus, it adds needless complication to an already fundamentally complicated system. The left hand giveth and the right taketh away.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: It just seemed to be tongue in cheek to me.
Could be. I'm gonna tell myself you're right until it sticks.
Sorry the video isn't the best quality, but it's not very long.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Factcheck also says "Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well, I didn't feel like McCain did himself any favors last night. He didn't come across as smooth and as sure of himself as I expected from him.
Of course, if voters made up their mind on personality alone, then obviously Obama would win handily - he has that charisma and charm and is very articulate in presenting his ideas. (but so are cult leaders).
That's why I try to read most all the policies and bios and facts and information I can get online (without "personality" into it) about both candidates so a decision can be made on issues and values, etc. without putting "hey, he sounds great" emotion into the decision.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Factcheck also says "Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize."
I noticed that but am not sure what to do with it. There seems to be a difference of opinion on how much his plan would save the country. On the other hand, many experts are saying that far from saving us money, McCain's plan would cost us money.
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: That's why I try to read most all the policies and bios and facts and information I can get online (without "personality" into it) about both candidates so a decision can be made on issues and values, etc. without putting "hey, he sounds great" emotion into the decision.
I see what you're saying and agree to a point, but I have to say that I think personality and charisma are huge in a president. One of his primary roles is as a diplomat, after all, so I think it is very relevant that he comes across well in a debate. Also, their ideas and values aren't meaningful if they don't have what it takes to get others to believe in them and pass the legislation. The president is just one man, after all -- a visible and important man -- but he must work with others in order to get his agenda pushed through.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There are so many inequities in the way health benefits are taxed today that it would be hard for McCain's plan to be worse than the current system.
If you get health benefits from your employer now, the part your employer pays is exempt from both payroll taxes (FICA) and income taxes and the part you pay is exempt from income tax (It may also be exempt from payroll taxes but I haven't been able to determine this). This is inequitable in two ways. First, those people in the highest tax brackets and with the best insurance plans are getting the biggest government subsidy on their health care. Second, those people who have to pay their insurance premiums out of pocket don't get any tax break unless they can itemize deductions and then they only get to deduct the portion of the medical care costs that exceed 10% of their income.
McCain's plan will effectively eliminate both of these inequities in the current system, which could be a good thing. But for people who are currently getting employee health benefits, it will likely be a break even deal. On the average the amount their tax burden will increase from the loss of the tax exemption for their benefits will cancel out the amount they get from McCain's tax credit. People in the highest tax brackets with the best health insurance will end up paying more People in the lowest tax brackets with the worst (or no) health insurance will end up ahead.
Unfortunately, there won't be many people who end up far enough ahead that they will be able buy insurance if they don't have it now so its not likely to reduce the large number of uninsured or solve any of the other problems with the US health care system.
Two big problems I see with McCain's system are as follows.
1. Inflation in health care is very high. Unless the tax credit is indexed to inflation, it will effectively drop year after year until it covers no more than an annual physical. It will have the same problem we we see with the AMT.
2. Since people won't be required to have health insurance to get the benefit, it could actually encourage more people to make the gamble of going without health insurance or to get extremely minimal coverage. I have to admit that option could be really tempting. For example, My husband and I have never come close to spending $5000/year on medical expenses let alone the roughly $10,000/year that we and our employers have paid for health insurance. We've only met our deductable once in the 18 years we've been married. If we had put that money in a medical savings account with 5% interest instead of paying for insurance, we'd now have $280,000 we could spend on a medical emergency. While I recognize that this amount could be wiped out virtually overnight in an intensive care unit, it would still go a lot further than the insurance which I lost when I left my previous job. I'm not a gambler so I'm not going to take that option and I'll keep paying for insurance, but I know a lot of people who wouldn't and most of them would probably end up spending the difference rather than saving it for emergency medical care.
Ultimately, that would mean more people doing with out routine health care which would exacerbate the poor outcomes of the US health care system. It would also mean more people declaring bankruptcy because of medical problems, more defaults on emergency medical cost and more of everything that is currently wrong with the system.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I've paid health insurance for the last 15 years.
I went to the doctor once. He told me I was healthy, but I should quit smoking.
So I paid $17,000 to learn something I already know?
I totally feel like I got screwed.
And if Mccain does do the $5000 credit thing, the health industry is going to speed up their already 20-30% price increase rates.
It reminds me of in Texas a few months ago, right when gas was almost at $4.00 and purtians were swearing loudly as they filled up their gas tanks, the Texas insurance companies said they were raising prices by about 7% across the board because wrecks were up.
uh.....DRIVING is down 20%. Fatalities on Highways down 30% but wrecks are up? Yeah. sure. right.
and PS
I think that Obama needs a 11% lead to win.
He's got to beat the 10% racist unpolled vote.
it's there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with everything Thor just said.
*checks out the window nervously*
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"2. Since people won't be required to have health insurance to get the benefit, it could actually encourage more people to make the gamble of going without health insurance or to get extremely minimal coverage. I have to admit that option could be really tempting." You don't have to join Obama's plan either. Plus Obama is after the employer and forcing them to participate in his idea of health care and how much it should cost. Even if you would elect not to take Obama's health care plan, Obama will still be deducting the money from your employer's payroll. He has yet to clearly define what a 'small business' is.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: "2. Since people won't be required to have health insurance to get the benefit, it could actually encourage more people to make the gamble of going without health insurance or to get extremely minimal coverage. I have to admit that option could be really tempting." You don't have to join Obama's plan either. Plus Obama is after the employer and forcing them to participate in his idea of health care and how much it should cost. Even if you would elect not to take Obama's health care plan, Obama will still be deducting the money from your employer's payroll. He has yet to clearly define what a 'small business' is.
I'm assuming Obama will stick to the SBA definitions which varies the definition of a small business by industry.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If electronic medical records can save $77 billion a year (and no one knows for sure), it won’t happen during an Obama presidency, even in a second term, according to the RAND study itself. The $77 billion figure represents savings that could occur once 90 percent of doctors and hospitals have adopted and are effectively using electronic medical records, a process RAND estimates will last through the end of 2018. The study assumed a 15-year adoption period, from 2004 through 2018, a span based on the implementation of complex technology in other industries. Savings are substantially less during this period.
RAND study: At 90 percent adoption, we estimate that the potential HIT-enabled efficiency savings for both inpatient and outpatient care could average more than $77 billion per year (an average annual savings of $42 billion during the adoption period).
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'm assuming Obama will stick to the SBA definitions which vary the definition of a small business by industry.
That is a dangerous assumption. From the SBA website
quote: A small business is an concern that is organized for profit, with a place of business in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor. Further, the concern cannot be dominant in its field, on a national basis. Finally, the concern must meet the numerical small business size standard for its industry. SBA has established a size standard for most industries in the U.S. economy. The most common size standards are as follow:
500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries 100 employees for all wholesale trade industries $6.5 million for most retail and service industries $31 million for most general & heavy construction industries $13 million for all special trade contractors $0.75 million for most agricultural industries About one-fourth of industries have a size standard that is different from these levels. They vary from $0.75 million to $32.5 million for size standards based on average annual revenues and from 100 to 1500 employees for size standards based on number of employees. Several SBA programs have either alternative or unique size standards, such as the Small Business Investment Company Program.
quote: To pay for the plan, Obama would force all but the "smallest businesses" that do not offer health insurance to pay a new tax. While the Obama campaign has not defined "smallest," it has indicated that the plan would cap the number of employees and apply a revenue threshold so that small, high-income businesses such as law firms would not be exempt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: "2. Since people won't be required to have health insurance to get the benefit, it could actually encourage more people to make the gamble of going without health insurance or to get extremely minimal coverage. I have to admit that option could be really tempting." You don't have to join Obama's plan either. Plus Obama is after the employer and forcing them to participate in his idea of health care and how much it should cost. Even if you would elect not to take Obama's health care plan, Obama will still be deducting the money from your employer's payroll. He has yet to clearly define what a 'small business' is.
You are missing the point. Under the current system and (Obama's proposal), you don't get the tax benefit unless you spend the money on medical care which gives people an incentive to get medical insurance. Under McCain's plan, that incentive goes away since you get the tax benefit whether you spend the money on medical care or not. If you remove the tax incentive for having health insurance, more people will choose to be uninsured.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Electronic Medical Records could be adopted much more quickly by the industry if: 1. The private sector didn't charge an obscene amount of money for a bad product. Sorry, there are a LOT of crappy EMRs out there. 2. People would adopt the Veterans Affairs' EMR system. I actually prefer it to all the different versions I've seen. Anyone else have familiarity with the various EMRs out there? The VA's system is integrated, simple, responsive, thorough (consent forms, prescriptions, notes, labs), and stable.
Worcester State Hospital uses an absolute utter piece of crap for an EMR. I asked why they use it. I was told (and this is unverified) that they were offered the VA system but turned it down to purchase a program because so-and-so was friends with the software company. Grr.
Edit: PS: Bad EMRs waste a lot of medical staff time.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You are missing the point. Under the current system and (Obama's proposal), you don't get the tax benefit unless you spend the money on medical care which gives people an incentive to get medical insurance. Under McCain's plan, that incentive goes away since you get the tax benefit whether you spend the money on medical care or not. If you remove the tax incentive for having health insurance, more people will choose to be uninsured.
I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem. I think you are missing the point as well. Obama's proposal doesn't care if you take health insurance or not as he is going after the company's payroll to pay for his idea of healthcare.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
" I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem." I can. I've posted this before, but one of our Unions insist on an insurance buyout provision in their collective bargaining agreement. The "in-lieu-of' payment is aproximately equal to the cost to the company for the package of benefits that is provided to employees represented by other unions. It is an excelent package, probably the best in the states 16 central counties. Less than 10% of the employees take it, including some couples with children, where both parents opt out. After all, the County will step in if things get too bad and the wage differential will make the payments on a new F-350.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem.
I'm not sure if you were joking when you said this, so if you were, just ignore what I'm about to say, because I'm going to take you seriously on that.
There are numerous expenses that weigh down a person, especially in this economy. With car payments, mortgage/rent, gas money, increased food costs, and others, there are many people who have to choose what are the biggest priorities in their life. If a person is only making enough to cover food and rent, some of the luxuries in life have to go. They often have to sell their car and take public transportation.
Such is the same with health insurance. People choose to remain uninsured because they can't feasibly pay for it and pay for other necessities in life. There is a great amount of reason to have insurance, but because of priorities, some simply can't take it.
That said, I don't intend for this post to be an advocation of either candidate's health care proposal. People will argue about who makes health-care more accessible. My point is that there is a reason people are choosing to be uninsured, and that we should try to help them get the insurance they need.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I don't have any faith that the healthcare industry will pass on the savings generated by electronic records to the general population instead of just giving itself a higher profit margin.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
As the sponser of an excelent employeer provided plan, I am convinced that this problem (and it is a major problem) will not be solved until/ unless we switch to a single payer system. No one will propose that however, as they have to be elected to do anything and the din from the big talk radio echo chamber would sufice to resolve the energy shortfall, could it be harnessed.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
We rarely hear any of the political ads some of you are bombarded with (unless we choose to seek them out on the internet) and we don't have pollsters and recruiters and everyone else bugging us day and night.
In years like this, it is good to be an ignored state.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: his idea of healthcare.
I might be nit picking here, but this isn't the first time you've used this phrase so I'm curious what the insinuation is. What do you think his idea of healthcare is. What is your idea of healthcare?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem.
I want to ask you if you are joking but you most emphatically are not.
Yes, you can make the claim that people will choose to be uninsured. The cost of health insurance is rapidly increasing and the coverage is getting poorer. Between invalidation for coverage of pre-existing conditions and the profitability structure of providers (deny expensive coverage whenever possible, and use byzantine coverage policy to make this available under most circumstances) a lot of people in the middle and working class have to sacrifice the health coverage, because it's extremely taxing to start forking over hundreds of bucks a month to a company that will provide minimal coverage that won't even take off the thousand dollar sting of most hospital visits.
System broken, system failing, news at 11.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Reference is everything. My post was in response to Rabbit's post and not as a standalone statement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I know! People will make that gamble. The $5000 could get absorbed fast with no benefit, or go towards covering a single hospital bill, because of what I'm talking about.
Because our health care coverage options largely suck when you're poor.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: What do you think his idea of healthcare is.
Great question...I wish we actually knew what he meant with details instead of the rhetoric.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So you're going to identify what his idea of healthcare is only for the purpose of accusing him of something, but you aren't going to define what that conceptualization of yours is.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
In my opinion, I don't like how routine health care is rolled into health insurance. Here are the aspects I'd like to see in health care: 1. A health insurance that primarily covers out of the ordinary expenses like hospitalizations and surgeries. Also should probably cover any medical expenses over X amount per year where X has some correlation to income/assets. This should cost a great deal less than the current system. 2. Something like a pre-tax health care allowance that covers specialty office visits, outpatient lab work, and prescriptions. The reason I want it to cover lab work and prescriptions is that I want to put more emphasis on considering which labs or pills to prescribe your patient. Pharmaceutical companies have gotten too good at convincing docs that their patients need a very expensive pill when many others would do the same job. Newer is not better. 3. Primary care could be handled even separately from health care allowance. There are some offices that work under a subscription style policy that I think has a lot going for it. Right now if you don't have health insurance you can belong to one of these local systems. You pay a small monthly fee to belong to that practice(Hillside Health Alliance is one). It's kind of like a cheap boutique. The benefit is low cost with less middle-man, encouraging preventative care, and incentive for primary care docs to retain their patients with higher quality care.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Odd you haven't asked what other people would do...just me? Hmm...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: So you're going to identify what his idea of healthcare is only for the purpose of accusing him of something,
Other than restating information I obtained and linked to from FactCheck, what have I accused him of? Or is any critiscm of Obama forbidden by you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You are accusing him of plenty, like how you think it is a dangerous assumption that Obama would stick to the typical industry definition of small business, etc.
quote:Or is any critiscm of Obama forbidden by you?
Nope, but way to be a tool, champ!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: What do you think his idea of healthcare is.
Great question...I wish we actually knew what he meant with details instead of the rhetoric.
quote: You are accusing him of plenty, like how you think it is a dangerous assumption that Obama would stick to the typical industry definition of small business, etc.
I did respond to this...with links...
quote: That is a dangerous assumption. From the SBA website
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A small business is an concern that is organized for profit, with a place of business in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor. Further, the concern cannot be dominant in its field, on a national basis. Finally, the concern must meet the numerical small business size standard for its industry. SBA has established a size standard for most industries in the U.S. economy. The most common size standards are as follow:
500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries 100 employees for all wholesale trade industries $6.5 million for most retail and service industries $31 million for most general & heavy construction industries $13 million for all special trade contractors $0.75 million for most agricultural industries About one-fourth of industries have a size standard that is different from these levels. They vary from $0.75 million to $32.5 million for size standards based on average annual revenues and from 100 to 1500 employees for size standards based on number of employees. Several SBA programs have either alternative or unique size standards, such as the Small Business Investment Company Program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrepreneurs look to candidates for health care reform quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To pay for the plan, Obama would force all but the "smallest businesses" that do not offer health insurance to pay a new tax. While the Obama campaign has not defined "smallest," it has indicated that the plan would cap the number of employees and apply a revenue threshold so that small, high-income businesses such as law firms would not be exempt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it make more sense to you now how Obama's definition differs from the SBA's definition?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
KMB, I have read his plan a few times and I still want much more information about:
quote: TAX CREDITS FOR FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES. Barack Obama and Joe Biden understand that too many families that do not qualify for public health programs like Medicaid and SCHIP have trouble finding affordable health insurance. They know from talking to small business owners across the nation that the skyrocketing cost of healthcare poses a serious competitive threat to America’s small businesses. The Obama- Biden health care plan will provide tax credits to all individuals who need it for their premiums. They will also create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. To be eligible for the credit, small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share of the cost of employee health premiums. (4) EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.
As I have posted before, what does meaningful coverage mean, or meaningful contribution? How high of a percent of payroll (in other words how much of your pay) will Obama take? Small businesses will be exempt but according to the CNN article I linked he is not using the SBA definition of small business and is applying his own.
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
I'm not endorsing the site, just something I stumbled upon while trying to make sense of it all.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't know if you can make that claim that people will choose to be uninsured. If people are choosing to be uninsured then there must be very little reason to have insurance so it must not be a problem.
DK, Right now. under the current system there are many people who could afford health insurance but choose not to so I think its hardly a stretch to project that if the tax incentives are taken away more people will choose to opt out of insurance.
I hope you noted that I started by pointing out that McCain's system would be more equitable than the current system. I hope you might also note that my two big objections to his plan could be fairly easily fixed. You could fix the first one by indexing the tax benefit to inflation in health care (although this might create a positive feed back loop that would drive prices even higher). The second one could be fixed by giving the tax credit only to people who bought insurance.
As for your assessment that if a lot of people don't get insurance, it probably isn't worth it. You seem to be missing the underlying premise of "insurance" or you would understand why the current system is so badly broken.
I'm sure you understand that all forms of insurance are based on shared risk, they are in essence a lottery. Everyone pays into the pot and those who need it, get paid out of the pot. Which means that for any kind of health insurance scheme you can devise, there will be people who have excellent health their entire lives and those people will end up subsidizing health care for those who have unusually poor health and high medical bills. If there wasn't a big insurance company skimming profits off the top, the average person would break even, paying in while they were young and healthy and get paid when they got sick and elderly.
There are multiple problems with this under the US system. First off, a shared risk scheme can only work if you have to pay into it to get benefits out and that isn't the case in our medical system. If you don't have medical insurance and you have a major illness, hospitals are required to treat you. Of course you will get sent the bill, but if you don't have many assets you can declare bankruptcy and walk away from the bill. What happens then is that the rates go up for everyone who is insured. It doesn't take an IQ of 150 to see that under this system if you are young and healthy and/or don't own any assets, paying into the health insurance pool isn't in your self interest, at least in the short term.
The second problem with the US system is that those who don't have good medical coverage, generally don't get routine health care. That means that treatable conditions like high blood pressure are less likely to be detected and controlled early which means bigger more expensive health care problems when you are older. You add to that the tendency for Americans to have no insurance or bad insurance when they are young, and then be covered by insurance when they are established adults and finally covered by the tax payers (Medicaid) when they are retired, and the end results is that the society as a whole ends up paying a high cost for allowing people to go uninsured for some periods of their lives.
The bottom line is that if you are young and healthy, the advantages of going uninsured come right now and they go solely to you. The advantages to you of being insured, may not come until 50 years down the road. The odds are strongly in your favor for going uninsured. And you can rest soundly at night knowing that society will bale you out if you loose the lottery and have a major illness or accident while you are uninsured. You probably don't even think about the fact that society will bale you out again when you are older and have a host of medical problems you could have avoided by have regular check ups now. So yeah, if you are self-centered and short sighted, which a lot of people are, there isn't much benefit to having health insurance.
[ October 08, 2008, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I second and third everything Rabbit just said.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Well said, Rabbit!
I would just add this to the mix: There is also cost to uninsured or poorly insured people choosing not to get the preventative medical care that could keep them from getting sick and costing the system lots of money in the future. Also, it may keep them from getting treatment soon enough for odd complaints that turn out to be serious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Well said, Rabbit!
I would just add this to the mix: There is also cost to uninsured or poorly insured people choosing not to get the preventative medical care that could keep them from getting sick and costing the system lots of money in the future. Also, it may keep them from getting treatment soon enough for odd complaints that turn out to be serious.
I agree Christine. That's what I was trying to get at with my second point and my high blood pressure example but you said it better.
I'd just like to add one more thing. The system is further complicated by the fact that few people stay with the same employer cradle to grave. In the modern economy, people change jobs frequently and so they change medical plans frequently too. It isn't like we have only two classes, insured and uninsured. We have people who may have excellent insurance now, but went through period in their life when they had no insurance or emergency coverage only. That gives insurers very little incentive to support good preventative medicine because by the time the benefit of prevention comes through, people have very likely moved on to some other insurance pool. It makes short sightedness a virtue if someone else will pay the long term penalty.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Although I disagree with the take the person writing this blog entry had on some of the particular moments in the clip embedded on the page, I found this incredibly interesting, and agree with the blogger that this does say something about the candidates (though it's possible that what he and I think that it says, particularly about McCain, are two different things).
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
what do you think it says about McCain? It seemed to me that he was rushing through that minute and a half to get out there. He seemed to go from handshake to handshake quickly, while Obama slowly made his way around chit chatting with the audience.
I don't think the pat on the back was patronizing at all, but I do think snubbing his handshake was nonsensical.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One thing I had not considered until it was pointed out was that McCain's war injuries put him at a disadvantage in anything that requires a lot of walking. So, him leaving immediately could easily have been related to that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure what it says. Did he leave because he just didn't want to be there? That's at odds with a forum that he's generally considered more comfortable in. Did he have somewhere to be, like a plane taking off or a bus leaving? I'm not even convinced that he snubbed Obama there. It looked like Obama's hand kept shooting out automatically to shake someone's hand, and what they were saying to each other easily could have been "Oh hey here's my wife" and it was perfectly fine.
The fact that Obama hung around even after McCain left, when he was perfectly I would think within his rights to take off as well without anyone saying anything is probably somewhat telling. It was a closed, secure venue, which meant he could walk around freely and talk to whoever he wanted about whatever anyone wanted, without anyone else really listening in.
McCain leaving wasn't necessarily a negative, but Obama staying and doing what he did was a positive I think.
PS, the part where the woman hugs Obama and then dances a little bit is adorable and funny.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I'm not even convinced that he snubbed Obama there. It looked like Obama's hand kept shooting out automatically to shake someone's hand, and what they were saying to each other easily could have been "Oh hey here's my wife" and it was perfectly fine.
i think you may be right there. i watched it again, and it looks like Obama's hand shoots out automatically. he realizes what he's done, McCain says something along the lines of what you suggested, then makes a joke about all the hands they've been shaking, and they both laugh.
I agree it says something positive about Obama, but not necessarily anything negative about McCain.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks for the link, Cerridwen. Basically, I don't like either plan. They both have some good goals, they both have some dumb goals, but I don't care for either implmentation.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: what do you think it says about McCain?
Well, my thought when I wrote that was that in the clips I've seen of the debate (I listened to it on NPR when it was happening, so I haven't seen the whole thing yet) McCain seemed stiffer (physically) than usual. I felt like that, combined with his leaving early, probably meant that he wasn't doing well physically, and needed to get out of the public eye and collapse into a comfortable chair or something (in light of that I wondered if Cindy McCain's weird "follow McCain as though on a tether" thing was her essentially spotting him or something). In other words, more or less what scholarette said.
I thought that the blogger seemed hostile enough to have attributed something silly like "McCain can't stand to be in the same room with Obama" or "McCain has distain for the public" to his early exit.
Now that I've thought about it more, though, it seems entirely likely that Lyrhawn's suggestion is correct, and he just had a schedule to keep. I'd be curious to know where he went after the debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Well, my thought when I wrote that was that in the clips I've seen of the debate (I listened to it on NPR when it was happening, so I haven't seen the whole thing yet) McCain seemed stiffer (physically) than usual.
In his demeanor or his delivery? I only make the distinction because I thought his delivery was pretty much equal to what he did in the first debate, but the physical contrast between him and Obama in this debate was far more pronounced than in the first. Obama, when not answering a question, sat on his stool and thoughtfully kept his attention locked on McCain as he answered. When Obama was answering, McCain was wandering around the stage like he was looking for his car keys. I think part of his problem might have been that, while he IS good in town hall formats, he's really not used to town hall DEBATES, and I think people underestimate that factor when they automatically credit him with a natural advantage in that setting.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
By the way, yesterday's Diane Rehm Show about the debate was pretty good. Her guests were a reporter from the Washington Post, the LA Times Washington Bureau chief, and the director of Annenberg Political Fact Check. A few of the callers had pretty interesting observations about what they'd seen while watching the debate. If you've got a spare hour, it's worth a listen.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oy. I can't stand Diane Rehm. I'm only tempted based on your endorsement, but generally when she comes on the radio I switch over to one of the music stations. I feel the same way about I think his name is Ira Flato when he does Science Fridays.
Her voice voice is just jarring and I'm not particularly enthralled by her moderation of the discussion. Flato bugs me because I always feel like he has zero interest in the questions he's asking. I feel like he's asking them off a prepared sheet of paper and couldn't care less about the answers.
Still, with my interest piqued...::goes to listen to the show::
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: DK, Right now. under the current system there are many people who could afford health insurance but choose not to so I think its hardly a stretch to project that if the tax incentives are taken away more people will choose to opt out of insurance.
I don't think more people will opt out than currently opt out now, specifically I mean the same people from your passage
quote:So yeah, if you are self-centered and short sighted, which a lot of people are, there isn't much benefit to having health insurance.
quote: I hope you noted that I started by pointing out that McCain's system would be more equitable than the current system. I hope you might also note that my two big objections to his plan could be fairly easily fixed. You could fix the first one by indexing the tax benefit to inflation in health care (although this might create a positive feed back loop that would drive prices even higher). The second one could be fixed by giving the tax credit only to people who bought insurance.
I did note that and I wanted to furthur a discussion of Obama's plans and not just McCain's, especially in regard to 'savings'. I do not know why people are not more interested in the points I raised about Obama's plans, people specifically like Lyrhawn and Rabbit (and who are fans of Obama but do strive for objectivity). I thought I had raised valid questions but Samprimary immediately went to an insinuation of me accusing Obama of wrongdoing.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oy. I can't stand Diane Rehm. I'm only tempted based on your endorsement, but generally when she comes on the radio I switch over to one of the music stations. I feel the same way about I think his name is Ira Flato when he does Science Fridays.
Really? I don't like the Diane Rehm show as much as I do Talk of the Nation, but it's not bad (from my perspective, of course). I'd rather listen to it than an episode of Car Talk or something. I find her voice a little irritating, but if she's got good guests or an interesting topic I'll listen to her.
quote: Flato bugs me because I always feel like he has zero interest in the questions he's asking. I feel like he's asking them off a prepared sheet of paper and couldn't care less about the answers.
Huh. I haven't actually managed to catch an episode of Science Friday in years, but I don't remember him seeming like he was phoning it in. I wonder if he's gotten burnt out or something?
My favorite Talk of the Nation host has probably been Ray Suarez, though I liked Ira Glass too.
quote:Still, with my interest piqued...::goes to listen to the show::
I'll be curious to hear what you thought. In particular I found the caller's comment about McCain's body language when addressing different audience members was interesting. Made me feel more like I'd really missed an opportunity by listening to the debate rather than watching it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: I do not know why people are not more interested in the points I raised about Obama's plans, people specifically like Lyrhawn and Rabbit (and who are fans of Obama but do strive for objectivity).
I don't think either Obama's plan or McCain's plan are going to solve the US Health Care Crisis but they are both an improvement on some aspects of the current system. My concerns about Obama's plan are very different than yours.
I like Obama's idea of allowing all citizens and residents to by in to a National Health Care Plan which is subsidized for those who can't afford it. My concern is that this could accelerate the system where private insurers accept only low risk clients and the national system becomes overloaded with high risk people. This could easily lead to a cycle that drives up the cost of the national plan with the result that more low risk people will choose private insurance and more people will need tax payer subsidies to afford the national plan. There is definitely the risk that Obama's plan will exacerbate the existing problem in our Health Care system of insurers skimming the cream of the top but leaving the high cost problems to the tax payers.
The Insurance concept of shared risk can only work if you have a proportionate mix of low risk and high risk people on the plan, otherwise it just amounts to everyone paying their own medical bills. Which is why I have favor a single payer system.
I understand the unpopularity of mandating universal coverage but I think there need to be strong disincentives to opting out of medical insurance. I'd prefer a system where only people who have enough assets to cover their own medical bills should they have a major medical crisis are allowed to opt out of insurance. Other wise people are allowed to dump their high risk choices on the rest of us when they get sick and that isn't fair. The only other alternative I see is for hospitals and doctors to refuse care to anyone who can't provide proof of their ability to pay up front and I think such a system would be unethical.
Overall, I think its harder (at least for me) to predict the outcome of Obama's plan. It relies heavily on savings in the cost of health care but I don't have the expertise necessary to assess how likely we are to realize those savings and the experts don't agree. His overall approach is very similar to the national health system in German which works well and is substantially more cost effective than the current US system.
Quite honestly, I think the current economic climate will keep either of them from doing anything about health care at least during their first year in office.
Which brings me to one of the big reasons I was an opponent of Hillary Clinton for President. There was a period in Clinton administration where we had a strong economy and budget surplus which opened a window where something meaningful could have been done about health care, but it didn't happen because Hillary botched the attempt so badly. I wasn't about to give her a second shot at it.
One area I think most everyone in this debate is missing is the supply side. The US has fewer doctors, nursers and hospital beds per capita than most other developed nations. Our medical schools aren't producing enough graduates to meet the needs of residency programs. There is enormous pressure on doctors to spend less time with each patient so they can see more patients. We have a shortage of doctors and in a market system that means doctors can demand more for their services. I'd like to see some discussion of putting public funding into creating more slots in medical schools and possibly more scholarships for doctors who agree to work in lower paying fields when they finish.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Thank you Rabbit. There is a lot of thought put into your post and I will ponder it for awhile...I like having things to ponder Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Point to the Republicans.
While we are in the midst of an economic crisis, they are running a candidate who has admitted that he is weak in Economics. As the problems continue to mount, they succesfully turn America's attention to Healthcare.
Perhaps they realized that the average person was getting tired of economic coverage and gloom. They played it well.
Bonus point to them for bragging about this tactic last week. When a McCain spokesman stated "We are looking forward to turning the page on the economy." he received some heat. Instead he was predicting this move from Economic McCain to caring Healthcare McCain.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I haven't noticed any turn of attention to Healthcare. The headlines are still consistently about stocks, banks, and economic problems - and occassionally about Ayers.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Headlines--yes stocks.
But headlines about the election were heavier on Healthcare yesterday, as is this discussion. Who's plan is better, cheaper, realistic, will make a difference.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Yeah, every time I turn on the news it's about the economy. The other night on NBC, they said that half of all Americans are stressed and about 30% are very stressed -- mostly due to the economic downturn. I found myself saying, "You know, it's dark when the sun goes down."
As far as health care goes, I admit that it is not my top priority and I have paid relatively little attention to both plans. Obama has a detailed plan on his web site that I have not looked at and probably won't. This seems to be one of those issues that is unlikely to actually see any resolution in the next 4 years, whoever becomes president. Due to the many problems that Rabbit outlined, I am leaning my opinion more towards universal health care, but frankly my opinion doesn't matter. Plus, however much it sucks, I do have health insurance. I would definitely opt for another plan if I had a choice....high deductibles and co-insurance meant I paid almost $3,000 out of pocket for my recent pregnancy/delivery. With the insurance I had when my first child was born, I paid $415. Much better, but with Medicaid, my sister in law paid 0!!! I'm so unhappy about that, but I digress...
I notice that in each debate the candidates have been asked to prioritize or to talk about which of their programs they would forgo due to the current economic crisis. Both have been reluctant to answer and claim that by cutting fat, they can fund all of their programs. I'm not so sure. Finally, at the 2nd debate, Obama was asked to rank energy, health, and social security, and he did! He said energy was his top priority (mine too), followed by health care, and then he threw away social security and listed education third. I disagree with him on that.
Speaking of social security, is the new policy on social security "If we pretend it doesn't exist, the problem will go away?" Seriously, how is it going to work? Are we going to turn a 10 trillion dollar debt into 100 trillion?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Speaking of social security, is the new policy on social security "If we pretend it doesn't exist, the problem will go away?" Seriously, how is it going to work? Are we going to turn a 10 trillion dollar debt into 100 trillion?
No, there never was a real problem with solvency on Social Security. This was another red herring put forward by those on wall street and there republican budies who would stand to make windfall profits if social security were privatized. Given the events of the last month, I doubt there are more than a hundred people left in the country who still want to put their social security money in the stock market.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't understand why we can't just raise the cap on social security.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
We could. In fact according to the GAO, SS will be solvent without any changes through ~2040 and any problems beyond that point could be easily fixed by a combination of raising the cap and raising the retirement age.
There is quite a lot of sense in raising the retirement age, people are living longer and this is one of the reasons Social Security is under stress. If people are living longer, it makes sense for them to work longer -- doesn't it?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We could. In fact according to the GAO, SS will be solvent without any changes through ~2040 and any problems beyond that point could be easily fixed by a combination of raising the cap and raising the retirement age.
There is quite a lot of sense in raising the retirement age, people are living longer and this is one of the reasons Social Security is under stress. If people are living longer, it makes sense for them to work longer -- doesn't it?
It does make sense until you remember that raising the retirement age now will make a lot of baby boomers unhappy who were planning to surplus their savings with Social Security to retire as soon as possible. The reason this matters is that this is a very large chunk of voters. If our representatives were to do that, they might be painted as forever unpopular and it would kill their career.
We can fix it easily. It's just that its a third-rail where if you touch it you die, and people aren't keen on dying politically.
ETA: My father's idea for the voter perception problem is to raise the retirement age on anyone born after 1960. It would protect the baby boomers, and it would fix the problem, just a bit slower than we'd hope.
[ October 09, 2008, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
We don't need to raise the retirement age now, SS is solvent without any changes until 2040. So it would be sufficient now to propose a schedule for raising the retirement age step by step. For example, we would say that people who are 55 today, won't be able to collect SS until their 66, people who are 45 today, won't be able to collect 22 until their 67, people who are in their 30s, won't be able to collect until their 68. I'm not committed to the numbers in that schedule but the point is that SS isn't going to go insolvent as soon as the baby boomers start retiring. It is solvent the way it is until 2040, long after most of the baby boom is dead and gone.
The real and often unstated problem with social security is that the rest of the government has been borrowing from the SS fund and is going to have to pay that money back much sooner than 2040. In other words, if SS is in trouble its because our elected officials have been borrowing money from our future to spend on the war in Iraq and other pork barrel projects.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DK –
As far as the health care plans go, I have mixed reactions to Obama’s plan, but McCain’s is a non-starter. I think his plan would likely do nothing to solve the problem, and in so doing, would also create billions in new spending with very few results. Independent checkers, including Factcheck.org, have said that his plan would likely only insure another five million people but at a massive cost of several hundred billion dollars. The crux of his plan focuses on the free market and magic voodoo economics bringing down the cost of healthcare, but his plan is just a tax cut. I’ve heard him pay a little lip service to electronic health records, but all he ever talks about is one tax cut that’ll solve all the problems. The problems in the healthcare system are so massive that I think it’ll take massive changes to the way we approach coverage to really give us a healthy populace for an affordable price. I don’t think McCain’s solution comes close to addressing all these problems.
Keeping that in mind, Obama’s plan has some holes in it that I have a problem with, but if I have to choose between a swiss cheese plan and a plan I think is an absolute non-starter, I’ll pick the flawed plan. Why? Because I think a flawed plan can be fixed, where as a non-start is automatically thrown out. I have at least some faith in Congress that his plan when it hits the floor will be debated to death and will absolutely not survive in its current form. I think the kinks will get ironed out.
But when it comes down to it, I think that in a presidential election, the tiny specifics of a plan aren’t always as important. I think the framework is the more important discussion. Why? Two reasons, or rather, two parts of one point: 1. Congress is the main legislative body of our government. Presidents can try to set agendas and they can try to push their own legislation (something we saw a lot of under Clinton but almost nothing of under Bush) but it’s Congress who actually takes up those issues, looks at specifics, orders reports, has meetings and deliberations and figures out what will and won’t work, and then votes on the issue. 1b: I have absolute faith in the fact that Obama won’t be able to ram his plan through Congress whole cloth. It’ll get sliced and diced, and some parts will not survive and others will. But the main point is how the debate is structured to begin with. Obama takes a wide angle lens view of the subject. He looks at the industry from start (preventative care) to finish and says that everyone should be covered for everything in an affordable manner, and then he sets about mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions and trying to find ways to make it as affordable as possible. Will all his ideas survive? Likely not, but he’s setting a big agenda, whereas McCain just says ‘Oh, cut their taxes and it’ll all work itself out.’ For me (sometimes) it’s less about the minutiae of their plans than it is about the ideology that surrounds it. McCain wants people to figure it out themselves and for insurance companies to respond in kind, whereas Obama wants the government to try and sort it out. That’s a perfectly fair ideological difference, and for me personally, I come in on the side of government figuring it out, because I feel that major corporations will, if they can, totally screw over the people to line their own wallets, and I think the recent mortgage meltdown is a pretty decent example of that. Costs are only going to come down in the healthcare system when glaring inefficiencies in the system are addressed and fixed, and the private providers haven’t fixed them in the last 20 years or so, and I see no sign of them doing it by themselves just for the hell of it. Change is going to have to come from government. I can only hope that it’s the right kind of change and doesn’t just make things worse.
Two of the points you brought up were EMRs and the problem over a small business. As for EMRs, I have no problem with it taking a little while beyond his presidency, so long as it starts DURING his presidency. I think long term when it comes to solutions; I am inherently mistrustful of quick fix solutions. As for small businesses, I’m troubled by what the definition of a small business is, and by the lack of details on how exactly this taxing/tax break/pooling of resources system is supposed to work in practice, but it’ll all get worked out when they start the Congressional approval process. Like I said before, some details don’t bother me as much. I don’t expect him to have a solution 100% ready to go for every problem in every way. I’m looking for the guiding principles. It may end up being that Obama’s plan won’t work, but it’s a step in the right direction. Maybe from the foundation he’s created we can hammer out a real healthcare plan. I like what The Rabbit had to say about the problems with doctors in America. Maybe to get a little more into detail, the problem isn’t so much that we don’t have enough doctors, it’s general practitioners and general surgeons. If you need brain surgery done, or any other kind of specialized medicine, we’re the place to be, but if you have some run of the mill problem, there’s a shortage of doctors to help. I like her idea of some sort of government backed enticement to get students into medical school for general practicing. We already toy with and sometimes do forgive debt to teachers who agree to teach in neighborhoods we send them to. I think it’s a great idea to agree to eat part of the price of their med school so long as they go into the type of medicine we need. I think part of that is going to have to be some major tort reform though. It’s going to be essential to bringing down med-mal insurance costs, which can be a huge, huge burden to doctors when they have to cover themselves. Bringing down the cost of insurance for doctors might make GP career paths a little more enticing if they feel they don’t have to make huge amounts of money in the more specialized fields to pay for insurance, med school bills, and still have a comfortable living to make up for the crazy workload they have.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Sidenote:
I'm getting kind of a kick reading about all the weird, extreme and otherwise humorous alternative candidates running for President this year. (besides Republican and Democrat, I mean).
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: But when it comes down to it, I think that in a presidential election, the tiny specifics of a plan aren’t always as important. I think the framework is the more important discussion.
Exactly! It amazes me how many people (that I have interactions with anyway) don't seem to get this. It's especially worth noting during the primaries when many of the differences people get all worked up about are much more subtle.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Noemon -
I thought it was an interesting point (that I've heard elsewhere) on McCain trying to be as exciting or bold as possible and Obama trying to be as cool/calm or even boring as possible. I think that's true, but for different reasons. I think McCain's campaign from the start has tried to emulate Bush's style of politics, if not his substance as well. By this I don't mean nasty vs. fair attacks, I mean imagery. I think that he thinks people want bold, aggressive, assertive leadership, so he keeps making all these dramatic movies like his "campaign suspension" and his delcarative statements about this that and the other thing in the hopes that people will see him as firm and decisive; the stereotypical leader.
I think Obama on the other hand has chosen the opposite track for two reasons. 1. If he were to be as animated, sometimes as angry, or as declarative as McCain, I think a lot of people would have a lot more success with lumping him in with Rev. Wright's "angry black man" image. Racist or not, the image of an angry black guy is a turnoff for a lot of people. That's 100% exactly why he hasn't been talking about race, poverty or inner city violence in this election. Why? Because those are largely seen as specifically black issues, and the common way of thinking is that most of white America doesn't want to hear a black guy running for president complain about black issues. It's part of why Al Sharpton can never register above the margin of error of existance whenever he runs for anything on the national level. The irony there is that America's first national major black candidate for president can't talk about black issues or he'll likely take a serious potentially fatal hit. But there's another equally important reason, and that's 2. It's just his personality. In much the same way that you can probably chaulk up a lot of McCain's bombastic or bellicose nature to his oft cited short fuse, Obama is described by individuals who know him well as cool, calm and collected. It serves two purposes: He looks like he's in control without looking detatched from the situation, which is a hard balance to strike. The other purpose is that when he DOES go on the warpath, which occasionally happens, you take note because of the contrast with his usual cool delivery. I'd love to do some sort of study of his oratory to see how people respond to the parts where he actually raises his voice and accentuates his points with a pointed finger. I suspect people pay attention more because it's a loud contrast to his generally calm delivery.
More later...
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
United States of America states are an estimated -100 TRILLION in the hole.
The Stock Market is down to 9500 and dropping.
We need to fire every politician and redo it all from scratch.
But...
I will Vote for Obama.
Republicans have had the highest office in the land for 8 years.
Abortion. Gay Marriage. Iraq, Tax Cuts and Free Markets
have been their big issues.
They deserve to lose this one.
but, the economy will crash before the election, riots and panic will cause Bush I and II to suspend the election until Marshall Rule is no longer needed.
that is all
T
PS. its HILARIOUS to hear John Mccain, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh say "he wants to raise your taxes!"
uh. -100 billion state shortfall, 10 trillion dollar national debt. yeah, uh....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't have to say anything. Lyrhawn, you make me completely irrelevant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks Samp.
To finish commenting on the DR link that Noemon posted. For the most part I've heard it all before, but some of the callers brought up a couple things that the pundits maybe don't mention as much. I think that regular people are more sensitive (if that's possible) to body language and tone than pundits are. The funny thing is, when someone asked the panel about actual content vs. performance the panel didn't have an answer because they hadn't been listening to the content. I think that right there is a sign that these debates are somewhat useless in their intent. Does information come out, and are the American people introduced to the candidates? Sure, but they aren't debates, they're really fancy press conferences. The Commission on Presidential Debates I think this year has declared itself defunct and needs to be mercy killed. Usually town hall debates are the most interesting and informative of the debate styles, but I haven't heard a single person who didn't feel that the second debate was both a rehashing of the first one, and a total structural failure, if evidenced by nothing other than Tom Brokaw's helplessness as moderator. I think the first debate was a hell of a lot better than what we've had for the last few years, but A. They need better questions and B. They need moderators who force answers that haven't already been written. That one panelist was right about that one question catching them both off guard, I think it was the question on how they'd rank social security, energy and healthcare. That was telling. Obama gave an honest priority list that I don't think was scripted. McCain on the other hand claimed to know how to solve every problem America has, to which Jon Stewart last night more or less said 'so why the hell have you been keeping it a secret!?' Sometimes what they don't answer, or don't want to answer, is just as important as what they actually do answer.
Anyway, to get back to the point, most regular people's complaints seem to be about things like McCain calling Obama "that one" or his supposed refusal to shake Obama's hand. I've already said that I don't think he was giving Obama the shaft, though maybe I'll second guess that initial guess upon having heard that McCain DID snub him on the Senate floor. I agree with the panelist who said that McCain just doesn't like Obama. Generally the candidates are schooled in debate etiquette enough to know you have to at least PRETEND to like the other guy, but I think McCain has dropped all pretense of it.
As for the point you emphasized Noemon, about body language; I'm not sure how I feel about that one. Was he snubbing some people and paying more attention to others? Possibly, but I wouldn't rush to that conclusion. I'll admit right off that I tend to give people more benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like that. I think people are often far too critical in their assumptions of motivation. I think when McCain started the debate he was feeling like he was on home turf in the folksy town hall atmosphere, and he was crowding the questioners. But as the debate went on and things weren't at all going his way, I think he lost focus on the format and just started wandering the stage while giving his answers because he was a little flummoxed. When the serviceman asked a question, I think McCain keyed in on that because his radar gives special importance to servicemembers, either because he actually respects them more than regular people, which I think is likely, or because he just knew it's what a politician should do. Long and the short of it? I don't think he was snubbing individual question askers; I just think he was frustrated and eager to pace around the stage while giving his answer because of his temper, not because he doesn't like certain people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: Well statistically by the time the debates have even started approximately 90+% of folks have already made up their mind. Of those who continue to claim "undecided" status they typically split down the middle and end up voting based on their party affiliation on election day anyway.
I only see debates as useful for seeing how a candidate does under pressure. Palin as it turns out can handle pressure, she's just ignorant. I remember George W. Bush and McCain debating in 2000 and though I knew I was voting Republican, those debates clearly ingrained in my mind that Bush was not a good choice compared to McCain at the time.
It's true there are some people who will change their mind after debates but I see them as more chump change than anything else.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't have to say anything. Lyrhawn, you make me completely irrelevant.
Yes, now kindly step of my lawn... You Kids!! ::shakes fist::
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: "It's relevant to connect that association he has with Ayers, not so much he as a person Ayers, but the whole situation and the truthfulness and the judgment there that you must question if again he's not being forthright in all of his answers, "Palin said. "It makes you wonder about the forthrightness, the truthfulness of the plans he's telling Americans with regards to the economic recovery."
How am I expected not to laugh out loud at any of the thickly layered absurdities coming out of her mouth? There's the idea that it is somehow responsible to raise a question about Obama's past that you know, that you actually admit, is unclear in its veracity or importance? This attitude is so fittingly reminiscent of McCain's whole campaign style: if you just claim you have good intentions, your half-assed and irrelevant crap is somehow acceptable.
Then there's just the fact that there is not a complete, grammatically or narratively coherent sentence coming out of Palin's mouth. When I read her words, I find myself going cross eyed, and becoming progressively more agitated. It bespeaks a lack of preparation, concentration and strength when a person cannot pause, take a deep breath, form a coherent sentence that actually means something, and then calmly say it. Palin creates subject-verb-object confusions in virtually every sentences she speaks in interviews, and to be perfectly blunt, this in itself is a big problem for a person running for a job in which she would be scrutinized and pressed on virtually everything she might say.
quote: Pressed on whether she was saying Obama was dishonest, Palin said no.
"But in terms of judgment, in terms of being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts to it, that judgment and that truthfulness," she said.
I mean seriously, are these the words of a capable person? Would you hire her to answer your phones? I'm sorry if that sounds sexist... but would you?
quote: "We're at the halfway point and there is a lot that can happen and will happen in this campaign still to go," Palin said. "I've been in an underdog position quite often in my life and so has John McCain and we've both come out victoriously from that underdog position."
On second thought.... maybe I would hire her... Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The would you hire her to answer phones question wasn't sexist, but if you're implying what I think you are in that last line not only is it sexist but it makes you look like a creep.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Truthiness.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: The would you hire her to answer phones question wasn't sexist, but if you're implying what I think you are in that last line not only is it sexist but it makes you look like a creep.
I'm sorry, I was making fun of Palin's unintentionally hilarious word choices, and the horrible grammar that helps make it all possible.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Personally, I thought it was funny. Wrong, but funny. Much of what is funny is also wrong. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, I mean seriously, who actually comes up with the words: "I've been in an underdog position quite often in my life, and so has John McCain?" It's too much.
Personally I am just picturing that old cartoon "Underdog," punching through the bad guys with his fist raised high in the air.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Nothing of real importance, but there's a great clip of Joe Biden on Good Morning America being asked to react to the clip of SNL's parody of his debate performance. His reaction is fun:
quote:WASHINGTON—At a press conference on Monday, members of the Vietnam Veterans Alliance blasted Democratic nominee Barack Obama for his failure to serve in the Southeast Asian war that ended 33 years ago, alleging that during the conflict the candidate frequently engaged in games of T-ball. "While our boys were dying in Vietnam, Barack Obama was running around a little league field, laughing and having fun without a care in the world," VVA spokesman James Lowry said. "John McCain left his wife and three children behind and fought bravely, but I guess Sen. Obama decided that practicing cursive and learning how to ride a bike was just more important than defending his country in her hour of need. I bet he wasn't even able to point out Vietnam on a map." Lowry later speculated that if Obama had been sent over to fight in the conflict, he probably would have peed his pants and cried for his mommy as soon as he touched down in Saigon.
Pretty Awesome.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks Blayne, That video and Obama' s speech from July really are the perfect answer to McCain's latest attack add. I hope the Obama campaign is able to make it work.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:WASHINGTON—At a press conference on Monday, members of the Vietnam Veterans Alliance blasted Democratic nominee Barack Obama for his failure to serve in the Southeast Asian war that ended 33 years ago, alleging that during the conflict the candidate frequently engaged in games of T-ball. "While our boys were dying in Vietnam, Barack Obama was running around a little league field, laughing and having fun without a care in the world," VVA spokesman James Lowry said. "John McCain left his wife and three children behind and fought bravely, but I guess Sen. Obama decided that practicing cursive and learning how to ride a bike was just more important than defending his country in her hour of need. I bet he wasn't even able to point out Vietnam on a map." Lowry later speculated that if Obama had been sent over to fight in the conflict, he probably would have peed his pants and cried for his mommy as soon as he touched down in Saigon.
That was scary. I'd heard him actually make that argument several times before, but I never actually connected it in my head with what McCain is doing now. Good link Blayne.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'll add my thanks, too Blayne.
I think the next debate will be very interesting. Obama and Biden have already been challenging McCain to say the things in the ads to Obama's face. He'll have to, I think - either on his own or he'll be forced to in an exchange in the debate.
Which means the Obama-Biden team have already managed to make any open confrontation one of *their* devising.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that Obama's response is already planned and will probably be very effective - to everyone except McCain's most fervent supporters.
A few days ago, the Washington Post ran an article on Obama's struggles in the Illinois Senate, his preference for building on relationships over confrontation. But it also shows that when he was convinced that confrontation was necessary, he went in and did what he needed to:
quote: Even those senators who seemed like natural allies treated Obama with nothing but enmity. Rickey Hendon and Donne Trotter, fellow black Democrats from Chicago, dismissed him as cocky, elitist and, Trotter said, "a white man in blackface." When those insults failed to rile him, the two bought a copy of Obama's 1995 autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," and used the book to concoct more. They teased him for smoking marijuana as a teenager and for being raised by his white, Kansas-born grandmother. Most frequently, they ridiculed Obama for his complex ethnicity. You figure out if you're white or black yet, Barack, or still searching?
Obama ignored them. "Give it time," he told friends, "and I'll bring those guys around."
It's a long article and I urge anyone to who wants to get a better picture of how Obama evolved here to read it in its entirety. In the meantime, here's how it turned out with Hendon:
quote:The tension between the two men peaked on June 11, 2002, after Hendon made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor urging his colleagues to preserve funding for a child welfare facility in his district. It was, Hendon remembers, "basically the most emotional speech of my life, and I was pulling out all the stops." Every Republican still voted against him. Every Democrat voted with him -- except Obama and three other members who made up a faction known in Springfield as "liberal row."
Incensed by those four votes, Hendon walked across the floor and confronted Obama, who explained by saying "something about fiscal responsibility," Hendon recalls. A few minutes later, after Hendon's proposal had lost, Obama stood up and asked to have his previous vote changed to a "Yes" for the record, saying he had misunderstood the legislation. His request was declined, and Hendon stood to criticize Obama for political maneuvering.
Infuriated that Hendon had embarrassed him publicly on the Senate floor, Obama walked over to his rival's seat, witnesses said.
"He leaned over, put his arm on my shoulder real nice and then threatened to kick my ass," Hendon said.
The two men walked out of the chamber into a back room and shoved each other a few times before colleagues broke them apart, Hendon and other witnesses said. Obama and Hendon never talked about the incident with each other again, but they reached an awkward understanding. Hendon stopped teasing Obama; Obama started voting with Hendon more regularly. Hendon now supports Obama for president.
Some of the legislators on the floor that day believed Obama had finally snapped after more than five years of tolerating Hendon's provocations. But Obama's allies, the poker buddies and other friends who knew him best, wondered if his actions resulted from a deeper calculation. Had he actually reacted, so uncharacteristically, out of pure emotion? Or was his scuffle with Hendon a final, brilliant tactic in coalition-building?
It looks like McCain and Palin no longer care about addressing the tough issues that this country faces, but instead have turned into conducting a smear campaign. McCain is trying to turn the page on talking about he will resolve the issues with our economy (his campaign has even said so) because really, he has no idea on how to resolve the problem. He called for a spending freeze which is ridiculous in the first place, but wants to spend $300 billion buying bad mortgages - I don't understand how the two jive with each other. The majority of people in this country have listed the economy has the most important issue facing this country, and McCain is not presenting a clear plan of what he is going to do about it. Instead, he and Palin keep bringing up Ayers, which is ridiculous. Ayers's acts occurred when Obama was eight years old, and there are plenty of Republicans who are also associated with Ayers, but you don't see the McCain mentioning anything about that. I also don't care what Obama's middle name is - he didn't name himself and it says nothing about his character or policies.
I want McCain to talk about the pounding that the stock market has taken in the last week, and the wildly up and downs that took place today. I believe that people are scared of what is going on, that banks are unwilling to give loans, businesses are doing not well and laying off employees because of it, so people are less likely to be able to pay their bills. What is McCain going to do about it? That's what I want to know.
I'm also starting to sense this tone from McCain that I do not like at all; regardless of whether or not you disagree with Obama's policies, respect should be due to the man. He is a United States Senator, and since the first debate McCain is not giving Obama that respect. McCain stated over and over in the first debate that Obama does not understand, and even when Obama was speaking McCain would constantly be smirking. I found it pretty much unbearable to watch.
I want to see McCain highlight the differences between his policies and Obama's policies and why his policies are better for the country, not stupid stuff about how Obama is from Chicago and knows a guy who was a domestic terrorist years and years ago. It is not relevant at all to the issues we are facing today. I also don't like what the campaign has become - mudslinging aimed at getting people revved up against the other person, because no matter who wins, the country does need to unite in solving our country's issues. The more mudslinging takes place, the harder that will be as people become more impassioned against the other person. This country is so divided that no matter who wins, half the country will be mad about it. I do believe that we need someone who can unite the country, and I feel that Obama is the best person to do that.
Also, when I think about who would actually work for the working and middle classes, it is Obama. Obama owns one house, a couple of cars, and has two young daughters who will be going to college in a few years. He is in many ways similar to a lot of people in this country, while McCain has a number of houses that he doesn't know, has 13 cars, and has a beer heiress wife. I don't believe he would do a good job as President, because his life is so different from the life of a middle-class family. Additionally, I find him extremely erratic. One minute he's flying to Washington to help with the bailout bill which ended up not getting passed because of disagreement from within his own party and saying he will not attend the first debate, and a couple of days later he left Washington not having accomplished much of anything and saying that he will in fact attend the debate. That makes me very nervous - I don't want a President who will swing off the handle at anything, I want a President will calmly look at all the facts related to the issue and make a informed decision.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
sndrake -
Thanks for posting that article, it was interesting. It also illustrates pretty clearly why I'll never go into politics. I'd love to be a legislator, and I'd love to get my ideas turned into law, but the backroom dealmaking and all the crap that goes along with it is something I'm absolutely uninterested in.
Maybe I'll run for state AG some day and then for governor so I can skip the legislature entirely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:This country is so divided that no matter who wins, half the country will be mad about it. I do believe that we need someone who can unite the country, and I feel that Obama is the best person to do that.
The number of people he'll be able to unite is shrinking by the day. I still think he'll be able to bring the left together with the center and with the left leaning conservatives, but the far right? McCain and Palin's rhetoric is pushing them out of reach by inciting them as they have been lately. He's poisoning the well so that no mater who wins, there won't just be a dejected minority, there'll be a pissed off one who will take a loss as a death blow rather than a political setback. In other words, he's sacrificing a chance at national unity, and is increasing partisan rancor to help get himself elected.
How the heck could that get past the original writer of the ballot and THREE proof readers? The only way I could imagine is that so many people are used to hearing the "Barack Osama" joke that it's become common accepted knowledge. My grandpa refers to him as "Osama Obama." It's either that or a coordinated effort by those four people, which sounds far fetched. Either way, it's not a screw up that'll swing the election by itself, as I don't think anyone planning on voting for him would really change their vote on a typo and because he's way up in the polling in New York, but still, that's a ridiculous mistake.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:A man in the audience stood up and told McCain he’s "scared" of an Obama presidency and who he’d select for the Supreme Court.
"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted "Come on, John!"
"If I didn’t think I’d be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn’t be running for president of the United States."
---
Edited to add:
quote:"And we want to fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments, and I will respect him. And I want everyone -- [boos from the audience] no, no -- I want everyone to be respectful, and let's make sure we are, because that's the way politics should be conducted in America. [audience cheers]"
"A man in the audience stood up and told McCain he’s "scared" of an Obama presidency and who he’d select for the Supreme Court."
Neither of the current candidates is worth being frightened of as President, in my view. McCain might get us into a war we regret, but I don't think he's evil or stupid, just more pro-military than is wise. Obama, OTOH, is God Incarnate. LOL No, really, I think it's the quality of the advisors that makes the biggest difference. McCain is worrisome because he has surrounded himself with lobbyists as his campaign advisors. Obama is worrisome because he is an unknown quantity. Will he pick good advisors? Who the heck knows? He's definitely not in bed with lobbyists, unlike McCain, but I can't say I'm convinced he would pick good advisors. I'd say there's a good chance he would. Either way, I'd like a president who doesn't half-ass his way through while his vice-prez actually runs the country. More to the point, I'd like a president who actually can run the country, versus being too ignorant to do it, and too lazy to learn how. Either of the current candidates would be about 700 times better than the crew of dummies at the White House.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
CNN has issued a correction [or at least, corrected the title], because she was indeed found to have broken a law. I will look for a reputable link.
From the report:
quote:"Alaska Statute 39.52.001-39.52.965 codifies a body of well defined law known as "The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act." - pg. 48
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Wow, that's tough. On the one hand, if Senator McCain planned to drop Governor Palin and pick up Governor Romney, now would be as good a time as any. On the other hand, if he does that, her time as a national political figure is probably over.
--j_k
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Well done, Senator McCain, well done.
quote:A man in the audience stood up and told McCain he’s "scared" of an Obama presidency and who he’d select for the Supreme Court.
"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted "Come on, John!"
"If I didn’t think I’d be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn’t be running for president of the United States."
---
Edited to add:
quote:"And we want to fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments, and I will respect him. And I want everyone -- [boos from the audience] no, no -- I want everyone to be respectful, and let's make sure we are, because that's the way politics should be conducted in America. [audience cheers]"
So let me get this straight, McCain gets credit for trying to put out a fire that he himself started? For weeks now, I have been hard on Obama, arguing that he was not doing enough to bring the country together and that it was his fault that people weren't voting for him, but that pails in comparison to this. For the last few days, the ugly and hateful people at McCain's rally's have yelled out "terrorist", "bomb Obama", "traitor", and other slurs that have made me crazy. But you know the worst part? When McCain was at a rally earlier this week, he asked the crowd "who is the real Obama?", to which one person in the crowd yelled "a terrorist". In that moment, McCain flinched, and because I use to really like McCain, I would like to believe that he wanted to correct the person who said it. Of course, he didn't, but more than that, he knows what he has been doing and he knows that what he inspires is now not hope in any way, but hatred and prejudice. How can this man be proud of what he does? How can we allow this kind of politics to dominate who we are?
And how in the world is it that these people can speak for an entire campaign, republicans, and America at large? Those people aren't the Republicans I know, they aren't indicative of the Americans I know, and they aren't indicative of the humanity I profess to have faith in. McCain may have spoken out now, but he started this fire and he will never get special credit from me for doing what he should have done much earlier and most likely, what he probably should never have started.
This is ugly and hateful, it embodies the worst of us, and when that is the politics we embrace, then we truly get the government we deserve. I posted this in another thread but I urge you to think about this quote the next time you hear someone call Obama a terrorist:
quote:Reminds me of a conversation I heard on Star Trek: DS9.
Worf: "Tell me what you think." Ezri: "Okay, but I'm not sure you're going to like it." Worf: "Tell me." Ezri: "I think the situation with Gowron is a symptom of a bigger problem. The Klingon Empire is dying. And I think it deserves to die." Worf: "You were right. I do not like it." Ezri: "Don't get me wrong. I've very touched that you still consider me to be a member of the house of Martok. But I tend to look at the empire with a little more skepticism than Curzon or Jadzia did. I see a society that is in deep denial about itself. We're talking about a warrior culture that prides itself on maintaining centuries old traditions of honor and integrity but in reality is willing accept corruption at the highest levels." Worf: "You are overstating your case." Ezri: "Am I? Who was the last leader of the high council that you respected? Has there even been one? And how many times have you had to cover up the crimes of Klingon leaders because you were told it was for the good of the empire? I know this sounds harsh but the truth is you have been willing to accept a government that you know is corrupt. Gowron's just the latest example. Worf, you are the most honorable and decent man that I have ever met. And if you're willing to tolerate men like Gowron, then what hope is there for the empire?"
What hope do we have if *THAT* is the government we deserve?
Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
I am glad the panel conducting the inquiry chose to reveal their findings before the elections. Abuse of power is not something that should be taken lightly. Actions have consequences and it seems to have finally caught up with Palin.
quote:I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."
McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:
"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."
He had drawn boos with his comment: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."
There are so many things that are wrong with that woman's comment about Obama that I don't even know where to begin. The McCain/Palin strategy of playing on people's fear of "the other" in hopes of gaining an edge turned into a horrible monster that has finally turned on its creators.
Edited: sorry for the repost of McCain being booed - I was writing this post and guess I took too long! Posted by Cerridwen (Member # 11763) on :
Sorry - double posted!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I am so incredibly relieved that McCain is shifting gears and trying to dampen the hate that his campaign has been stoking for the past little while. More and more, it was looking to me as though he were essentially saying "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome candidate?", and I'm glad to see him backing vocally away from anything that could be construed as that. I'm very curious to see if he keeps it up, and if the general tone of his commercials and Palin's rallies shifts as well.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Well done indeed.
So let me get this straight, McCain gets credit for trying to put out a fire that he himself started?
*mildly, gently
No need to hunger to be outraged at me.
What went before was despicable. This -- isolated in itself -- was well done. That is not a claim about how it weights in balance to what went before.
Added: You are welcome to be careful not to mischaracterize what I have said. It's hard when passions run high, I know, but it is important.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor....Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law. [bolding added]
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:What went before was despicable. This -- isolated in itself -- was well done. That is not a claim about how it weights in balance to what went before.
My point was that the only reason the person came out to say Obama was an Arab at his rally was because of the type of campaign he was running. Thus, by giving him credit for knocking her down, I believe that you gave him credit for trying to put out a fire he himself started. He would not be in that position to put out a fire he did not commit the act of arson in the first place. If you still feel I have mischaracterized you, please feel free to tell me and I will apologize.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:What went before was despicable. This -- isolated in itself -- was well done. That is not a claim about how it weights in balance to what went before.
My point was that the only reason the person came out to say Obama was an Arab at his rally was because of the type of campaign he was running.
Oh, of course. I agree completely.
quote:Thus, by giving him credit for knocking her down, I believe that you gave him credit for trying to put out a fire he himself started. He would not be in that position to put out a fire he did not commit the act of arson in the first place. If you still feel I have mischaracterized you, please feel free to tell me and I will apologize.
I did not state that he redeemed himself, that this made up in any way for what went before, or that it in some way put out that fire.
I just said that this -- this part -- was well done. It was the right thing to do. About time, too, as we can agree. And acknowledging when he does well is going to be important in healing some of the rifts in our country, as we all still will be here after the first week of November. There is a lot of work to be done, regardless of parties, and regardless of the heated divisiveness currently corruscating through the US.
As I said afterward, I am looking forward to seeing him continue to impose these principles for the entire campaign, of which he is the leader. Co-candidate included. That is something I will watching for very carefully.
So I'd very much like to distance myself from any implication that this sort of action now, well done as it may be, has weight in judging what went before. I'm not going to weight this in isolation. That's all.
Thanks for your graciousness. Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I just said that this -- this part -- was well done. It was the right thing to do. About time, too, as we can agree. And acknowledging when he does well is going to be important in healing some of the rifts in our country, as we all still will be here after the first week of November. There is a lot of work to be done, regardless of parties, and regardless of the heated divisiveness currently corruscating through the US.
Fair enough.
But I do wonder about our own notions of penance and virtue. To me, I think an action has meaning when it is viewed globally. If a person can simply do something good by ignoring what came before, then both our journey as human beings and the meaning of what we do means almost nothing. That can't be what it takes to create unity and heal a fractured nation can it? Wouldn't it mean more, wouldn't it be better if we hold our politicians *and* our notions of right and wrong to higher standards than that?
Thank you for your graciousness as well CT. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I can't help but wonder if this doesn't reflect, on some level, that McCain is acknowledging that he may not be the next president of the United States.
I would be very disturbed, were I him, to recognize such unpleasantness in a not insignifcant portion of my voting block.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
**SPOILER**
**DON'T READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS**
Obama wins.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I imagined myself being in McCain's shoes when that woman said that. Then my head exploded from the irony of it.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Dow Jones loses 2.5 trillion dollars in 7 days.
Barack Obama wins 2.5 trillion voter points.
The only thing Republicans are good at is winning elections, but they don't have a chance in this one.
It's too hard to NOT look at their results.
I've been listening to Talk Radio all week, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram.....
They didn't talk about the economy, the ONLY thing they talked about was Wright/Ayers.
Saying again and again that Barack is a Terrorist. And two people who spoke before Mccain or Palin refered to him as
Barack Hussien Obama
It is SOOOOOOO hilarious Americans looked to guys like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove and saw Christian Giants.
Seriously.
I am not saying they're not Christians.
I am saying, they're not the people you want to get your Christianity from.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
On the Colbert Report a baseball statistian predicted that Obama would win by 340.3 Electorial votes with only roughly 53% of the Popular vote.
Isn't that technically a landslide victory?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: On the Colbert Report a baseball statistian predicted that Obama would win by 340.3 Electorial votes with only roughly 53% of the Popular vote.
Isn't that technically a landslide victory?
Technically? No. That's around 375. But it's still a pretty decent margin.
The baseball statistician you refer to is Nate Silver who runs Five Thirty Eight. If you haven't checked that website out, I'd recommend you do.
And on McCain calming the booing crowd, it did get back some of the respect I once had for McCain. I know that he caused a lot of the flames to begin with, especially with the 'Who is Barack Obama' ad line, but I far prefer him trying to fix the problems late in the game than not doing anything about it at all.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I am looking forward to seeing him continue to impose these principles for the entire campaign, of which he is the leader. Co-candidate included.
I think he will meet that standard. I hope so.
I hope so to. But to be honest, I doubt it'll happen. For the good of the country I hope I'm wrong.
how much weight does something like this have:
Christopher Buckley endorses Obma. I don't know who this guy is, but do you think that prominent conservatives coming out for Obama will make other conservatives more likely to jump ship?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Noemon: I am so incredibly relieved that McCain is shifting gears and trying to dampen the hate that his campaign has been stoking for the past little while. More and more, it was looking to me as though he were essentially saying "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome candidate?", and I'm glad to see him backing vocally away from anything that could be construed as that. I'm very curious to see if he keeps it up, and if the general tone of his commercials and Palin's rallies shifts as well.
That's a great question. If you look at the debates and then look at the ads or even the campaign stops of late, you see that McCain is cordial in person but when Obama isn't arround, takes a verbal 2x4 to the back of his head. It's one thing to stand up for him in a couple of rallies, but if his ads, and for that matter, his abusive running mate, aren't going to tamp it down as well, then he's running one weird Janus faced campaign there.
quote:From Sterling: I can't help but wonder if this doesn't reflect, on some level, that McCain is acknowledging that he may not be the next president of the United States.
Honestly? I HOPE that is what it is. If that is the reason, he's trying to assuage fears of Obama for the sake of the country and to try and heal the wounds ahead of time for an Obama win. If that isn't the reason, then he's doing it for political purposes because he's getting a lot of bad press from his pissed off supporters. I don't imagine he'll lose a lot of support for backing up Obama, in fact, I imagine he might lop off a percent of the independent vote for doing it, but it'll dampen enthusiasm in his own party.
I just don't know about McCain right now. I think it's hard to consider ANY of his actions as being sincere since he's all over the map lately. He hammers Obama for awhile, and the polls react negatively, then he add Palin to his ticket and it swings wildly in his favor, so some of the more heinous ads stop. Then things tip back the other way and the ads come back, and his rhetoric is ratcheted up to a dangerous level. I think he's either becoming unhinged, or knows exactly what he is doing and has totally abandoned his moral center in a headlong rush to win. Either way he disturbs me now. It'll take a hell of a lot more than a campaign stop where he actually acts civilized for me to gain back any of the faith I once had in him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Christopher Buckley endorses Obma. I don't know who this guy is, but do you think that prominent conservatives coming out for Obama will make other conservatives more likely to jump ship? [/QB]
Buckley endorsing Obama is as ridiculous as if Kathleen Parker had written an article saying that Palin absolutely had to be dropped from the McCain ticket.
Oh wait.
No, I'm serious. This election is over. The end.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: sndrake -
Thanks for posting that article, it was interesting. It also illustrates pretty clearly why I'll never go into politics. I'd love to be a legislator, and I'd love to get my ideas turned into law, but the backroom dealmaking and all the crap that goes along with it is something I'm absolutely uninterested in.
Maybe I'll run for state AG some day and then for governor so I can skip the legislature entirely.
I'd vote for you in a heartbeat, over anybody I know personally. Just so's you know.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
How the heck could that get past the original writer of the ballot and THREE proof readers? The only way I could imagine is that so many people are used to hearing the "Barack Osama" joke that it's become common accepted knowledge. My grandpa refers to him as "Osama Obama." It's either that or a coordinated effort by those four people, which sounds far fetched. Either way, it's not a screw up that'll swing the election by itself, as I don't think anyone planning on voting for him would really change their vote on a typo and because he's way up in the polling in New York, but still, that's a ridiculous mistake.
My school is in this area, but I'm registered in MD. I really wish I could get my hands on one of these ballots. Would be a good collector's item.
--j_k
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I would be very disturbed, were I him, to recognize such unpleasantness in a not insignifcant portion of my voting block."
Ignorance, not unpleasantness.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: If a person can simply do something good by ignoring what came before ...
Which is less than what McCain did in this case, of note.
quote:Wouldn't it mean more, wouldn't it be better if we hold our politicians *and* our notions of right and wrong to higher standards than that?
Again, see my follow-up posts regarding anticipatory standards. (I haz them. ;0 )
We aren't far off the mark from one another. I seem (to me) to be claiming less than you think I am. You seem (to me, and here is where I am more likely to be mistaken than the other) to not find any value in something I find of some value, even if limited.
On the other hand, I am happy to provide positive reinforcement of the most behavioristic sort. That is no sort of praise for prior behavior, believe me. It is a practical hope to address future behavior.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am so incredibly relieved that McCain is shifting gears...
For my part, I've become cynical enough that my very first reaction to that story was "I bet no one's going to be able to find that woman's name and address, and she'll conveniently vanish after letting McCain prove his basic decency."
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "I would be very disturbed, were I him, to recognize such unpleasantness in a not insignifcant portion of my voting block."
Ignorance, not unpleasantness.
The term "willful ignorance" comes to mind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I am so incredibly relieved that McCain is shifting gears...
For my part, I've become cynical enough that my very first reaction to that story was "I bet no one's going to be able to find that woman's name and address, and she'll conveniently vanish after letting McCain prove his basic decency."
Yipes! I thought that I was cynical. You think she was a plant? Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely convinced of the possibility if not likelihood that McCain only said what he said for political gain, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to set up the entire thing as a ploy for McCain to play the hero. Maybe that's part of my cynicism over the American people though, because I have no trouble believing that the electorate could produce people like I've been seeing at those rallies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. [Sarah] Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse," Lewis said in a statement.
"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama," wrote the Democrat.
McCain's response:
quote:But the Arizona senator blasted the congressman’s remarks, and called on Obama to repudiate them. "Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale,” he said in a Saturday afternoon statement released by his campaign.
“The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.
"I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."
There's a LOT of irony in that statement. I won't go into all of it, but the irony/hypocrisy of a man that has been engaging in brutal and relentless character attacks against Obama getting offending by someone calling him on it is just too rich. This is the campaign that has a VP candidate who said she didn't want to talk about the issues, she wanted to talk about Obama and what was wrong with him. And they accuse Lewis of trying to shut down substantive debate?
To be fair, Lewis might have been over the top there. I don't think McCain is trying to stoke a race war, he just wants to win an election. Sure that's still horrible, but not as horrible. Still, this is one of those times where I'd like to see Obama NOT repudiate the comments, but instead I'd like him to bring them up and match them to McCain's statements.
McCain is starting to sound like Bush when it comes to having lost touch with reality in his press releases. He's responding to some imaginary version of events.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Can we finally admit that Palin is probably not the sharpest tack in the Office Depot?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: **SPOILER**
**DON'T READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS**
Obama wins.
I think I already mentioned this in the spoiler thread.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
This video is pretty great It's going to be nice to have some decent people in charge.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I am so incredibly relieved that McCain is shifting gears and trying to dampen the hate that his campaign has been stoking for the past little while. More and more, it was looking to me as though he were essentially saying "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome candidate?", and I'm glad to see him backing vocally away from anything that could be construed as that. I'm very curious to see if he keeps it up, and if the general tone of his commercials and Palin's rallies shifts as well.
While I think Tom was perhaps a bit too cynical, I think the rest of you are being way too generous. I don't see any evidence at all that McCain is shifting tactics. From what I've seen, his tactic all along has been to delegate the attacks on Obama to others so that he can look like he's above the fray. I haven't been able to find a single incident where McCain makes personal attacks against Obama, he has been leaving that dirty work to others.
He knows very well that calling Obama a terrorist isn't going to win any swing votes. Those ads are to energize the right wing so that they don't stay home voting day. He knows that the kind of people who boo him for saying Obama is a good guy aren't going to vote for Obama because of what he said. So he runs campaign to stir up as much hatred a fear of Obama as he can to motivate his base to come out on election day, but then makes statements like this to quell the fears of moderates who are worried about his Judgement because of the attack ads.
When John McCain launches an attack ad that associates Obama with domestic terrorism on Thursday and then on Friday comes out saying Obama is a decent family man, he isn't switching gears he is trying to play both sides of the fence.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
When McCain allows people to open his rallies with comments like this:
There are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens,” said Arnold Conrad, the former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Davenport.
It is hard to believe he is actually reformed. Of course, McCain immediately afterward issued a statement saying that he did not approve of what was said, but that is still his rally. Like Rabbit said- trying to be play both sides.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Count me in as someone not inclined to be too generous to McCain at this point.
quote:In October 2006, as polls indicated that Ford maintained a slight lead in the Senate race,[20] the Republican Party ran a television advertisement[21] where a white woman, played by Johanna Goldsmith, talks about meeting Ford, who was unmarried at the time, at "the Playboy party."[22] The ad was denounced by many people, including former Republican Senator and Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, William Cohen, who called it “a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment.” Corker himself asked the Republican leadership to pull the ad, which it refused to do. Corker subsequently pulled ahead in the polls.[23]
Ford appears often on MSNBC and has been fairly silent on the notorious "call me" ad and the role it played in his defeat.
He chose to talk about it now in relation to the current approach the McCain camp is taking against Obama (context - written before McCain's defense of Obama at campaign events):
quote: While I am disappointed in McCain's about-face, I am not surprised. When I ran for the Senate in 2006, my opponent, Bob Corker, also found himself trailing in the October polls. His campaign and the Republican National Committee launched a series of false and vicious character attack ads, including the infamous "call me" ad, in which a scantily clad white woman looked at the camera and said, "Harold, call me."
Every major news organization and independent ad-checking group ruled the ad a smear and deemed it way over the line. But that didn't stop John McCain from coming to Tennessee and campaigning for my opponent while the "call me" ad and other smears were broadcast across the state. Not once did McCain speak out against that ad as he did about the smear against John Kerry. In fact, the first manager he hired for his 2008 presidential campaign was Terry Nelson, the person who produced the "call me" ad. Nelson has such a history of practicing below-the-belt politics that Lee Iacocca, a strong supporter of McCain, wrote in his book "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?": "What does it say about John McCain that he's willing to make that kind of person the head of his team?"
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I am so incredibly relieved that McCain is shifting gears...
For my part, I've become cynical enough that my very first reaction to that story was "I bet no one's going to be able to find that woman's name and address, and she'll conveniently vanish after letting McCain prove his basic decency."
:: laugh :: I could believe that she was a plant, but if she were it could still be indicative of a change of gears. We'll see if the commercials and the messages that Palin is delivering change.
That said, it looks like she's for real. Somebody interviewed her on their camera phone. The video and audio are both on the crappy side, but you can find it (along with a transcript) here.
Here's the transcript (slightly edited by me, only in terms of inserting a dropped letter occasionally, correcting the spelling of people's names, and that sort of thing:
quote:Gayle Quinnell: I went to the library in Shakopee and I got lots of … three pages of information about Obama
Adam Aigner of NBC News: And what kind of information did you get?
Quinnell:I got to tell you , you call me. It’s a long story.
I’m afraid of what’s going to happen to this country.
Aigner: What would you think would happen? Do you think it would become Muslim country and what would that mean?
Quinnell :It would be bad
Aigner: So even though Senator McCain told you that he didn’t feel that was true and you ought to be more respectful, you still fear that?
Quinnell I still do. Yeah. I’m not alone. I go to Burnsville, the main Republican headquarters and I do a lot of work over there. A lot of sending out mail and talking to people. And all the people agree with what I’m saying to you about Obama.
Aigner :Then do you feel there are a lot of volunteers for McCain who feel that way?
Quinnell Yes. A lot of them. In fact I got a letter from another woman that goes over there to Burnsville and she sent me more things about Obama.
Aigner:What was on the letter?
Quinnell Oh all kinds of bad things about him and how, I mean I have to tell you to call me. It’s all bad.
Reporter: Are a lot of people getting this letter and are a lot of people believeing it and is that turning a lot of votes or support for McCain?
Quinnell Yeah I sent out 400 letters. I went to Kinkos and I got them all printed out. And I sent about 400 letters. I went in the telephone book and sent them out to people. So they can decide if they would want Obama.
Aigner :Can you give me your name again?
Quinnell Gayle Quinnell and I honestly think that these people hear about this Obama, they wouldn’t want him.
Aigner: Because they would know what you know in the letter?
Quinnell Yeah, he read that letter. In fact when I was standing in line , there were about eight girls, young girls standing in line. And they said “what have you got”. I had one of the letters and they said “Give it to me. I want to read it. I want to read it” And they read it. And they just went (shakes head) . They hadn’t read it before and they didn’t (unintelligible) all that information. To me it’s bad news.
Aigner : So maybe if I call you you’ll give me one of the letters maybe?
Quinnell I sure can!
Aigner: You don’t have another one on you now?
Quinnell No I don’t. But I can give you what I got and I can give you what she sent me in the mail.
Aigner: I’d be interested to read it.
Quinnell OK
Aigner:: and can you spell your name for me?
Quinnell Q-U-I-N-N-E-L-L
Aigner: E-L-L? And Gayle is just…
Quinnell: G-A-Y-L-E
Aigner: And where you from?
Quinnell: I’m from Shakopee.
Aigner: Shakopee?
Quinnell: Shakopee, Minnesota
Aigner: And and I’m sorry how old are you ma’am?
Quinnell: I’m 75
Aigner : 75?
Quinnell: (Nods yes) And I got a lot of grandkids and a lot of kids, I’ve got five kids. I got seven grandkids and they all think the same way.
(PHONE NUMBER EDITED OUT OF CONVERSATION)
Noah Kunin( The UpTake): Do you volunteer at the Republican Party Headquarters or the McCain Campaign office over in Burnsville?
Quinnell: McCain. McCain Headquarters in Burnsville.
Noah: The McCain headquarters.
Quinnell: It’s out over by , over by that post station there.
Noah: Yeah, I know which one you’re talking about. And just to be sure to make sure we got your quote OK, you called Obama and Arab terrorist?
Quinnell: pardon?
Noah: You called him an Arab terrorist? Is that correct? Why do you think he is an Arab?
Quinnell: Because his dad is. If you… I’ll send you the paper.
Dana Bush of CNN: His dad is Muslim His dad was Muslim. Barack Obama has never been a Muslim.
Quinnell: No but he’s….
Bush: he’s a Christian.
Quinnell: He’s not an Arab either, he’s a
Bush: His father was Muslim, and he’s a Christian.
Quinnell: Yeah , but he’s still got Muslim in him. So that’s still part of him. I got all the stuff from the library and I could send you all kinds of stuff on him. In fact….
Bush: What did you think about McCain said. He said he’s a decent person.
Quinnell: Well he did have didn’t have (unintelligible) I think McCain wanted to (unintelligible) I don’t think he wanted to say anything against him. You know he didn’t want to cut him down. That was my way of thinking. I don’t think he wanted to cut him down. So he just kind of brushed me off.
Reporter: Plus he criticizes Barack Obama plenty himself, so why wouldn’t he do it now?
Quinnell: Well I probably brought up something that he didn’t want to talk about.
Reporter: Do you think John McCain thinks that he’s Arab? Do you think he knows this stuff that you’re saying you know is fact?
Quinnell: I don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t want to bring it up then. I don’t know why. Is there some way I can get to you more information.
Bush: Can you wait for me for like five more minutes?
Quinnell: Yeah.
Bush:: I want to an interview on camera. Our camera team is occupied right now. What’s your name?
Quinnell: Gayle Quinnell (Spells name again)
Bush: In case I lose you, you don’t have a cell phone do you?
Quinnell: No I wish I had it on me but I don’t.
Bush: See the pretty lady over there with red hair? That’s our camera. As soon as she’s done we’ll be over there Ok
Reporter: What was your reaction when Senator McCain backed away?
Quinnell: What was my reaction? Well when he didn’t want to talk about it
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That's really scary. The utter hypocrisy of John McCain calling on Obama to repudiate John Lewis while at the same time people working for his own campaign are circulating hate filled fear mongering letters is just shocking.
If McCain is really changing gears, he needs to do more than the shot answer he gave at the rally. He needs to repudiate all the people who are spreading this lies and half truths, starting with Gov. Palin.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I agree, Rabbit. I'd like to see Obama give a speech saying
"Senator McCain has called on me to repudiate John Lewis' remarks. I wish that I could. I wish that I could say that John Lewis was wrong, but the fact is that he is right. I appreciate that Senator McCain has begun to back away from the politics of fear and hatred that he had begun to engage in, and I hope that he will continue to move his campaign back to a place of honor and integrity, but the fact remains--as our country makes its way through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, John McCain sought to 'turn the page'. He wanted to distract his supporters and any people sympathetic to his candidacy from the circumstances we find ourselves in as a nation, and turn instead to baseless character attacks, hate mongering, and fear.
Senator McCain, I cannot repudiate John Lewis' remarks. I call on you, however, to repudiate the comments shouted at your rallys, claiming that I am "a terrorist", or that I should be killed. I call on you to repudiate the vile, hateful, dishonest letters about me being distributed by people working directly for your campaign. I call on you to repudiate Sarah Palin's insinuations that because I served on a board with someone who, when I was eight years old, committed terrible crimes against our country, I somehow am sympathetic to those despicable acts."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: **SPOILER**
**DON'T READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS**
Obama wins.
Additional spoiler:
The US loses.
But then, that was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who wins the election.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: **SPOILER**
**DON'T READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS**
Obama wins.
Additional spoiler:
The US loses.
But then, that was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who wins the election.
Probably true but not for the reasons you believe or nearly as bad as you believe.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: **SPOILER**
**DON'T READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS**
Obama wins.
Additional spoiler:
The US loses.
But then, that was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who wins the election.
Additional spoiler:
Whatever happens, Lisa will not be pleased.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Shocker ending, that one. Like in Titanic...
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Whatever happens, Lisa will not be pleased.
After all, we're wasting taxpayer money on a Wall Steet bailout when we should be starting the next war with Iran.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I agree, Rabbit. I'd like to see Obama give a speech saying
"Senator McCain has called on me to repudiate John Lewis' remarks. I wish that I could. I wish that I could say that John Lewis was wrong, but the fact is that he is right. I appreciate that Senator McCain has begun to back away from the politics of fear and hatred that he had begun to engage in, and I hope that he will continue to move his campaign back to a place of honor and integrity, but the fact remains--as our country makes its way through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, John McCain sought to 'turn the page'. He wanted to distract his supporters and any people sympathetic to his candidacy from the circumstances we find ourselves in as a nation, and turn instead to baseless character attacks, hate mongering, and fear.
Senator McCain, I cannot repudiate John Lewis' remarks. I call on you, however, to repudiate the comments shouted at your rallys, claiming that I am "a terrorist", or that I should be killed. I call on you to repudiate the vile, hateful, dishonest letters about me being distributed by people working directly for your campaign. I call on you to repudiate Sarah Palin's insinuations that because I served on a board with someone who, when I was eight years old, committed terrible crimes against our country, I somehow am sympathetic to those despicable acts."
I don't have it readily available, but his actual statement charted a middle course. He basically said that while the reference to Wallace was over the top, that Lewis was right to condemn some of the more incendiary remarks being made at McCain rallies. That's about where I thought he'd come down.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Honestly, that sounds about right. I was talking to my girlfriend about it, and she convinced me that the Wallace comment really was over the top. I argued that the difference between McCain's campaign's behavior and Wallace's was quantitative rather than qualitative, and her response was basically "yeah, that's true. That doesn't make the comparison over the top." And she has a point. I'm probably letting my frustration over the situation color my perception of things.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
This election makes me sad.
I live in a place that is 95% White Republicans. It is really not pretty around here. Their HATE is sooo strong and unjustified.
True story.
I was at a bar here in Mansfield, TX, it is like 99% white.
One of the cutest girls I've ever seen approached me at the end of the night, put her arm around me and was laughing at all my funny ness, the Election came up, she asked who I was voting for, I said Obama.
Her face went pale and she walked away.
I approached her later, asked, why she liked mccain, she said "Obama is a terrorist."
I am not voting for Mccain because of his Economic policies, I fear he would have the Republican Economic Committee run his ship, which IS a disaster.
I am voting for Obama because of his economic policies, strengthen the lower and middle classes, overtax the rich. AND I do think it is time to end the 43 white man run of the the white house. Also, globally we will get a lot of credit for following Bush with Obama, and I think the rest of the world DOES matter.
I wish people would have more sense to vote for someone other than "The other guy is a black muslim terrorist."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: **SPOILER**
**DON'T READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS**
Obama wins.
Additional spoiler:
The US loses.
But then, that was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who wins the election.
This is like the single most summary self-stereotype of Ron Paul phanz. You went straight from 'no way guys he is still in the race' to 'he'll pull a miracle unexpected pullout in the primary just you watch' to 'america loses statism wins'
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Whatever happens, Lisa will not be pleased.
After all, we're wasting taxpayer money on a Wall Steet bailout when we should be starting the next war with Iran.
No, we shouldn't. And we should pull our troops out of Iraq (and Korea and Japan and everywhere else) as well. The savings just from that would make up for the Wall Street boondoggle.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Lisa, do you consider yourself an extremist, politically-speaking? If you do, do you make poitically-extreme statements here because you think it helps the political process? I'm honestly trying to understand your reasons for saying these things. I just can't help but see the negative effect of extreme rhetoric, and I wonder if you see it as well, and are
a. compelled by "you don't know what" to say these things
b. honestly trying to make the world a worse place, by saying these things
c. aware that no one important listens to you or takes you seriously on the subject of politics, and therefore feel sure that you aren't doing damage.
I might could actually get behind you on option c, if you think that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Steven, That's quite a loaded question. If you are seriously looking for an answer from Lisa, putting up a multiple choice list of speculative answers, all of which are demeaning, is hardly a way to start a productive conversation.
I suspect that like most of the people I've known whose political views are unpopular, Lisa chooses to express her views because she thinks they are true and she believes there is value in speaking the truth even if no one will listen.
As often as I disagree with Lisa on this forum, she does not deserve your condescending attack solely because she posts unpopular views.
[ October 13, 2008, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Agreed.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think that her political rhetoric is literally dangerous. Literally. The problems in the Middle East are like a powder keg, much like Europe was around 1913 or so. It was an assassination that touched off that powder keg and started World War II. I'd love to see her banned, and I've asked for it repeatedly. Papa Moose seems not to be interested in that. Maybe I was rude. Say something substantive, and maybe I can agree with you. Defending Lisa like she is someone who isn't a long-time problem here, with her own long hiistory of personal attacks, isn't going to convince me to be nice to her. Give me a good reason to think she's doing no harm, if you can. Telling me I'm being rude doesn't teach me anything. And jake? Please leave me alone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, we shouldn't. And we should pull our troops out of Iraq (and Korea and Japan and everywhere else) as well. The savings just from that would make up for the Wall Street boondoggle.
With, of course, no other consequences easily forseen or not that would be harmful to American interests.
Also, Steven, would you stop that? Hatrack can only sustain a limited amount of irony in any given day. You're taking way more than your share.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Steven, That's quite a loaded question. If you are seriously looking for an answer from Lisa, putting up a multiple choice list of speculative answers, all of which are demeaning, is hardly a way to start a productive conversation.
No kidding. And when did you stop beating your wife?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
We now know where the rumors about Obama started from.
Mr. Martin has a history of odd political ideas, from runs in political parties, both Republican and Democrat, and based on such interesting beliefs as "Stopping the Jewish power that runs the country" to standard Florida politics. He's a want-to-be lawyer who's psychiatric profile won't allow him to be selected for the bar, but his overindulgence in suing people has him banned from being party to any non-pre-approved litigation.
So if you want to know where the Arab-Obama meme started, where the facts emerged from, look to Mr. Martin and perhaps pity him, and us, just a little
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
What year were black people given 'the right' to vote?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
depends my perception of events may be clouded from reading Harry Turtledove novels but i think many northern states had given the right on their own and that it was only done nationwise by amendment in 60's.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What year were black people given 'the right' to vote?
Ohh, poignant!
quote:depends my perception of events may be clouded from reading Harry Turtledove novels but i think many northern states had given the right on their own and that it was only done nationwise by amendment in 60's.
You know, Blayne, as someone who speaks so regularly and authoritatively on American politics, you really should have a better understanding than that.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Obama met with ayers BEFORE Black people were given the right to vote?
Makes sense. I'd be pretty pissed too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blayne, you are only sort of right. Black people were given the right to vote after the civil war. It was made explicit in the 15th amendment in 1870. However, there were lots of ways that black people were kept from voting, especially in the South. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and out and out violence. The Voting Rights Act in 1965 remedied some of this.
There is still some systemic disenfranchisement going on and I think that we still need to be vigilant about protecting the rights of black people (and poor people) to vote.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
this is a video of McCain supporters at the rally that I talked about in my other thread.
Apparently I wasn't the only one they were hurling their foul words at.
I feel a little sick to my stomach after watching that video.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I want to know where "liberal activists don't have jobs" meme got started. In the video Strider links to, all these people lined up to get in to hear McCain are telling people who are lined up (presumably holding anti-McCain signs) to get a job. Why is it that people who are attending a political rally presume that other people who are at the same event but for different reasons must be unemployed?
And this isn't a one off. I've participated in lots of progressive political rallies and "get a job" is one of the most common insults thrown. I'm a very busy person. I often work 12 hour days and at least part of the weekend. I get up at 5 am to teach a seminary class, volunteer with a number of civic groups. When I take time out of my schedule to participate in a political event, its because I consider it important to take a stand, important enough to make the time for it. I presume that most people both liberal and conservative are the same.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Yeah, I didn't get that either Rabbit. Like it's assumed that the people there to see McCain have just taken time out of their busy day to be there, and the people there who support Obama have nothing better to do with their time.
oh, and in reference to "presumably holding anti-McCain signs", at the end of the video you see them, and while there are some anti-McCain signs they are mostly pro-Obama signs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Yeah, I didn't get that either Rabbit. Like it's assumed that the people there to see McCain have just taken time out of their busy day to be there, and the people there who support Obama have nothing better to do with their time.
It's not so much that I don't get it. Its part of a really insidious liberal stereotype that really angers me. Several years ago my husband and I were scout master and assistant scout master for a boy scout troop. We were at a winter camporee where I happened to walk in on a conversation between two other adult leaders. The one was explaining to the other why he was no longer as involved in the Christian Coalition. He explained that although he hadl started the chapter of CC in his town, his wife had recently had a child and his work responsibilities had increased so he'd had to cut back on the time he spent with CC. He then followed this by saying "It's really not fair because liberals don't have these kinds of conflicts." He was seriously arguing that Liberals don't have families or jobs or churches or responsibilities like "real" people.
This attempt to dehumanize the opposition really angers me no matter which side it comes from. This is the first step in every war, every genocidal act, every crime against humanity. When you allow yourselves to believe that the opposition doesn't share the basic human needs, desires and responsibilities that you have, you have opened the door to something really ugly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:oh, and in reference to "presumably holding anti-McCain signs", at the end of the video you see them, and while there are some anti-McCain signs they are mostly pro-Obama signs.
Yeah but in this context (a McCain rally), a pro-Obama sign is virtually equivalent to an anti-McCain sign except that is a bit more up beat. I don't think that distinction is particularly relevant to the kind of people who were making these comments.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
true, my intent in pointing that out was simply to state that if the Obama supporters were standing there holding a bunch of signs attacking McCain(and hurling insults), I'd be just as disappointed and disgusted with them.
Though what gets me about the video is twofold. One side of it is the attacks, the other side is the ignorance.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why the hell do McCain supporters sing "God Bless America," or at the rallies chant "USA USA!" as a hand in hand measure to denounce Obama and prop up McCain? Specifically at the RNC convention when they did it to drown out the protesters? I mean, were they attempting to choke the protesters with the irony of drowning out dissent by chanting "USA USA"?
The thing about most of these people, if I had to guess is, even if Hillary Clinton was McCain's actual opponent, or someone else even, if the attack wasn't "Terrorist" and "Muslim" it'd just be something else. I think these are people that would never vote for a Democrat, and these are just this year's party lines, so they are repeating them like good little Republican foot soldiers. Some of this isn't McCain's fault directly, but he doesn't seem very interested in stopping it. There might have been a little bit of "Obama's a terrorist" before Palin started her ranting, if only because some people think both that he is a Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, ergo, Obama = Terrorist, but I don't think it would be as amped up as it is. But there is a broader war going on out there than just what McCain says in public statements. There are mailings, emails, advertisements, etc all going out to people to help formulate opinions outside of what CNN covers. I don't think he is responsible for what every person supporting him says, but his tacit approval of their behavior is enough to tarnish him I think.
If I were to guess what a line at the typical Obama rally was like, I'b bet you might get one or two people shouting something at protesters, but the Democratic side doesn't really have the one liner attacks that the Republicans do. Besides, shouting "eight more years of Bush's failed policies!" doesn't really have the same ring to it that "he's a terrorist" does. Even in the unofficial slogans we see the difference between an attempt at debate and an attempt to shut it down. I'm not sure how it'd go between the camera/interviewer guy and the average Democratic supporters. I think plenty of them would just regurgitate the campaign literature, like those people were doing, but I really think it would be mostly (true or untrue) policy related issues, rather than personal attacks.
The "get a job" thing I think has its roots in the 60's and 70's with Democratic students protesting this and that. I think "get a job" was a common attack against them, and it's just stuck and spread to all liberals everywhere. Which is ironic when you consider that without unions, Democrats probably wouldn't get elected in most places.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Dems should just respond to the terrorist thing with "McCain's old!"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The thing about most of these people, if I had to guess is, even if Hillary Clinton was McCain's actual opponent, or someone else even, if the attack wasn't "Terrorist" and "Muslim" it'd just be something else. I think these are people that would never vote for a Democrat, and these are just this year's party lines, so they are repeating them like good little Republican foot soldiers. Some of this isn't McCain's fault directly, but he doesn't seem very interested in stopping it. There might have been a little bit of "Obama's a terrorist" before Palin started her ranting, if only because some people think both that he is a Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, ergo, Obama = Terrorist, but I don't think it would be as amped up as it is. But there is a broader war going on out there than just what McCain says in public statements. There are mailings, emails, advertisements, etc all going out to people to help formulate opinions outside of what CNN covers. I don't think he is responsible for what every person supporting him says, but his tacit approval of their behavior is enough to tarnish him I think.
I think its more than tacit approval its strategy. Yes the letters and e-mails claiming Obama is a closet Muslim and was raised in a terrorist cell pre-date Palin's accusation that Obama "pals around with terrorists" and the McCain "too risky add". But I'm not generous enough to think its coincidence that those moves have fanned the flames. You can't use the word terrorist in 2008 and not have people think of Al Qaeda and 9/11. I sincerely doubt that even one person on hearing Palin make the comment that Obama "pals around with terrorists" didn't think of 911 and doubt that there more than a handful whose initial reaction was that she was referring to a University Professor and respected educational scholar who was accused but never charged or comvicted of domestic terrorism 40 years ago.
If it wasn't the intent of McCain and Palin to arouse fears that Obama has ties with Islamic terrorists, they need to strongly denounce those who have drawn that conclusion and apologize for what ever influence their comments and ads have had on these vicious and hatefilled rumors.
I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Also, Steven, would you stop that? Hatrack can only sustain a limited amount of irony in any given day. You're taking way more than your share."
You don't let shit go, do you, buddy?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Dems should just respond to the terrorist thing with "McCain's old!"
Often they have, and they really shouldn't do it in the manner they have done in the past. Back in 2000 Republicans more or less bandied about those same ideas, that McCain was so old he might be a bit crazy and unstable. It was a terrible thing to watch, and I wish McCain had been elected in 2000.
Lyrhawn: I agree the chants of USA USA seem like empty statements of patriotism. Although invoking patriotism as a way to stifle decent is as old as civilization I think there is a more recent dynamic at work. When people were protesting for civil rights in the 60's as well as against our involvement in Vietnam, at it's most fevered pitch were statements about America being out and out evil. Nixon saw the potential for taking advantage of this anti-American sentiment and gave his speech about the, "Silent majority." He quickly and efficiently portrayed protesters as long haired, dirty, jobless, promiscuous, drug addicted, ingrates, who were also the mouth piece of liberalism. Nixon also portrayed himself as the champion of average Joe's with a family, a full time job, community ties, religious convictions, and patriotism.
So to answer liberalism's, "G** D*** America!" Republicans started wearing flag pins on their lapels, and chanting, "USA! USA!" As if being patriotic meant you supported Nixon, whereas if you hated America you'd support the other guy. So it's little surprise to me that the anti-war protesters at the RNC were escorted out amidst chants of USA! USA! Many of those in the crowd would certainly remember Nixon's campaign.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rabbit -
I think originally it was tacit approval. Remember a LOT of this stuff started long before Obama had won the Democratic primary. In fact it started long before the voting had even started in the Democratic primary. I think it's somewhat farfetched to believe that the GOP, planning ahead of time for an unlikely Obama victory started digging for dirt and spreading rumors about him. There were no such rumors about candidates that in September of 07 were more viable than he was, namely Edwards, that weren't frontrunners.
When McCain and Obama officially became their parties' nominees, McCain did nothing to combat what was already out there, and probably didn't think that it was his job to do so. I'd sort of agree with that, but not really. Obama had to give a major address on race early on in his official campaign due to a large number of things that weren't his fault. I think McCain was responsible for giving a similar address to his supporters early on dispelling some of the myths about Obama and saying that he wanted to run a clean campaign against him. I think such an expectation is perfectly in keeping with our perceptions of 2000 McCain. Not doing so doesn't mean active support or encouragement, but it is tacit approval of their actions. He didn't vocally support them, but he also didn't speak out against them.
But when push came to shove and his polling numbers started tanking after the Palin stunt fizzled by mid September, he started really actively ratcheting up the rhetoric to stoke angry, visceral reactions from people over issues like terrorism. I think the RNC is responsible for maybe 80% of what is out there, with Palin and McCain taking advantage of that with the other 20%, but McCain is the leader of his party now, for better or for worse, and he's done nothing that can be ascertained to combat the actions of the party he's in charge of.
quote:But I'm not generous enough to think its coincidence that those moves have fanned the flames.
Me neither. I think it has certainly, intentionally fanned those flames. I guess my point was more that he didn't start the fire. He just added more wood and started making smores.
But people's opinions are formed in considerably wider atmospheres than just public speeches that McCain and Palin make, most of which are totally unseen by the majority of Americans. I think the number of gossipy emails treated as factual that get passed around and read by the average person would far supercede the amount of information gotten from campaign events where McCain and Palin give speeches for those same average people. The same with internet sites devoted to delivering false information.
quote:I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens.
Me neither. There ARE rumors starting to percolate that the McCain campaign has one last gasp effort coming in the next couple of days. The idea goes that they'll totally try and change the dynamic of their campaign by a wholesale change in their rhetoric and pledges to run a clean campaign. The idea is that this will allow them to push the "Maverick" angle because the RNC wants them to be even MORE aggressive in their attacks against Obama. I think that whole idea is fraught with stupidity. It hinges on the hope that it won't be painted as yet another erratic move. And I think it tacitly admits that their campaign was in fact negative before hand, otherwise why would they have to make a pledge to run a clean one?
I can't imagine he'd make such a move, especially since, quite frankly, his unfounded attacks really are probably the best chance he has to win. If he can keep it up, and then cross his fingers and hope that a still living bin Laden comes out with a message denouncing McCain and/or supporting Obama (which actually isn't outside the realm of possibility or probability) or some other such surprise even, or that the DOW has a couple more days like today (especially with gas prices falling like a rock), then people will stop caring about the economy so much and start paying more attention to the fact that Obama is a baby killing super SUPER liberal Arab Muslim terrorist loving commie who hates America and wants the government to control every single thing you do. When you're down 8 points, flinging mud and hoping for the best probably looks like a pretty attractive option, though it seems pretty silly when you've been doing it since you were down 2-3 points and it has only made things worse.
But that certainaly explains all the bumper stickers that say: McCain 08: Vote Cognitive Dissonance.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I were to guess what a line at the typical Obama rally was like, I'b bet you might get one or two people shouting something at protesters, but the Democratic side doesn't really have the one liner attacks that the Republicans do. Besides, shouting "eight more years of Bush's failed policies!" doesn't really have the same ring to it that "he's a terrorist" does. Even in the unofficial slogans we see the difference between an attempt at debate and an attempt to shut it down. I'm not sure how it'd go between the camera/interviewer guy and the average Democratic supporters. I think plenty of them would just regurgitate the campaign literature, like those people were doing, but I really think it would be mostly (true or untrue) policy related issues, rather than personal attacks.
My wife and I attended an Obama rally here in Vegas last month and I didn't see or hear anyone making any hateful remarks toward republicans. Of course, it was a big rally, so I'm sure there may have been some of that.
One thing that really stood out to me was the diversity of the crowd. There were plenty of white, black, hispanic and even Asian people present. And a huge number of young people. When I was living back in Pennsylvania I attended a couple Republican rallies that my cousin was involved with (he was a state congressman there) and there certainly wasn't nearly the diversity (granted, Vegas is more diverse in general than that area of Pennsylvania, but still...).
This weekend my wife and I also spent some time at the local Obama campaign headquarters on the phones and prepping flier packets and again, no hate talk there.
I grew up in a very Christian protestant conservative community, and I personally know some people who sound very much like the people you hear calling Obama a terrorist/Muslim/the anti-christ (and think Palin is GREAT!!!). I even respect a few of them who are otherwise intelligent people. The problem that I see with that demographic is that they confuse American politics with their religious beliefs. I understand voting for moral convictions, but I don't think any politician is going to lead this country into the kind of "religious" kingdom they seem to want, nor, in my opinion, should they.
-sigh-
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Lyrhawn: I agree the chants of USA USA seem like empty statements of patriotism. Although invoking patriotism as a way to stifle decent is as old as civilization I think there is a more recent dynamic at work. When people were protesting for civil rights in the 60's as well as against our involvement in Vietnam, at it's most fevered pitch were statements about America being out and out evil. Nixon saw the potential for taking advantage of this anti-American sentiment and gave his speech about the, "Silent majority." He quickly and efficiently portrayed protesters as long haired, dirty, jobless, promiscuous, drug addicted, ingrates, who were also the mouth piece of liberalism. Nixon also portrayed himself as the champion of average Joe's with a family, a full time job, community ties, religious convictions, and patriotism.
So you are claiming that Nixon is responsible for the Liberal's don't work meme? I'm willing to blame him for starting it, who are the people who keep perpetuating it?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
For the record, my comment was only about...7% serious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think originally it was tacit approval. Remember a LOT of this stuff started long before Obama had won the Democratic primary. In fact it started long before the voting had even started in the Democratic primary. I think it's somewhat farfetched to believe that the GOP, planning ahead of time for an unlikely Obama victory started digging for dirt and spreading rumors about him
I don't have even the slightest suspicion that the McCain campaign or the GOP started the Obama is a Muslim Terrorist rumors -- I just think that they are deliberately stoking the fire and fanning the flames. I find it a genuine pity that so many Americans believe this sort of crap, are not knowledge enough to know these things are lies and not motivated enough to do the minute amount of research it would take to check the facts.
I am also sorely disappointed that so few Americans, particularly those in the news media, are letting McCain get away with this. Forget about the details of Bill Ayers history and his association with Obama and ask the real question.
"John McCain when your running mate and your ads claimed that Obama was a close friend of terrorists, did you anticipate that so many people would associate that with the 9/11 attacks and link it to the untruthful rumors claiming that Obama was raised in a Muslim terrorist cell? If not, why haven't you publicly renounced these associations and the people who make them explicitly at your rallies? How could you miss the fact that for the last 7 years it has been impossible to use the word terrorist without evoking images of the 9/11 attacks and Islamic terrorism? Are you really that out of touch or are you trying to cash in on peoples fears and racial hatred.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Me neither. I think it has certainly, intentionally fanned those flames. I guess my point was more that he didn't start the fire. He just added more wood and started making smores.
Great, now I'm imagining John McCain in Billy Joel's place for the music video of 'We didn't start the fire.'
As far as that video is concerned. It makes me sad that the most vocal McCain supporters in the crowd's arguments were so ill-informed, but... what can you do? It's so easy to disprove those allegations, but for the vocal crowd, they just won't listen.
Note, that isn't a jab at all McCain supporters, just the ranting and raving ones in the line. I think there are many well informed McCain supporters who base it off policy and not baseless fear mongering. I just wish they'd become louder than the others.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:But that certainaly explains all the bumper stickers that say: McCain 08: Vote Cognitive Dissonance.
I saw one today that said:
Obama 08: He had me at common sense
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Give me a good reason to think she's doing no harm, if you can.
For one thing, she never persuades anyone...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"For one thing, she never persuades anyone... "
I certainly can't argue with that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Lyrhawn: I agree the chants of USA USA seem like empty statements of patriotism. Although invoking patriotism as a way to stifle decent is as old as civilization I think there is a more recent dynamic at work. When people were protesting for civil rights in the 60's as well as against our involvement in Vietnam, at it's most fevered pitch were statements about America being out and out evil. Nixon saw the potential for taking advantage of this anti-American sentiment and gave his speech about the, "Silent majority." He quickly and efficiently portrayed protesters as long haired, dirty, jobless, promiscuous, drug addicted, ingrates, who were also the mouth piece of liberalism. Nixon also portrayed himself as the champion of average Joe's with a family, a full time job, community ties, religious convictions, and patriotism.
So you are claiming that Nixon is responsible for the Liberal's don't work meme? I'm willing to blame him for starting it, who are the people who keep perpetuating it?
Don't mess with what worked so well in the past. I think when Obama wins, and assuming he wins reelection, we will see Republicans run a different sort of campaign. Negativity and character assassination attempts were at an all time high with Obama, but it just did not work. Liberal hating also did not work, and Obama again would have been a traditionally good target for that. BTW now that I've read my previous post over I realize that in no place did I state that I really dislike Nixon for using that tactic.
I REALLY don't like Nixon.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think Nixon was okay.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think when Obama wins
I don't believe in jinxing...but don't jinx it!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's sort of amusing, in a dark humored sort of way... First Palin says at the debate that she's there to speak to the American public, not to respond to what the moderator or her opponent say (apparently calling into question the good governor's understanding of the word "debate"), then McCain's campaign announces- announces!- That it isn't going to talk about the economic crisis. It would lapse over dark humor into sheer farce if there weren't a decent number of idiots that such tactics might actually work on...
Why must democracy sometimes seem to hinge on people with the receptiveness of a lonely puppy and the attention span of a goldfish?...
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
So just to sum up the direction that this thread, and the news media, are taking?
"Republicans are a bunch of frothy mouthed hate mongers. Aren't we a sweet bunch of people for not being name callers? I'm so glad we aren't negative in our feelings towards other people like those awful, awful Republicans."
But just think back to the Bush-Kerry election, when shots were fired into a republican campaign headquarters in Nashville Tennesee, protestors ransacked a campaign headquarters in Florida--man, the anti-Bush stuff got serious. Not just at campaign rallies, but all over. Way more intense than the "Anti-Obama" hatred that so much is being made of.
The fact is, anger and frustration are more a symptom of whatever side feels they've got more to prove, feels more desperate. Last time it was Kerry supporters. This time it's McCain's. Next time, who knows what it will be.
But, hey, what do I know?
McCain proabably really is the hate mongerer who is egging all these folks on, that he'd be happy to hear potential voters are being yelled at outside his rallies.
Carry on. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Why must democracy sometimes seem to hinge on people with the receptiveness of a lonely puppy and the attention span of a goldfish?"
Cuz within that group are the exact same people who are most easily goaded into violence when they feel they are being ignored. Elections are the means of having a continuous revolution by "ballots instead of bullets." Personally I'd rather be the target of ridiculous insults than a random victim of terrorism.
[ October 14, 2008, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
A large difference may be, and I could be wrong, that if Obama spoke against burning signs and using graffiti at one of his rallies, he wouldn't be booed by his own supporters.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
A large difference may be, and I could be wrong, that if Obama spoke against burning signs and using graffiti at one of his rallies, he wouldn't be booed by his own supporters.
The are plenty of stupid angry and mean people on all sides of politics. The real difference here is that Obama isn't running an ad campaign that paints Sarah Palin as a religious wacko who wants to start Armageddon and Biden isn't giving speeches at rallies that are obviously designed to provoke fear and hatred of old people.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
But just think back to the Bush-Kerry election, when shots were fired into a republican campaign headquarters in Nashville Tennesee, protestors ransacked a campaign headquarters in Florida--man, the anti-Bush stuff got serious. Not just at campaign rallies, but all over. Way more intense than the "Anti-Obama" hatred that so much is being made of.
There's an important difference between the examples you describe and the events decried by others in this thread. None of your examples happened at rallies led by the Democratic candidates.
I think most reasonable folks can admit that there are nutjobs on both sides. What people are objecting to here is not that Republicans are particularly overzealous or violently inclined, but rather, that the McCain campaign has, for the past few weeks, all but openly stoked those flames. When Palin claims that "Obama pals around with terrorists," and then allows shouts of "Kill him!" to go unanswered, she is playing to the mob mentality in a truly dangerous (and IMO despicable) way. Nothing approaching such fearmongering has, to my knowledge, ever occurred at any Obama or Biden rally.
I give John McCain some credit for trying to rein this behavior in during the past few days, but I agree with the others that bandaging a wound days afterward does not make up for having allowed that wound to bleed out and fester in the first place. You complain about anti-conservative media bias? How about the media claiming some sort of equivalency between these rallies and Obama making statements criticizing McCain's erratic behavior of late? That somehow this indicates that both campaigns have turned equally negative - how again is that "fair and balanced"?
Someone earlier made the cogent observation that virtually every major speech at the Democratic National Convention (including both Obama's and Biden's) included a significant segment dedicated to praising John McCain's heroism and sacrifices in Vietnam. No similar acknowledgment of Obama's character was ever made by their Republican counterparts until this past week, when people began to genuinely fear for Obama's safety. That in itself should tell you something.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And everyone's been more than understanding of Sarah Palin.
I see a world of difference between the kind of malicious lies that republican volunteers are spreading about Obama and the criticisms people are making about Sarah Palin.
Let me give an example. When Palin was first nominated, there was a rumor going around the blogosphere that her infant son was actually the son of her 16 year old daughter. The rumor was quickly refuted and has completely disappeared. In contrast, the rumor that Obama is a Muslim continues to be circulated and believed even after the big up roar over Obama's pastor that should have made it obvious to everyone that he was a member of a Christian Church.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Folks, you're not arguing against what I said. You're telling me that McCain supporters are more vitriolic right now. I never argued that. I made a couple of offhand comments about how there are nutjubs doing crazy stuff on the left, too, but my main point was this:
That it's always the candidate who's on bottom who goes negative, and it's always the candidate who's on bottom whose supporters, out of frustration, become crazier and crazier.
The party that's more popular generally gets the benifit of taking the high road.
Besides, Obama has a distinct advantage in trying to look like he's taking the high road in this election. The hatred he gets to tap into is the anti-George Bush hatred. He can say nice things about John McCain, and use the anti Bush sentiment to get elected.
If it had been Cheney running, do you really think the Democratic rallies would have come across as this cordial?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Seems more likely that a Republican operative tossed out that rumor of Palin adopting her own grandchild in hopes that some Democratic partisan IDIOTs would spread the lie. Cuz after all the brouhaha generated turns out to based on purely malicious gossip, nobody cares when her unwed daughter turns up pregnant. The only folks who woulda cared are those who vote Republican, and they've already been maneuvered into defending Palin and her daughter.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The Onion reports a possible game-changer for McCain:
quote:WASHINGTON—With Republican nominee John McCain continuing to flounder at the polls, the unknown force that orders the universe announced yesterday that Scott Bakula has entered the body of the struggling Arizona senator in order to "help him out of a real jam."
Bakula, who was last seen jumping from the body of a fighter pilot he helped to escape the Bermuda Triangle, will reportedly spend the next three days in the 72-year-old's body, where he will attempt to solve the financial crisis and learn to respect the opinions of young people. Bakula will then be jolted unexpectedly through time into a 1950s-era African-American man, before next landing in the body of a free-loving female Woodstock attendee who must make a very difficult decision about abortion.
Witnesses said they first detected a difference in McCain's demeanor yesterday, when he paused suddenly in the middle of a speech about Obama's tax policies, shook his head and demanded to know what year it was. Others were reportedly confused when McCain abruptly left the stage to find a mirror and softly touched his face while whispering to himself, "Oh, boy. Who am I this time?"
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Folks, you're not arguing against what I said. You're telling me that McCain supporters are more vitriolic right now.
Wrong. You should re-read our posts. We are criticizing the McCain campaign's handling of their more vitriolic supporters (i.e. barely stopping short of egging them on). Hell, I specifically said in my post that both sides have nutjobs, and never made any claims about their relative number.
Again, let me reiterate: both sides have loonies. That is not the issue. The issue is how the two campaigns have dealt with their respective loonies. And there is absolutely zero equivalency there.
quote:That it's always the candidate who's on bottom who goes negative, and it's always the candidate who's on bottom whose supporters, out of frustration, become crazier and crazier.
The party that's more popular generally gets the benifit of taking the high road.
Perhaps so, but that doesn't justify the Republican party leadership taking the low road themselves.
Being down by three runs in the bottom of the eighth does not make it permissible to allow your fans to shout death threats against the other team's manager.
quote:Besides, Obama has a distinct advantage in trying to look like he's taking the high road in this election. The hatred he gets to tap into is the anti-George Bush hatred. He can say nice things about John McCain, and use the anti Bush sentiment to get elected.
The "high road" Obama is taking has nothing to do with attacking George Bush versus John McCain. It's in directing his attacks towards Bush and McCain's policies rather than their character. And unfortunately for the Republicans, it seems that this sort of issues-based campaign is what resonates with the majority of voters this year. Swift-boating doesn't work quite as well in 2008 as it did in 2004. And thank god for that.
quote:If it had been Cheney running, do you really think the Democratic rallies would have come across as this cordial? [/QB]
Probably not, but since he isn't, this point is sort of irrelevant. Regardless, I doubt that an Obama supporter shouting "Kill Cheney" or shouting racial epithets at a Fox News reporter would have been tolerated by the folks running the campaign.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
My absentee ballot came today.
--j_k
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Folks, you're not arguing against what I said. You're telling me that McCain supporters are more vitriolic right now. I never argued that. I made a couple of offhand comments about how there are nutjubs doing crazy stuff on the left, too, but my main point was this:
That it's always the candidate who's on bottom who goes negative, and it's always the candidate who's on bottom whose supporters, out of frustration, become crazier and crazier.
Well... It's worth pointing out the famous example of the geurilla reporters who went to a Bush rally in Kerry t-shirts, and vice versa, and the respective receptions they received.
But then, it may not be an apropos example; the Bush-Kerry race was actually quite close, and many Kerry supporters thought up until the last moment that their candidate would win.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Cuz within that group are the exact same people who are most easily goaded into violence when they feel they are being ignored. Elections are the means of having a continuous revolution by "ballots instead of bullets." Personally I'd rather be the target of ridiculous insults than a random victim of terrorism.
*sigh* Yeah, I know. Like so many things, though, I can't help but wish that the notion of democratic election based on the wise concensus of an informed electorate didn't seem to be such a distant dream.
To be clear, I realize there are real reasons that one could believe that voting for McCain is in the best interests of the country, though I disagree with the idea. I just get frustrated with people who seem to take each new sound bite at face value.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can't even begin to count the ways this guy is wrong.
quote: “There are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens,” said Arnold Conrad, the former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Davenport.
And why would a campaign invite someone to speak at a rally if they are going to "distance themselves" afterward? Did they not vet this guy or his remarks beforehand? This is not some random rally attender. This is a guy that someone invited to speak.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
If elected, Obama has a chance to start something new and special. Will he or can he I don't know, but i do feel he has the chance, he is a fresh start for 50% of Americans, and a fresh face for the world. His party has no real, theme, message of foundation at the moment, Obama would be given the chance to create one and lead his people.
If elected, Mccain will be forced to re-inforce the old tradition ways. Tax cuts, big business, military pissing contests, fighting for the unborn, and throwing stones at homosexuals. His own party doesnt like him very much, so i doubt they will really be swayed by what ever maverick ideas he has. The base on his and republican economics is, Big business provides jobs, and Rich people pay sooo much more in taxes than poor people, so they need the most help. This doesnt work in a 10 corporations run the world scenario.
Obama has a chance to change the world, Mccain doesn't.
I'm not saying he will, but it is one of the reasons I am voting for him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:*sigh* Yeah, I know. Like so many things, though, I can't help but wish that the notion of democratic election based on the wise concensus of an informed electorate didn't seem to be such a distant dream.
I know the feeling.
Sometimes I wonder what things would be like if we didn't run elections as democratically as we do now, and instead ran them as more of the republic that the founders envisioned. We might not have direct elections in this country, but we might as well. Citizens never used to directly elect Senators, state legislatures did that. In the initial election (Washington), there weren't parties, and Vice presidents didn't run with presidents as a ticket. The founders figured that the leading statesmen of the day would all run, to be chosen by the smartest or best informed people chosen by their peers to choose the president, which would be the electoral college. Should the president die, then the second most qualified person would step in, and the whole notion of unknown and unqualified VPs would never have come into existance, and in fact might have forestalled some of the worst presidencies in our history, like Tyler and Andrew Johnson, and would have made a Palin VP run a near impossibility, at least in 2008.
Major political parties totally ruined the form of republican democracy that the founders envisioned, and we all took the ball and ran with it from there. I'm not saying that the original form was necessarily better, in fact I think with some adjustments our current system could be better, but as it is? I think when we get good presidents it has more to do with luck than with good decision making skills on the part of the electorate. Lincoln wasn't elected because he was the best qualified, that probably would have been Seward, but he was the most electable high profile person in the Republican party, and he ended up being possibly the best man for the job and the country, and one of our best presidents ever. We got lucky. We got lucky with FDR too. Maybe we'll get lucky this time around, I don't know.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I would have serious problems returning to a more republican format for electing the President. Its a highly elitist concept and given the way things work, I suspect that the electoral college wouldn't consist of the smartest and most well informed but rather of the richest and most well connected which would be a disaster.
I think we'd do much better with a genuine direct election of the President but I'd like to see a non-partisan election the way many mayoral elections are held. Rather than having parties nominate their candidates who are then given a spot on the general election ballot, we would have one nation wide primary held about 2 months before the general election. Everyone regardless of party affiliation would have to petition to be on the primary ballot. If parties wanted to endorse a candidate, they could but they would have no authority to prevent other party members from being on the primary ballot and no recognition of their endorsement on the ballot itself. The primary would be an instant run off election, and the top two candidates would then select running mates and be placed on the final election ballot.
I know its unlikely to ever happen, but I think it would lead to less partisanship and a more diverse slate of candidates. Since candidates wouldn't have to cater to a particular party to be nominated, I think we'd get more genuine centrists and more candidates who actually think for themselves rather than regurgitate a party platform that is the marriage of strange bedfellows. We might, for example, get a candidate who was antiabortion and anti-death penalty, or a candidate who favored gun rights and lower military spending.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think when Obama wins
I don't believe in jinxing...but don't jinx it!
My political analysis teacher Dr. Jay DeSart coauthored a statistical projection of this years election with Dr. Thomas Holbrook that actually made it's way to the Wall Street Journal's online blog.
99.99% in a statistical study is pretty decisive, you should see the angry responses on KSL's website. Apparently cold emotionless math can still be railed at.
As for his reliability, he predicted Bush winning the race last election within .4% of the actual vote. He also predicted the percentage of Gore's popular vote in 2000.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I wonder if they accounted for the difference between Obama's polls and the actual votes he tended to get in the primaries. I've been subtracting about 5 points from anything the polls say.
I also disagree with them on the 60 something percent chance of Florida going Democrat. Sure, he'll win in the cities, but there were more folks in the rural areas back in 2000 and 2004. Obama might take Florida, but I think it'll be close either way.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Absentee Ballot sent in today. Hoping to turn Virginia blue.
According that site, Obama's forecasted to get only 52.95% of the popular vote. Regardless of who wins, this country is still a house divided.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I also disagree with them on the 60 something percent chance of Florida going Democrat. Sure, he'll win in the cities, but there were more folks in the rural areas back in 2000 and 2004. Obama might take Florida, but I think it'll be close either way."
a 60% chance of winning a state probably means that the state is within a couple percentage points. I'd say thats fairly close.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
curious, what was mcCain's platform in 2000?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I wonder if they accounted for the difference between Obama's polls and the actual votes he tended to get in the primaries. I've been subtracting about 5 points from anything the polls say.
I also disagree with them on the 60 something percent chance of Florida going Democrat. Sure, he'll win in the cities, but there were more folks in the rural areas back in 2000 and 2004. Obama might take Florida, but I think it'll be close either way.
The Bradley effect is what you are referring to, and analysts have been tracking it since 1982. Studies have suggested that the effect has been diminishing over time. I believe currently if you give the Bradley effect the full extent of it's power, you subtract 6 percentage points from the black candidate. Remember though, if you subtract 6 points, you are saying that Obama is as polarizing a figure as you can get in a black candidate. I think his mixed heritage along with his very concerted effort to distance himself from the "discontent minority" stereotype will significantly erode the Bradley Effect in this instance. I wouldn't give that effect more than two maybe three points in Obama's case.
Of course the poll data will continue to fluctuate until election day, but I think the momentum is clearly in Obama's favor and at worst support for Obama will remain around it's current level.
edit: In Obama's case there is also a curious "Reverse Bradley Effect" that analysts are attempting to account for. The Bradley Effect seems to slightly effect Obama's actual vote in states with below 10% black population, but in 25+% black population states his performance is understated based on polls.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I would have serious problems returning to a more republican format for electing the President. Its a highly elitist concept and given the way things work, I suspect that the electoral college wouldn't consist of the smartest and most well informed but rather of the richest and most well connected which would be a disaster.
I think we'd do much better with a genuine direct election of the President but I'd like to see a non-partisan election the way many mayoral elections are held. Rather than having parties nominate their candidates who are then given a spot on the general election ballot, we would have one nation wide primary held about 2 months before the general election. Everyone regardless of party affiliation would have to petition to be on the primary ballot. If parties wanted to endorse a candidate, they could but they would have no authority to prevent other party members from being on the primary ballot and no recognition of their endorsement on the ballot itself. The primary would be an instant run off election, and the top two candidates would then select running mates and be placed on the final election ballot.
I know its unlikely to ever happen, but I think it would lead to less partisanship and a more diverse slate of candidates. Since candidates wouldn't have to cater to a particular party to be nominated, I think we'd get more genuine centrists and more candidates who actually think for themselves rather than regurgitate a party platform that is the marriage of strange bedfellows. We might, for example, get a candidate who was antiabortion and anti-death penalty, or a candidate who favored gun rights and lower military spending.
I don't much like the idea of returning to a super republican way of doing things either, but that having been said, I think our current system needs some major overhauls. Maybe my biggest change would be to go back to the President and Vice President running separately. Even if that means that the P and VP are of different parties. I don't think the VP should get a virtual free ride. People vote top of the ticket and then when the top of the ticket dies they get stuck with whoever was the most politically advantageous rather than who is the best guy for the job. I think they should run separately. If they want to campaign together then fine.
I also want Congressional term limits. Or maybe some sort of rule to let the really good politicians stay, like you have to get better than 70% of the vote in your district or state to even be on the ballot after you've already been in Washington for two terms. It's the entrenched long term incumbents who I think do most of the damage to our country. I think things were better when the turnover rate was higher.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I wonder if they accounted for the difference between Obama's polls and the actual votes he tended to get in the primaries. I've been subtracting about 5 points from anything the polls say.
I also disagree with them on the 60 something percent chance of Florida going Democrat. Sure, he'll win in the cities, but there were more folks in the rural areas back in 2000 and 2004. Obama might take Florida, but I think it'll be close either way.
A lot of the polls were just fine in the primaries. The only one that was really, really off was New Hampshire and to a lesser extent Iowa, and that has far less to do with the Bradley Effect than it does the way the polls were conducted. Obama's greatest strength in the primaries was blacks and young people. Those two groups were undersampled in the Iowa polls, so Clinton and Edwards were stronger in the polls than reality. For New Hampshire, polling groups OVERsampled those two groups at the expense of seniors and women where Clinton was strong, so her resulting victory wouldn't have been a surprise if the polling had been done differently.
The Bradley Effect is when people lie about who they voted for because they don't want to appear racist, but there's no evidence that in those early races such an Effect actually took place. The fact that Obama had done so well in overwhelmingly white states like Iowa I think is good anecdotal evidence to the contrary of the supposed Effect.
I think Obama's chances are better than 50/50 in Florida, mostly becaus of registration rolls. Democrats are up by over a hundred thousand, and Republicans are down by more than that number. I think it'll be a close state, but he has a good chance this year, both considering the fact that the ground game there is better than it was over the last 8 years, and the fact that the governor doesn't at all appear interested in helping McCain in the final weeks of the eletion. To say nothing of the fact that the large student population in Florida is more motivated than they've maybe ever been. It'll offset, to a small degree, the senior vote that might go to McCain.
I think there might be a Bradley Effect, but like BlackBlade says, it's probably only 1-3 points at best. But like BB also mentioned, the "Reverse" Bradley Effect might be the real game changer. Black turnout is expected to be at its highest rate EVER in history in this election, and it's expected that he'll get 95% of the black vote, which might put states like Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia over the top. McCain could win Ohio AND Florida in that case and still lose the election. Not even counting the tens to hundreds of thousands of new black voters in some of these states, and I've seen some of the registration numbers, it's staggering, the enthusiasm gap is going to more than make up for the Bradley Effect I think.
I think it's going to make for some surprising results on election night.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Even if that means that the P and VP are of different parties.
You don't think that would result in even more partisan bickering? At this point anyway? I mean, the contrasting ideals of the two parties won't exactly disappear even if their influence is diminished.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Other than taking over the presidency in the case of the president's death, the VP doesn't have any obligations or powers. In other words, he doesn't even need to be in DC. He can sit at home and wait to be called on, if that should happen. In 220 some odd years we've had how many VPs take over for the president? 3? Harrison/Tyler, Lincoln/Johnson and JFK/Johnson. It isn't something that's going to happen very often, but when it does, I'd like the guy who takes over to be qualified for the job, and actually have people look at him when he's chosen.
But no, I don't think it would result in even more bickering. I think by and large the same party would get elected to both seats. I think if the party took over, they'd be forced to put up an electable VP, instead of just someone who has once facet that makes the actually presidential candidate more electable. I think once the parties got ahold of it, we'd get better quality VP candidates and they'd still get elected in pairs, but the real result is to force the parties to offer up better candidates or risk the opposing party's VP getting in instead.
Posted by TheBlueShadow (Member # 9718) on :
More than three VPs have taken over because eight have died in office. Four from assassination, four from natural causes.
William Henry Harrison - John Tyler Zachary Taylor - Millard Fillmore Abraham Lincoln - Andrew Johnson James A. Garfield - Chester A. Arthur William McKinley - Teddy Roosevelt Warren Harding - Calvin Coolidge Franklin D. Roosevelt - Harry S Truman John F. Kennedy - Lyndon B. Johnson
ETA: Richard Nixon - Gerald Ford Not a death but that makes nine presidents that didn't last through their term.
[ October 15, 2008, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: TheBlueShadow ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Other than taking over the presidency in the case of the president's death, the VP doesn't have any obligations or powers. In other words, he doesn't even need to be in DC. He can sit at home and wait to be called on, if that should happen. In 220 some odd years we've had how many VPs take over for the president? 3? Harrison/Tyler, Lincoln/Johnson and JFK/Johnson. It isn't something that's going to happen very often, but when it does, I'd like the guy who takes over to be qualified for the job, and actually have people look at him when he's chosen.
But no, I don't think it would result in even more bickering. I think by and large the same party would get elected to both seats. I think if the party took over, they'd be forced to put up an electable VP, instead of just someone who has once facet that makes the actually presidential candidate more electable. I think once the parties got ahold of it, we'd get better quality VP candidates and they'd still get elected in pairs, but the real result is to force the parties to offer up better candidates or risk the opposing party's VP getting in instead.
You forgot Nixon/Ford. =P
I agree with this sentiment about VPs. But something I thought I'd ask for a bit more elaboration from on you is more specifics on why you think there should be congressional term limits.
The way I figure, we do have some checks in the system on them. They can be challenged and taken off the ticket in the primary, and that usually will work on getting them out. (I say usually because Lieberman springs to mind.) For example in my own congressional district, incumbent Chris Cannon was defeated in the primaries by new comer Jason Chaffetz. Now, I probably would have preferred Cannon to Chaffetz, but what can I do? I couldn't have voted in that primary, what with not being a Republican. Then there are elections, which is sort of a limit on the terms they can serve.
I ask this because I think there are very successful representatives that a majority would like to keep in office because they do continue to represent their constituency valiantly.
I don't like it when an incumbent loses their connection with their constituency. But I lean towards the belief that it's better to have no congressional limits, and just hope and pray that the people will do their research and vote for who they think will represent themselves the best.
That said, I could be swayed the other way. I only lean towards my belief and would be authentically interested to hear why you believe in limits.
Edit to add: The Nixon/Ford bit was to Lyrhawn, specifically. But I think it still applies because he wasn't included on the list above mine. Then again, the list above mine are only presidents who died in office.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: The Bradley effect is what you are referring to, and analysts have been tracking it since 1982.
Thanks, guys. I'd never heard of such a thing. And was it really only two polls that were off? I thought I remembered it being more dramatic than that. Maybe that's the key. The wannabe writer saw drama.
Also thanks to Paul. I suppose I confused a 60% chance with a 60% win.
I'm still curious how the youth vote will work out for Obama. Tradiationally, they're a group that just doesn't vote. They get something like a 3% turnout in normal circumstances? Obama could double their numbers and still not end up with much return on his investment.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
In an earlier posting, Strider shared the news that Christopher Buckley - son of William F Buckley - in a blog piece titled "Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama".
Christopher Buckley had been writing the back page essay in the National Review. No more. His latest entry on "The Daily Beast" is Buckley Bows Out of National Review:
quote:I had gone out of my way in my Beast endorsement to say that I was not doing it in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column, because of the experience of my colleague, the lovely Kathleen Parker. Kathleen had written in NRO that she felt Sarah Palin was an embarrassment. (Hardly an alarmist view.) This brought 12,000 livid emails, among them a real charmer suggesting that Kathleen’s mother ought to have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a dumpster. I didn’t want to put NR in an awkward position.
Since my Obama endorsement, Kathleen and I have become BFFs and now trade incoming hate-mails. No one has yet suggested my dear old Mum should have aborted me, but it’s pretty darned angry out there in Right Wing Land. One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.” One thoughtful correspondent, who feels that I have “betrayed”—the b-word has been much used in all this—my father and the conservative movement generally, said he plans to devote the rest of his life to getting people to cancel their subscriptions to National Review.
****
Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Some more quotes from Buckley that were on CNN.
quote:"While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for," Buckley wrote.
"Eight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case," he also wrote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I had gone out of my way in my Beast endorsement to say that I was not doing it in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column, because of the experience of my colleague, the lovely Kathleen Parker. Kathleen had written in NRO that she felt Sarah Palin was an embarrassment. (Hardly an alarmist view.) This brought 12,000 livid emails, among them a real charmer suggesting that Kathleen’s mother ought to have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a dumpster. I didn’t want to put NR in an awkward position.
Since my Obama endorsement, Kathleen and I have become BFFs and now trade incoming hate-mails. No one has yet suggested my dear old Mum should have aborted me, but it’s pretty darned angry out there in Right Wing Land. One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.” One thoughtful correspondent, who feels that I have “betrayed”—the b-word has been much used in all this—my father and the conservative movement generally, said he plans to devote the rest of his life to getting people to cancel their subscriptions to National Review.
Now, honestly, at this point, I go back to when orson scott card was leaning on the hatemail he received to be used as an exhibit to judge aspects of those with whom he disagreed.
Something said there resonates here. To detail it any further turns it into a cheap shot. But unsurprisingly, it turns out to be a white noise beneath the signal of everyone's ideology.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow I missed a lot of dead presidents, but I think that only serves to emphasize my point. I can't believe I forgot FDR. Sorry, my brain is focused on antebellum US history at the moment because of this class I'm taking.
quote:From Vadon: But I lean towards the belief that it's better to have no congressional limits, and just hope and pray that the people will do their research and vote for who they think will represent themselves the best.
I don't really have that kind of faith left. Incumbency breed inefficiency in my opinion. Goverment used to work better when there were higher turnover rates. People that stay there forever gather too much power around themselves and get their hands in too many pots. They develop enemies that make it hard for the best interests of the nation to be the highest regard because personal relationships are often so important these days in getting legislation passed. I think the more they stay there forever and entrench themselves, the more they'll be sucked in to the party affiliation machine that forces them to see the other side as the enemy instead of just other Americans they disagree with. It's a vicious circle that only strengthens the longer they are there. Forcing the party leadership to turnover so often will knock out a certain degree of that hyperpartisanship and antipathy that builds up.
Plus I think these guys just get in there and stay forever without always having a lot to show for it. I want new people to come in and have to constantly prove their worth to stay there rather than voting for the guy I've always voted for just because I've always voted for him.
quote:From AvidReader: I'm still curious how the youth vote will work out for Obama. Tradiationally, they're a group that just doesn't vote. They get something like a 3% turnout in normal circumstances? Obama could double their numbers and still not end up with much return on his investment.
The youth turnout rate is considerably higher. The 18-24 crowd gets a bad rap for being deadbeats, and comparatively to the other age groups they are, but it's not like NONE of them vote. The problem with youth voting statistics is that you can't really nail them down since they can dramatically shift in any given race. Some quick stats for 18-24 year old voting trends:
1994: 26% 2000: 36% 2002: 22% 2004: 47%
25+ age groups tend to vote in the high 60's to low 70's as a percentage, whereas the under 25 crowd votes anywhere fromt he low 20's to mid 50's depending on what year it is and what is going on. Turnout for midterm years tenrs to average in the low 20's, but for presidential election years it can be mid-30's to low 50's. It seems to depend entirely on what is going on and who is running. In 2000 it looks like relatively few people care about Bush/Gore, but four years later there was an 11 point spike in youth turnout, much of which broke for Kerry. Voter turnout for the under 25 age group has already broken all records in pretty much every primary state.
Let's try it this way: In the 2002 midterm election, the under 25 crowd made up 5% of the total votes cast that year with a turnout rate of 19.4% for their age group. In the 2004 election they were 9% of the total votes cast, with a turnout rate of 46.7%. Estimates for this year suggest that the youth vote could come closer to representing their actual numbers in the population, which is in the low 20's as a percent of the total population. If their participation spikes to 60% of the total number eligible, and if they break in numbers for Obama that have been suggested so far, it could give him a national one or two point bump. That's how you win elections.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Lyrhawn,
Thanks for that breakdown of young voter turnout.
I'm probably stating the obvious to you, but part of the "how" in winning elections that way is leaving as little as possible to luck or faith.
The Obama organizational operation has been largely underreported. Not that there hasn't been anything written, just relatively little. If Obama wins with a big turnout of supporters, expect to see lots of stories on this after the election.
quote:In 2004, Democrats watched as any chance of defeating President Bush slipped away in a wave of Republican turnout that exceeded even the goal-beating numbers that their own side had produced.
Four years later, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign intends to avoid a repeat by building an organization modeled in part on what Karl Rove used to engineer Bush's victory: a heavy reliance on local volunteers to pitch to their own neighbors, micro-targeting techniques to identify persuadable independents and Republicans using consumer data, and a focus on exurban and rural areas.
But in scale and ambition, the Obama organization goes beyond even what Rove built. The campaign has used its record-breaking fundraising to open more than 700 offices in more than a dozen battleground states, pay several thousand organizers and manage tens of thousands more volunteers.
In many states, the Democratic candidate is hewing more closely to the Rove organizational model than is rival Sen. John McCain, whose emphasis on ground operations has been less intensive and clinical than that of his Republican predecessor.
It's a long article and one worth reading. Their efforts obviously haven't faced the real test yet, but if this machine does what it is supposed to do, the Obama victory could be greater than the poll projections.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Buckley's treatment is indeed regretable. After reading alot about Wililam Buckley, (the father) I can't help but believe he would be taking a very similar position to his son. He would probably have a brilliant way of expressing those sentiments, but the sentiment would be there nonetheless.
It's unfortunate that we don't have more conservatives intelligently advocating the position. I wish I wasn't part of the problem
edited because obvious facts ought not to be ignored.
[ October 15, 2008, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:After reading alot about Jeff Buckley, (the father)
I believe his father was William F. Buckley Jr., where did you get Jeff?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:After reading alot about Jeff Buckley, (the father)
I believe his father was William F. Buckley Jr., where did you get Jeff?
I...don't know.
Early onset dementia?
But you are right it's William. Will edit.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Wow, Lyr. That's amazing. I was watching the news when I got the 3% number. That's some really bad journalism there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
sndrake -
That's half of why I think this election is already over, and why I think Obama will win in a blowout landslide. Obama's organizational get out the vote efforts have been unprecedented, and in a 21st century that has seen groundgame taken to new heights for both of the last elections, that's really saying something. They're identifying who can be convinced, convincing them, and then making sure that they get them to the polls on election day. It's widespread, well funded and methodical.
The other big reason is just enthusiasm. Most every Obama supporter I've spoken to is itching to vote for him. That's not to say there isn't McCain enthusiasm, I'm sure there is, but it's far bigger on the other side. Look at early voting. In the last two elections Bush took early voting I think by a 2:1 ratio. Right now Obama is ahead by a fair amount, I don't remember the numbers, but that's a big turnaround. Generally an extreme minority of early voters wish they could have changed their votes after the fact, so it's not like this is a big advantage to lock in votes (though it might be for some), it's really just telling in the enthusiasm that people have for getting their vote out there.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Did the last time the P and VP were voted independent of one another, one shot the other? Just sayin'.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Burr was Jefferson's VP and he shot Alexander Hamilton, who didn't hold a position in the government at the time of his death. The 12 amendment was passed that year or soon after (I can't remember) to make it so P and VP were elected separately and thus parties running P/VP tickets came into being. Only four elections took place under the original formula. Two of them resulted in Washington/Adams. The third resulted in Adams/Jefferson, which was really an awful pairing since Jefferson was a backstabbing jerk. The fourth resulted in Jefferson/Burr, and near the end of the term Burr shot and killed Hamilton.
But even so, look at most of the men involved. Adams, Washington, Jefferson; if any of them had died, there wouldn't have been a serious argument that whichever among them had to fill in wasn't up to the task. They had policy disagreements, but they were smart capable men, and in the case of Adams and Jefferson anyway, they both found that pre-presidential ideologies didn't mean the same thing once they got to the White House. Especially in Jefferson's case.
Still, my point isn't to get men and women of different parties into the White House, I'm not TRYING to rile the nation up. The idea really is to force the parties to put up good VP candidates for fear of a more qualified opposition being elected. This year; Biden would have been chosen, Palin wouldn't have been. I don't think Edwards would have been chosen, or Cheney either time. Gore is probably the last VP candidate who people would likely have willingly voted for if the matters were separated.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: The Obama organizational operation has been largely underreported. Not that there hasn't been anything written, just relatively little.
quote:Let’s be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.
Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain’s people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we “just missed.” No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. “Call time,” for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain’s people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we’re told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we “just missed it” again.
The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it's a whirlwind. People move. It's a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.
Up to this point, we’ve been giving McCain's ground campaign a lot of benefit of the doubt. We can’t stop convincing ourselves that there must – must – be a warehouse full of 1,000 McCain volunteers somewhere in a national, central location just dialing away. This can’t be all they’re doing. Because even in a place like Colorado Springs, McCain’s ground campaign is getting blown away by the Obama efforts. It doesn't mean Obama will win Colorado Springs, but it means Obama's campaign will not look itself in the mirror afterward and ask, "what more could we have done?"
You could take every McCain volunteer we’ve seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama’s single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I still think Obama loses by a healthy margin, with respect to the electoral college. He'll lose a few points because of race, but mostly, he'll lose because America is a conservative country, and Obama isn't changing their minds. Obama isn't making new democrats, real democrats. He is a right-leaning tofuy democrat who people assume is more principled and liberal because he is black. He is pro-death penalty, anti-affirmative action, pro-NCLB(his just wants to throw money at it), pro-FISA, mealy on guns, cutting taxes, pro-aggression, and silent on immigration. If he were white, he'd be Evan Byah.) And if Obama loses, I think it's going to be because when given a choice between a wishy/washy democrat and an ostensibly straight-talking republican, they are going take the real deal.
I could be wrong about everything, and Obama wins it in a walk, but I don't think that's going to be the case.
[ October 16, 2008, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
Lyrhawn, you said:
quote: 25+ age groups tend to vote in the high 60's to low 70's as a percentage, whereas the under 25 crowd votes anywhere fromt he low 20's to mid 50's depending on what year it is and what is going on. Turnout for midterm years tenrs to average in the low 20's, but for presidential election years it can be mid-30's to low 50's. It seems to depend entirely on what is going on and who is running. In 2000 it looks like relatively few people care about Bush/Gore, but four years later there was an 11 point spike in youth turnout, much of which broke for Kerry. Voter turnout for the under 25 age group has already broken all records in pretty much every primary state.
No joke! I'm 26 now, but when I've turned up to vote in my district in the past, I've easily been the youngest in the room. I get a look from those waiting to vote as if to say 'Oh my, what is this strange creature who's arrived?' and the volunteers usually ask me if I need help finding the office (as though I couldn't possibly be there to vote-the polling places are mostly at the elementary schools here). Both my husband and I vote on local issues as well as during midterm years.
It's pretty ridiculous, since both my husband and I try to stay politically aware as well as keep up with current events. We have family overseas, so we have to keep up with international events or we might miss something important (like the time that their American compound was attacked by terrorists, that was a little too exciting). We went so far as to throw a get-together to watch the debate with some of our friends this evening.
People may say that the youth of this generation is slovenly, but even slovenly people vote.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: He is a right-leaning tofuy democrat who people assume is more principled and liberal because he is black.
That's hilarious. He's as left-wing as they come. The fact that he's trying to obscure that a bit during the presidential race is purely because he's a politician and wants to win.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: He is a right-leaning tofuy democrat who people assume is more principled and liberal because he is black.
That's hilarious. He's as left-wing as they come. The fact that he's trying to obscure that a bit during the presidential race is purely because he's a politician and wants to win.
A statement that could only have been made by someone who really has no clue how far left the left wing goes. Its the sort of conclusion people make when they are far right wing but assume that they are nearly centrists so from their highly distorted perspective, the center looks so far left its off the screen.
Both Obama and McCain are to the right of any of Europe's conservative parties. They are both to the right of the Republican platforms of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Even many (although certainly not all) of the statements made by Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley are to the left of Obama's platform.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm a big fan of Christopher Buckley's novels. I am actually surprised that he stayed conservative for as long as he did. He does not come across as conservative in his books at all.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I think your problem with making a nationwide prediction is that you've listed all the reasons why YOU won't vote for him and have then projected those reasons onto the nation.
Obama is going to win like 10,000% of the Black vote, he'll win the youth vote which if projections hold even slightly will be the highest it's been in a generation. He'll women the women's vote, the educated vote, the union vote and a lot of other votes as well.
I think that comparatively among American politics, Americans do tend to swerve Conservative on SOCIAL issues, but A. Social issues are taking a back seat to economic issues, which the majority of Americans tend to automatically give to Democrats. B. America has been trending more liberal for the last decade, either as a natural progression or as a response to what they see as Conservatism gone awry. I also think you're overconfident about McCain's popularity, regardless of the party label he's wrapped himself in.
Lisa -
If even half of what he says is true (and I know that you don't believe in at least half of what he says) he's more centrist than most national level Democrats. I wish he were more traditionally liberal in a half dozen areas than he really is. If anything I hope you're right and he's the liberalliest liberal that ever was and sneaks in. I might get some of what I want. But I don't think you are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I could be wrong about everything, and Obama wins it in a walk, but I don't think that's going to be the case.
You are wrong about everything, you have delivered statement after statement in this thread that make no sense and in earnest have no conceptual reasoning that I can attach to reality, and at least you are setting yourself up for an admission of sorts.
quote:He's as left-wing as they come.
Except for, of course, people who are actually far left.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I still think Obama loses by a healthy margin, with respect to the electoral college. He'll lose a few points because of race, but mostly, he'll lose because America is a conservative country, and Obama isn't changing their minds. Obama isn't making new democrats, real democrats. He is a right-leaning tofuy democrat who people assume is more principled and liberal because he is black. He is pro-death penalty, anti-affirmative action, pro-NCLB(his just wants to throw money at it), pro-FISA, mealy on guns, cutting taxes, pro-aggression, and silent on immigration. If he were white, he'd be Evan Byah.) And if Obama loses, I think it's going to be because when given a choice between a wishy/washy democrat and an ostensibly straight-talking republican, they are going take the real deal.
I could be wrong about everything, and Obama wins it in a walk, but I don't think that's going to be the case.
And the current electorial predictions with him winning by a landslide 354 votes are.... what? Imaginary? Don't exist? I am going to have so much fun saying "I told you so!"
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:
quote:He's as left-wing as they come.
Except for, of course, people who are actually far left.
Only for people who are right of Charles the First.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I see what you did there.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BelladonnaOrchid: Lyrhawn, you said:
quote: 25+ age groups tend to vote in the high 60's to low 70's as a percentage, whereas the under 25 crowd votes anywhere fromt he low 20's to mid 50's depending on what year it is and what is going on. Turnout for midterm years tenrs to average in the low 20's, but for presidential election years it can be mid-30's to low 50's. It seems to depend entirely on what is going on and who is running. In 2000 it looks like relatively few people care about Bush/Gore, but four years later there was an 11 point spike in youth turnout, much of which broke for Kerry. Voter turnout for the under 25 age group has already broken all records in pretty much every primary state.
No joke! I'm 26 now, but when I've turned up to vote in my district in the past, I've easily been the youngest in the room. I get a look from those waiting to vote as if to say 'Oh my, what is this strange creature who's arrived?' and the volunteers usually ask me if I need help finding the office (as though I couldn't possibly be there to vote-the polling places are mostly at the elementary schools here). Both my husband and I vote on local issues as well as during midterm years.
It's pretty ridiculous, since both my husband and I try to stay politically aware as well as keep up with current events. We have family overseas, so we have to keep up with international events or we might miss something important (like the time that their American compound was attacked by terrorists, that was a little too exciting). We went so far as to throw a get-together to watch the debate with some of our friends this evening.
People may say that the youth of this generation is slovenly, but even slovenly people vote.
I've voted in every election since my husband and I settled in this area 5 years ago, when I was 26. Before that, I moved around so much that I only voted in the national races. For the past 5 years, nobody has batted an eye when my husband and I have shown up for presidential or even mid-term elections, but when we show up at local elections, it feels like we're the only ones not turning gray. I wish more young and even middle aged people would get involved in voting, including local issues. We dismiss their importance but I'm sorry -- sales tax goes up and up and up and I'm having my say about putting an end to that! In local races, I have much more of a say than in national races because there are fewer voices competing with mind and even fewer who actually go to vote.
Speaking of which, I just sent in an application for a mail-in ballot the other day. I usually like to go the polls and even take my kids with me (I'll convince them to vote in local races!) but during the presidential elections the line wraps around the elementary school and I do have a 5-month-old.
Anyone else voting early or by mail?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine
Anyone else voting early or by mail?
I pretty much have to. Making it to my own precinct is hard, since I'll be working at another one. It's at a university, so it ought to be pretty exciting.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I've never been to a polling place. In Oregon, the default is vote by mail. I should be getting my ballot soon.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I'll bet that if you wanted to, you certainly COULD find somebody who wanted Obama killed, even guys that are motivated enough motivated enough to attend McCain rallies.
And I still doubt you'd find equal vitriol among the Democratic side, because they simply aren't worried enough to have to this emotional about their prospects of losing.
And it doesn't change the actual responses anybody in the McCain camp has made to actual questions actual people asked.
But it's out there, so I thought I'd toss it into the dialogue.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think your problem with making a nationwide prediction is that you've listed all the reasons why YOU won't vote for him and have then projected those reasons onto the nation.
I can also tell you why people will vote for him, he is bright and inoffensive. He is for good, against bad, and he thinks very hard about the stuff in between, without coming down on either side. For Pete's sake, he is a Democrat running on tax cuts. Tax Cuts! We have a reasonable tax burden and a huge deficit, and when we start buying those mortgages, nobody knows how far down that rabbit hole goes. The middle class don't need a tax cut. As long as we don't increase their taxes, they will continue to do fine. If they are paying taxes, that means that they at least have a job or are up and running. We need a loosely planned economy, but we need it in those terms and that's much more revolutionary than either candidate is willing to say. Obama's mass appeal comes from the fact that a vote for him is a vote for business as usual, and white liberals and suburban kids gets to feel progressive without giving up a thing or progressing anywhere. Obama's biggest Presidential asset isn't leadership, it's that maybe if he gets into office, he won't suck up all the air in the room, and a real leader from the legislative branch will screw up the courage and the insight to stand up and talk sense to the American people and government.
[ October 16, 2008, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Obama's mass appeal comes from the fact that a vote for him is a vote for business as usual
That would seem to run contrary to the very nature of his campaign and the expressed desires of his supporters, to say nothing of the fact that electing a black Democrat after eight years of the whitest guy in the world (who is a Republican) isn't anywhere near business as usual, unless you're taking a very, very wide angle lens view of what the business of government is.
Personally I don't have a problem with middle class tax cuts, I just think they need to be accompanied by about a trillion dollars in spending cuts. If we could get by on 2 trillion dollars 10 years ago, I don't see why we can't now. Time to tighten our belts.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Anybody watch the comedy routines of McCain and Obama at the Al Smith dinner? They had some great jokes.
Obama's Bit Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
You beat me by four minutes.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Heh.. Well, it deserves its own thread.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
There was a discussion on Oregon Public Broadcasting today on two tax-related measures; the Republican representative said that cutting taxes is "always a good thing".
We've choosen to live across the state line in Vancouver, Washington in part because Portland's schools and libraries are woefully and increasingly underfunded. And we pay a high sales tax as a result, but we accept that.
I think the idea that tax cuts are virtuous in and of themselves in a vacuum is one of the most grotesquely self-destructive ideas to come to prominence in the last decade or so. Not to say that cutting taxes hasn't played in the past, but the particular angle of self-righteousness seems to be a relatively new strain, and it's kind of sickening.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Both Obama and McCain are to the right of any of Europe's conservative parties.
That depends on which dimensions of "conservativism" and "right" you're considering. Immigration, global trade, social issues, government centralization, etc. There are some issues where European liberals are significantly "right" of US conservatives.
quote: They are both to the right of the Republican platforms of the 50s, 60s and 70s.
That is patently false.
Check out this site (and linked pages) for a more realistic view of McCain and Obama's conservative/liberal score in a historic context. Compared with all the congresses since the 30s, Obama is significantly left of the mean Republican and at least slightly left of the mean Democrat.
ETA: This measures "liberal" by voting record, not by rhetoric or campaign promises. Even so, I think the idea that Obama is right of even the relatively centrist Republicans of the Nixon/Ford era is incorrect, considering his platform includes nationalization of health care, dramatic increased federal funding for non-military research, etc.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, but Obams's public positions are still only a hair left of the nice Republicans' center, and well right of the nice Democrats'.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: considering his platform includes nationalization of health care,
Um, no it doesn't.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: considering his platform includes nationalization of health care,
Um, no it doesn't.
This is just one of the many examples of how America is much more conservative than Europe. Every other industrialized nation has Universal Health Care, every one except the US and yet in the US its considered leftist to even propose increasing the number of people insured.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On the other hand, the United States has nationalized banks and insurance companies.
Even here in Canada we only have single-payer health insurance, so eh ... who can judge, maybe SenojRetep is right and America really is more left wing on some issues.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
here is my official prediction...
OBAMA WINS IN A LANDSLIDE
there you have it.
Sorry folks, Republicans don't have a chance. The core of America has had enough of Conservative Republicans. Look at the state of EVERYTHING. Republicans don't have much room to stand on anything, at all.
Obama is a socialist!
Republicans had to bailout banks after deciding not to police them at all, even after 22 Bank Bailouts in 28 years.
Obama is for Bigger Government!
The Government is much, much bigger now after 8 years of Bush, and the National deficit has doubled to 10 trillion under George W. Bush.
Republicans legislative from a very idealist vague conservative utopia that is bizarre with horrible results.
their time is done.
Obama wins
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
:/
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: This is just one of the many examples of how America is much more conservative than Europe. Every other industrialized nation has Universal Health Care, every one except the US and yet in the US its considered leftist to even propose increasing the number of people insured.
There is a dramatic difference between proposing to increase the number of people insured and a government run 'Universal' Health care. Obama is not mandating Universal Health care for everyone but he is mandating a business's payroll is at risk if he does not believe the business is paying enough for health care. Even if you choose not to take healthcare your employer will have to pay the government for your healthcare, meaning less money in payroll for your paycheck.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: When Barack Obama responded to the Ohio plumber who didn't want his taxes raised by saying that he wanted to "spread the wealth around," I wanted to tell the Illinois senator to spread his own wealth around.
Senator Obama, in a rare moment of candor, all but told "Joe the plumber" that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. Their personal encounter this past Sunday played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.
Despite Obama's implication to the contrary, however, it doesn't represent much in the way of change.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Amazing that ya don't have any complaints about the government being used to force you to pay around a quarter of your income to the financial sector, even if you haven't signed a single contract with any of their companies. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=bubble_and_bail
[ October 17, 2008, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Senator Obama, in a rare moment of candor, all but told "Joe the plumber" that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity.
That's a bit inflammatory. I don't personally see a problem with those who benefit the most from living in our society contributing more money to support it, while those who benefit less keep more as they work through tougher odds to try to build themselves up.
Keeping 60% of a million dollars a year is something I'd be absolutely thrilled to do. I'd vastly prefer that to my current combination of salary and tax rate.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Senator Obama, in a rare moment of candor, all but told "Joe the plumber" that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. Their personal encounter this past Sunday played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.
So, this person's problem is not Obama, but the progressive income tax system.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
The Chicago Tribune and the LA Times have both endorsed Obama.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: On the other hand, the United States has nationalized banks and insurance companies.
Even here in Canada we only have single-payer health insurance, so eh ... who can judge, maybe SenojRetep is right and America really is more left wing on some issues.
I was thinking particularly of immigration issues (where people talking like Tom Tancredo are welcome on the Left or Right in many European countries).
And my point about Obama's health care proposal (which is not "nationalized" in a government-run sense, but more in a NCLB required standards sense) was that no national politician from either party was proposing something so closely resembling socialized helathcare in the 50s or 60s. It was included to support my refutation of Rabbit's claim that Obama is to the right of Republican platforms from that era.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
{quote]Amazing that ya don't have any complaints about the government being used to force you to pay around a quarter of your income to the financial sector, even if you haven't signed a single contract with any of their companies.[/quote]
I don't have a problem with the bailout, I have a problem with the stringlessness of it. It should have been a multiparty deal between the government, the banks, the automakers, and the energy concerns while the iron was hot and everyone's attention was peaked in an effort to give direction to the economy.
[ October 18, 2008, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I touched on this subject in an earlier rant, but recent comments by Sarah Palin have brought it back up.
Palin had this to say at a fundraiser Thursday night in North Carolina:
quote:"We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation," she said.
"This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans," Palin added.
I had a little mini-rant awhile ago about how annoyed I get when Republicans make the inference that small town values are inherently better than the urban and suburban areas. Palin has made similar comments about how she's always been a working person or what not and everyone else is morally inferior.
So to see her illustrate the very thing that has been pissing me off about Republican insinuations over the last, I don't know, 30 years or so, to see it right there as blunt as could be; that set me off a bit. She basically just that if you don't live in a small town, you're not as American as the people who do.
She tried to "clarify" her comments the next day:
quote:"It's all pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so excited about positive change and reform of government that's coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message, hearing our plan. Not any one area of America is more pro-America patriotically than others," she said.
I'm sorry but that's bull, just complete and utter crap. For a campaign that RIPPED Obama a new one when he made comments about people being "bitter" or what not a few months back, well I guess they've decided to go the other way. If that was fair game, then so is this: McCain/Palin thinks people in big cities have no values and are unAmerican.
Is that fair? Maybe not, but she's the one who said it, and it took an extremely small amount of modification to take what she said and turn it into that. If that isn't how small town mayor girl really feels, then she's lying to try and win rural votes, which is just as bad, and frankly I'm too pissed to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I don't want McCain or Palin to clarify, and I don't want them to "disavow" or "repudiate" those words. I want an apology.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:"We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation," she said.
"This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans," Palin added.
...
I don't want McCain or Palin to clarify, and I don't want them to "disavow" or "repudiate" those words. I want an apology.
As a lifelong city-dweller or suburbanite, I have to agree. That's offensive. And there's no backing out of it. She specifically called it "the best of America." Well, you are certainly entitled to prefer living in a small town to other areas, but when you're on the campaign trail, appealing to Americans, it doesn't do to say some Americans are better than others.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Senator Obama, in a rare moment of candor, all but told "Joe the plumber" that his wealth should be seized in the name of equity. Their personal encounter this past Sunday played out one of the old themes of democratic politics: the appeal to the many to take from the few. It's traditionally an easy sell in democratic regimes.
So, this person's problem is not Obama, but the progressive income tax system.
I think Obama has been very forthright about this. Yes, he does believe that the wealthiest Americans should pay more taxes. And you can mince words to make that sound as evil as you like, but the fact is that people making $250,000 a year or more can afford to contribute to the foundations of society far more than those making $200,000 or less. What would you propose we do? Have a working class family of 4 making 50,000 pay half their money in taxes and let the guy making $1,000,000 pay 2.5%? (In case you're having trouble doing the math, that means they both pay $25,000.) Is that the sort of equality you want? Or would having them both pay 10% of their income somehow be fair? Because I have to think that $5k to a family making $50k is a lot more money than one hundred thousand is to a family making one million. In the first case, we're taking the money they may need to send their kids to college (and maybe get the chance to make a million dollars), the money they need to fix the roof, or to pay their health insurance premiums, or to replace their junked up car.
There is simply no way to make the tax burden of a working class family and a rich CEO "equal" in any meaningful way. Numbers are cold and unfeeling.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And you can mince words to make that sound as evil as you like, but the fact is that people making $250,000 a year or more can afford to contribute to the foundations of society far more than those making $200,000 or less.
Businesses making over 250,000 dollars create jobs. It gets complicated. I do personally think that the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable and the values are a little gross. `It's funny. I know a guy who grew up on the east coast, did a two year Master's at Cambridge and came back with a pronounced and persistent English accent. Now I just find it impossible to take him seriously. That's kind of how I feel about the suburbs. The cars, the commutes, the illegal immigrant help, if that sprawl is an America we are proud of, then we need to so some soul searching.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You know, I grew up in the suburbs, and I missed out on the whole illegal immigrant help thing. A lot of the suburbs are populated by middle-class, blue collar families. I didn't know anyone with a housekeeper or nanny or who paid someone else to do the yardwork.
I agree that urban sprawl is undesirable, but you're unjustly accusing a whole lot of people of doing something illegal and immoral. Most of the people living in the suburbs I grew up in can't afford domestic help, illegal or otherwise. It's hardly a facet of the suburban lifestyle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On the other hand, our English accents are impeccable. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:And you can mince words to make that sound as evil as you like, but the fact is that people making $250,000 a year or more can afford to contribute to the foundations of society far more than those making $200,000 or less.
Businesses making over 250,000 dollars create jobs. It gets complicated. I do personally think that the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable and the values are a little gross. `It's funny. I know a guy who grew up on the east coast, did a two year Master's at Cambridge and came back with a pronounced and persistent English accent. Now I just find it impossible to take him seriously. That's kind of how I feel about the suburbs. The cars, the commutes, the illegal immigrant help, if that sprawl is an America we are proud of, then we need to so some soul searching.
Companies above 250000$ do not make jobs unless it is profitable to do so, most of the larger companies ship jobs overseas because it is more profitable giving them tax breaks is rewarding them.
Same deal with oil companies.
Also, the reason for suburban sprawl is to act as a defencive means to reduce the damage of a nuclear attack, by making cities more spread out theyre essentially less attractive targets.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Irami, have you ever lived in England for any period of time? At least for me, the need to communicate effectively and get along in the day to day necessitated or precipitated a change in the way I talked. There is a reason England has such pronounced regional shifts in accent, and it's not pretension in every case- though there's quite a bit of that. When I went back to California, people did notice a difference in the way I talked- not full on English, just a tonal and cadential shift, but that faded after a short time.
If you live in England, as an American, there are certain pressures on you that affect your speech. You want to avoid being misunderstood, or being made fun of, and you may want to draw attention away from your nationality, since that is a persistent topic of discussion when meeting people, and not always something you'd care to talk about with every English person you meet. There's also just the desire to pass, which can be very strong if you identify with the place in which you are living, and want to be at home there.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Taxing businesses more does nothing but rise their costs, which causes them to raise the price of their goods and services which, in turn, results in inflation. Do you honestly think that businesses are just going to absorb the additional tax costs? They have all the power in the world to control their pricing and income. They will do everything in their power to improve the bottom line. That's what businesses are for.
Socialism and capitalism cannot effectively work together. As more capital is taken from the top and dropped to the bottom, the top will seek to regain that loss by increasing prices, which in turn drops the value of whatever is dropped to the bottom because, guess what, the cost of goods has increased in order to allow the top to retain its bottom line.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's an ultimate trade off between productivity in the national sense and taking care of the people in a national sense Socialism aims to give the most about of aid and care to the most amount of people, capitalism aims to increase ones share of wealth by any means necessary, easiest achieved at other's expense.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Taxing businesses more does nothing but rise their costs, which causes them to raise the price of their goods and services which, in turn, results in inflation. Do you honestly think that businesses are just going to absorb the additional tax costs? They have all the power in the world to control their pricing and income. They will do everything in their power to improve the bottom line. That's what businesses are for.
Socialism and capitalism cannot effectively work together. As more capital is taken from the top and dropped to the bottom, the top will seek to regain that loss by increasing prices, which in turn drops the value of whatever is dropped to the bottom because, guess what, the cost of goods has increased in order to allow the top to retain its bottom line.
I don't think it's quite that cut and dry. Given a minimal tax increase, the fact that raising the price on most products would decrease demand, and the desire to remain competitive, any resulting increase in cost would be insignificant on the national scale. It seems better to me than the alternative, anyway.
What would you propose?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Boris -
If the middle class is being squeezed to the point where they can't afford to buy any of the crap those upper class businesses produce, then who are they going to sell that crap to, regardless of the price?
Irami -
The irony of a rural America dominated by small town factories and large farms all run by illegal immigrant labor finding a flaw with some extremely affluent neighborhoods having illegal immigrant help in the kitchen or with the laundry is beyond amusing to me.
How is our commute to work any different than having to drive 10 miles in some rural towns just to get from the farm to the center of town? Or having to drive 10 miles from the town to get to the local Wal-Mart to buy something the city center doesn't have?
Don't get me wrong, as a tree hugger, I hate sprawl (and by the way Blayne, it has almost nothing to do with a nuclear attack, especially given today's nuclear weapons' potency, it has to do with a 1950's ideal that involves a 2 car garage and a lawn), I think we should almost ALL be living in bigger more efficient cities and not spread out like this, but for tens of millions of people that ship has already sailed.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Fair enough, Lyrhawn.
I am surprised and disappointed that none of the candidates have spoken about the raid .
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Boris -
If the middle class is being squeezed to the point where they can't afford to buy any of the crap those upper class businesses produce, then who are they going to sell that crap to, regardless of the price?
It's not that the price goes beyond reach, but that the price increases effectively mitigate any advantages given, resulting in a net 0 result. Basically, mixing the two does absolutely nothing but make the lower classes feel better for a week.
Personally, I think we should spend more time controlling wages for executives and others of their ilk. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that a single person should be making 400 times what their employees make. Personally, I think we should be limiting wages to an amount that is, say, 50-100 times the average individual's salary in a particular company is. That in turn gives greater incentive to executives to raise wages and prevents the type of run-away wealth that is so common today. I mean, heck, we have a minimum wage. Why no maximum?
I should mention that I don't think this limit should be imposed on money in terms of stock or other bonuses, but rather for straight wages paid.
The people who make 250,000 dollars a year aren't bothering me. It's the people who make 20,30, and up to a billion dollars a year that bother me. Seriously, no individual (I don't care how hard they worked or sacrificed to earn that) deserves to make more than the GDP of Sao Tome and Principe (For those who don't know, that was 145 million dollars in 2007. And that's high-balling). But raising taxes for the rich and throwing it to the poor is a really crappy band-aid solution that will ultimately do nothing.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Personally, I think we should spend more time controlling wages for executives and others of their ilk. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that a single person should be making 400 times what their employees make. Personally, I think we should be limiting wages to an amount that is, say, 50-100 times the average individual's salary in a particular company is. That in turn gives greater incentive to executives to raise wages and prevents the type of run-away wealth that is so common today. I mean, heck, we have a minimum wage. Why no maximum?
I should mention that I don't think this limit should be imposed on money in terms of stock or other bonuses, but rather for straight wages paid.
That's a great sentiment, and certainly one that I could get behind. Some companies do do that sort of thing — I think Ben & Jerry's had a 7:1 highest-to-lowest paid ratio at one point, but they did away with that when they were acquired (disclaimer: I'm going by memory here). (As an aside, in general I'm an advocate of companies being more open with how they compensate their employees. I don't understand the culture in the US that places such a taboo on talking about wages — it's anti-competitive.)
But imagine the loopholes that could be opened to exploit a maximum wage restriction. You pointed one out yourself in the second paragraph above. Not only that, but companies could split into two or more subcompanies, one of which has much higher average pay. If it could be done without loopholes, though, it sounds like a good idea to me.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think I could tentatively support that idea for corporations. I'm less sure it's a good idea (or even really necessary for that matter) for partnerships or sole-proprietorships.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Taxing businesses more does nothing but rise their costs, which causes them to raise the price of their goods and services which, in turn, results in inflation.
I believe I spoke earlier about the notion of "cutting taxes in a vacuum". Which is to say, it sounds great if cutting taxes is just a disconnected concept that means people pay less money, and begins to sound less good when you look at the balance sheets and someone has to pay for the services the government offers, services which are often better provided by a government that looks to a different standard of effectiveness for providing those services than just dollars per unit.
To give just one example, one of the highest costs many businesses face once they get past a certain size is paying for health insurance for their employees. An effectively run government system that can negotiate as a large block with providers and pharmaceutical companies may well be able to provide those services cheaper than a for-profit system.
And then there's education (providing the foundations of a skilled employee base), transport (roads, public transportation for employees, shipping of products, etc.), the subsidies that make many raw materials possible and/or cost competitive, and so on.
To say raising taxes "provides nothing more" implies the revenue raised vanishes into thin air, and despite some rhetoric to the contrary, that's not the case. One can argue it's apportioned badly or unfairly, of course, but that's not the same thing.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You seem to forget that our government is particularly inefficient. This is a general rule for any large organization. The bigger it is, the more it costs to run. And the cost increases are not flat. They're exponential.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Inefficient compared to what? Also, have you ever heard of economies of scale? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd have to see numbers on that to believe it's that bad.
Edit to add: I'd have to see the numbers to believe that tax revenues are lost at a higher rate to government inefficiency the more taxes are raised.
[ October 19, 2008, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Boris -
If the middle class is being squeezed to the point where they can't afford to buy any of the crap those upper class businesses produce, then who are they going to sell that crap to, regardless of the price?
Irami -
The irony of a rural America dominated by small town factories and large farms all run by illegal immigrant labor finding a flaw with some extremely affluent neighborhoods having illegal immigrant help in the kitchen or with the laundry is beyond amusing to me.
How is our commute to work any different than having to drive 10 miles in some rural towns just to get from the farm to the center of town? Or having to drive 10 miles from the town to get to the local Wal-Mart to buy something the city center doesn't have?
Don't get me wrong, as a tree hugger, I hate sprawl (and by the way Blayne, it has almost nothing to do with a nuclear attack, especially given today's nuclear weapons' potency, it has to do with a 1950's ideal that involves a 2 car garage and a lawn), I think we should almost ALL be living in bigger more efficient cities and not spread out like this, but for tens of millions of people that ship has already sailed.
It'd take I think the equivilant of a research paper to really get into it, but I think that's a false statement, or rather a false claim. First off there's absolutely no data in that link, it's a series of suppositions and post-hoc logic.
The zoning laws are an interesting question, but zoning laws are local, not federal, state, or even county level. They're city by city. You're telling me that nearly every single small city in America set up zoning laws that preclude the mixing of light commercial and residential zones because of a massive shadow conspiracy from the federal government to try and push people further and further away from city centers? I don't buy it. The suburbs weren't invented by the government, the were created by the private sector, popularized by pop culture, and largely paid for by GIs choosing to take home loans from the government instead of other benefits offered to them.
But then you get into the question of white flight. White flight happened in most urban areas due to a combination of factors. Between race riots and dwindling inner city jobs, whites wanted out of what they saw as an increasingly dangerous situation and an economically hopeless one. So they left, and when they got out, they used intimidation and by post 60's standards illegal lending practices to make sure that blacks couldn't get home loans to buy houses in the suburbs, and those that could were chased out by local mobs.
Add to that the fact that a powerful nuclear blast could cut right through a lot of suburbs. Even as people were pushing further and further away from big cities, bombs were made with larger and larger blast radii (radiuses?). A large bomb today could take out everything within a 7 mile radius of the center of the blast, for a 14 mile diameter. That's going to level any major city and a vast swath of the suburbs around it.
I just read an article the other day about how sprawl is actually slowing in a lot of places because younger unmarried singles, many with college degrees and decent salaries are moving back into city centers as a wave of revitalization washes over a lot of older cities. They're bringing money and jobs with them.
To sum up: there are a lot of perfectly valid reasons for why people started a slow exodus out of cities starting in the 50's. And you forget, by the way, that hundreds of thousands of people were removed from farms and other rural areas, where the majority of Americans in the 1940's still lived (well, left by choice is a better way to put it) and they all went to the major cities for jobs and what not. I'd love to see the numbers, but I'm willing to bet that if you looked at the stats of where people were living between 1920, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50, you'd see a massive wave of exodus out of rural areas and into cities by the millions. They left those inner cities and went out into the suburbs for a different set of reasons, but they were good ones at the time (at least to them).
You'll have to find something a lot better than a wordpress blog with conspiracy theories to convince me of the veracity of a plan of the size and scope of which you're suggesting.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Boris: yes, the government is inefficient (and, IMNSHO, this is good), and yes, wealth transfer creates something analogous to income effects for prices among poor people. However, there's plenty of research showing that, for many programs, that effect is far from a full replacement.
Of course, if there wasn't a 'floor' for well-being, there would be no reason for such transfers, but there is. The situations of some people are morally unacceptable. It is possible to improve those situations (again, lots of research on that) with wealth transfer of various kinds.
Btw, if your simplistic argument were true, it would never make any sense to give to charity.
Regarding controlling wages, I wasn't aware that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was still so popular.
Here's a little thought experiment to understand why some wages are so high. Say we're talking about a very large company. The decisions of the CEO, especially over the course of a few years, can result in swings in value of the company of billions and billions of dollars. Wouldn't you pay millions and millions of dollars more for even a slight (percentage-wise) increase in the likely outcome of that? There is no great gap of ability between very, very high paid CEOs and many other people, but there is a great gap of responsibility, and the returns on having a slightly better CEO than the next company are enormous. Of course companies pay a lot for CEO in efforts to improve their chances of getting that slightly better one.
And in case anyone is ready to poo-poo the idea that that's why companies are paying so much, I can point you at some excellent papers that, whatever the 'real reason', the above is the effect: companies that pay more manage to get slightly better CEOs, who contribute, on average, for more than their salary to the value of the company.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: As an aside, in general I'm an advocate of companies being more open with how they compensate their employees. I don't understand the culture in the US that places such a taboo on talking about wages — it's anti-competitive.
Well Mike, this is because the American people are stupid. True story here. I worked with a gal who was very honest about having hated her last job. It was so bad that she asked for less than she had been making when she took the job with us.
One day, she couldn't find her keys and started going through everyone else's drawers. (Yeah, I never bought that part, either. But that was the excuse.) The only guy had his paystub in his.
She immediately began screaming that the company was sexist because he was making more than her. The guy was a former car salesman who was hired while we were very shorthanded and desperate for help. Of course he was making more than the gal who took a pay cut to get out of her last job.
Didn't matter. She was mad about it for months until I left. For all I know, she's still mad about it. I don't remember if we had other tellers at that point or if it was just the three of us, but that could have done massive damage in a larger setting. How much would it have cost the company to investigate her claims if she'd been the kind of person to actually back up her talk? Or if her complaining had been able to motive someone else into filing a lawsuit?
And that's why we're just told the average range of salaries in America.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I would definitely not support a maximum wage. The trouble with the salaries of CEO's isn't that they make 400 times what some of their employees make, it's that they get that despite making piss poor business decisions that ultimately hurt their investors and ruin their companies. I also feel that businesses are too beholden to the stock market, which rises and falls based on the feelings of the American people. I mean, if a company is projected (and not by themselves, by financial "experts") to make 1 billion dollars more this year than they did last year, and they only make 900 million more, then their stock can take a nose dive despite record profits! The whole thing makes me insane. I don't know what the alternative is, I just know that I see a lot of things going on in the business world that don't make sense.
Oh...I could go on about this but the baby's crying so I better stop before I get in too deep.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Christine, the reason the price 'dives' (and for the numbers you gave, a 'dive' would only be a few percent drop) is because the price had already gone up on the expectation that they would make a billion. The price can't stay at the level it is at because the company isn't worth as much only making $900 million as it would have been if it had made a billion.
Also, it is rarely the projections of financial "experts" that create the expectations. Often times people who are buying and selling will build up expectations that are different from those of "experts". This is why you'll regularly hear things like "Despite meeting official projections, company X was down today after earnings did not meet expectations on the street".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That was an excellent endorsement, very measured and respectful of both candidates. I think his arguments will resonate with a lot of moderate undecideds who have remaining concerns about Obama's "readiness" for the Presidency.
I was genuinely moved by Powell's statement on anti-Muslim bigotry. I understand why Obama hasn't made the same "so what if I am?" argument - if he wanted any chance at winning this election, he had little choice but to bluntly shoot down the rumor's factual inaccuracy and otherwise ignore it entirely. But it's wonderful to hear someone with a national profile confront the truly insidious part of the "Obama is a secret Muslim" smears: that it reduces an entire religion (and by extension, the ethnic groups associated with it) to a pejorative.
So hats off to Colin Powell, someone with whom I've had some profound disagreements, for having the courage to, in a political environment that has become toxic with anti-Muslim sentiment, point out that Muslim Americans are just as patriotic as Christian ones.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Colin Powell endorses Sen. Obama
quote:I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.
I've always admired Mr. Powell. I wonder if room could be made for him in an Obama cabinet.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Pharoahs create jobs!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I too am very glad to see General Powell talk about the anti-Muslim sentiment. I know Obama can't discuss it the way I would like him to, but the hatred and racism towards Arabs has been disgusting.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I know Obama can't discuss it the way I would like him to, but the hatred and racism towards Arabs has been disgusting.
He very well can, and he chooses not to. When did it become permissible to coddle him and how long will it continue.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
BB--Obama left that possibility open during his "Thank you". He hinted that Powell may get a spot in the cabinet, or have free access to the President.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
We really do need to stop coddling B. HUSSIEN O, a muslim terrorist lover who wants to socialize everything, distribute wealth evenly, and hates this country. He's stealing the election through ACORN and might be gay.
Can we please stop coddling him?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
The BIGGEST problem I have with our entire economy and it's mentality is the fact that a companies Employees and Workers are like cogs in a wheel and the important ones are the Stock Holders.
When I worked for Borders books for 5 years, I saw every benefit except pay stripped from the employees with the intention to boost the stock in tough times.
Look, I am the guy working full time at a retail store the day after thanksgiving to january 30th for 7.80 cents an hour. I am getting yelled at by upper class white women every 15 minutes, I'm mopping human feces out of the bathroom, I am getting called a racist by the guy we just caught stealing, and I've got the husband of a woman a manager offended 'waiting' in the parking lot.
And guess what. The company doesn't care about me, never thanks me, and always tells me i need to improve my performance to help boost the stock.
Employees are light bulbs, cheap and easy replace, Stock Holders are gods to always be given gifts.
THAT is exactly what's wrong with this country and economy.
We'll waste 100,000 hours of American's time to make some investors overseas super rich.
Meh. bring on armageddon.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I too am very glad to see General Powell talk about the anti-Muslim sentiment. I know Obama can't discuss it the way I would like him to, but the hatred and racism towards Arabs has been disgusting.
Amen.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama crushed his old fundraising record in September with an over $150 million haul. That's not far from twice what McCain was allotted for the entire Fall campaign. In addition, the DNC netted almost $50 million too, somewhat negating the usually strong RNC totals that help pad the candidate's real total spending bottom line.
I suspect with strong Obama fundraising, much of the DNC's money will go towards the ever competitive Senate races. If they feel like Obama has it in the bag, they'll want to make sure he has a Congress he can work with.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama crushed his old fundraising record in September with an over $150 million haul. That's not far from twice what McCain was allotted for the entire Fall campaign. In addition, the DNC netted almost $50 million too, somewhat negating the usually strong RNC totals that help pad the candidate's real total spending bottom line.
I suspect with strong Obama fundraising, much of the DNC's money will go towards the ever competitive Senate races. If they feel like Obama has it in the bag, they'll want to make sure he has a Congress he can work with.
True story, but this talk, (not yours mind you) of a filibuster proof senate seems unlikely. I'd probably say its undesirable to be honest. Republicans didn't enamor me a whole lot to the idea.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama crushed his old fundraising record in September with an over $150 million haul. That's not far from twice what McCain was allotted for the entire Fall campaign. In addition, the DNC netted almost $50 million too, somewhat negating the usually strong RNC totals that help pad the candidate's real total spending bottom line.
I suspect with strong Obama fundraising, much of the DNC's money will go towards the ever competitive Senate races. If they feel like Obama has it in the bag, they'll want to make sure he has a Congress he can work with.
True story, but this talk, (not yours mind you) of a filibuster proof senate seems unlikely. I'd probably say its undesirable to be honest. Republicans didn't enamor me a whole lot to the idea.
I'm kind of torn on the issue. On one hand, like you, I think giving one party the presidency and a senate super-majority is a bit too much power. On the other hand, I'm worried that some important changes won't get made.
Maybe it'll be for the best though, if the dems only have 58 or 59 seats in the senate. Obama's supposed to be good at consensus building after all. Wooing one or two Republicans shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility. I hope.
EDIT - ToPP! Included BB's post.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm usually all for balancing the pwoer between the two parties -- one with congress, one with the executive branch -- but the trouble is that the Republicans have had free reign for many years and, IMO, it is a time for changes to be made. A balance of power does not usher in chaneg.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
fffh.
When it comes to the state of affairs as we come up to this election, the most damning argument you can effectively make against the democrats is that they have been out of power so long that we don't know how they would handle power, necessarily, and through some distrustful logic you can say that for many intents and purposes they are an unknown quantity. You can be a pessimist and basically say that because of what the Republicans did with free reign of legislature, we shouldn't give either party free reign of legislature because the Democrats might fall to the same levels of graft, corruption, and incompetence. After all, they're an unknown quantity, right? They could suck.
However.
The Republican party, in contrast, a known quantity at this point. And — guess what? — they suck. They are a known suck. We already know what they do with power: they abuse it, and they fail with the associated responsibilities. When one party has their way with the legislature for over half a decade and they have made pretty much everything worse, the solution is not to opt for 'bipartisan' legislative paralysis as the comfortable new option.
You hand it to the other guys and see if they can fix it, you don't get worried enough that you want to let the Known Suck party cling on to enough power to ensure that they can obstruct anyone who tries to change things back away from the disastrous crap they implemented and still believe in. They worked very hard to make things just the way they like it, and damned if they'll change that just because it doesn't seem to be working.
Don't worry. If party 2 sucks as hard as party 1 in a country where you only get two parties, we didn't stand a chance anyway.
The cousin argument to this argument is to point out that you should never think that 'bipartisanship' or 'moderacy' necessarily makes something better when it gets plunked out of the business end of our representative democracy. Just because something is in the middle of two viewpoints does not make it a better or smarter position than what the two pure viewpoints would have ideally advocated.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I agree Christine. The last 6 years of the Bush administration when the republicans held both the legislature and the executive branch severely disrupted the balance of power in our government and I desperately think that balance needs to be restored. However, I'm not certain that the last 8 years reflects a general pattern of having one party control the executive and legislative branches or if it is something more specific to this particular era. Several things were part of this change in addition to the fact that one party controlled both branches.
1. The republicans took the majority in the house and senate in the 90's by uniting behind Newt Gingrich's contract with America. This put a disproportionate number of republicans in power who were committed to the idea or party loyality and helped shore up a culture that favored party unity.
2. Prominent members of the Bush administration like Dick Cheney believed that the power of the executive branch had been dangerously eroded following Nixon and considered it their mission to fix this problem by wresting power from the other branches of government.
3. External threats, like the 9/11 crisis, generally cause people to rally around a leader. The administration players who favored expanded executive powers, capitalized on this human tendency and the new republican culture of party loyalty to expand executive power.
I don't see any of those things happening during the next administration. Liberals tend to come from a culture that questions authority and values independent thinking and are therefore in general harder to unite behind a leader. If you don't believe that, you've never been involved in progressive politics and watched movements destroyed by internal fighting over and over again.
Although we are currently facing an economic crisis, it just isn't the kind of external threat that gets people to unite, we've already seen that play out during the last weeks as Bush's bailout plan was greeted with nearly the opposite reaction as his post 9/11 war on terror plans.
Anyway, I'd actually be more concerned about the democrats controlling both branches of Government if Clinton had won the nomination. I know that reflects a personal bias against Clinton as power hungry which may be unjust. Obama seems much more genuinely interesting in serving the people. I hope that isn't just a good act.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Samprimary, The problem is that there are some Americans who like the shape of the last fifteen years of their life. They've watched their kids grow up. They've gone to school. They have fallen in love, bought houses, gotten jobs. And in a way, throwing out the government under whose auspices all of this happened would render all of it meaningless.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The problem is that there are some Americans who like the shape of the last fifteen years of their life. They've watched their kids grow up. They've gone to school. They have fallen in love, bought houses, gotten jobs. And in a way, throwing out the government under whose auspices all of this happened would render all of it meaningless.
I'm not following this logic...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Irami. Read what you just posted. Do you really think anyone is going to consider their spouse, child, home, or job "meaningless" based on which political party is in power? That's absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The problem is that there are some Americans who like the shape of the last fifteen years of their life. They've watched their kids grow up. They've gone to school. They have fallen in love, bought houses, gotten jobs. And in a way, throwing out the government under whose auspices all of this happened would render all of it meaningless.
???????
Maybe I'm missing your point. I know a lot of conservative republicans but don't know any of them who feel that their education, marriage, family, home and career would be rendered meaningless by an Obama presidency or a democratic government.
In fact, I myself for the most part like the shape of the last 15 years of my life. I have a loving husband, a decent career, I own a house, have accumulated savings in the bank and am working hard to improve the problems of poverty, violence and environmental degradation in the world. Despite the fact that I personally am doing OK, I think the government policies during the past 15 years have seriously eroded my security and my ability to make a difference in the things I consider important.
I can't imagine that anyone except republican career politicians would feel that the last 15 years of their life was meaningless unless the republicans stayed in power. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Evidently I'm not alone. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The only way I can figure out Senator McCain's strategy, from the Convention on, has been a out and out race to the base. He seems more afraid that not enough good Republicans will vote, so he's turned his entire campaign around into scaring his base of voters not to dare miss their chance to stop the monster Obama from getting elected.
Then there is some attempts to disrupt the Democratic base, either by lulling them into a sense of victory (you don't need to bother with voting, there are enough Dems rushing to the polls as it is) or possibly scaring some Dems from voting (Voter Fraud is a crime. If you didn't do all the paperwork 100% correct, and you dare to vote, we will throw you deep in jail. Don't even think about it. ACORN must be stopped and we will do it, so don't risk getting in our way, stay home.)
That is the only way I can explain some things like, "I like being the underdog. They are ahead, and we've got them right where we want them."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama crushed his old fundraising record in September with an over $150 million haul. That's not far from twice what McCain was allotted for the entire Fall campaign. In addition, the DNC netted almost $50 million too, somewhat negating the usually strong RNC totals that help pad the candidate's real total spending bottom line.
I suspect with strong Obama fundraising, much of the DNC's money will go towards the ever competitive Senate races. If they feel like Obama has it in the bag, they'll want to make sure he has a Congress he can work with.
True story, but this talk, (not yours mind you) of a filibuster proof senate seems unlikely. I'd probably say its undesirable to be honest. Republicans didn't enamor me a whole lot to the idea.
I'm kind of torn on the issue. On one hand, like you, I think giving one party the presidency and a senate super-majority is a bit too much power. On the other hand, I'm worried that some important changes won't get made.
Maybe it'll be for the best though, if the dems only have 58 or 59 seats in the senate. Obama's supposed to be good at consensus building after all. Wooing one or two Republicans shouldn't be outside the realm of possibility. I hope.
EDIT - ToPP! Included BB's post.
This is precisely how I feel. I am wary of granting any party that much power, but I feel that the projects that need to get done stand a better chance of getting done with one party control. Unfortunately lets say I was told, "With a filibuster proof senate, a workable universal health-care plan will emerge, as will progressive education based reforms that will push our students into the forefront of educational standards. Finally, with enthusiastic controlled government investment in alternate energy, the United States will be leading all other nations in energy development."
With that said, what else will happen if one party controls both branches? I'd like to think that with all three points of my above statement happening there can't be much that could realistically happen to make those gains unworthy. But the last 8 years have made me sufficiently cynical.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
From my perspective, McCain's strategy since the convention suggests that he is acting out of desperation. Either that or he has completely lost his marbles.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
See, I think one of the major changes that needs to be made in our government is getting our leaders to actually negotiate and be willing to give up some of their wants for national needs. Having a single party in absolute control is not going to make that happen.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Boris, I think we largely agree but I would have expressed it differently.
I think that one of the major changes that needs to be made in our government is that our leaders need to listen and try to appreciate the concerns and needs of all sides and then to seek innovative solutions that balance all those needs and concerns rather than pursuing an narrow ideological agendas.
I think that over the past decade the republican party as a whole has shown an unwillingness to do that. Rather than trying to understand the opposition, they have sought to demonize liberals. Many democrats have done the same thing. Our elected officials as a whole have become more concerned about who gets credit, who takes the blame and consolidating power than they have in solving the nations problems. Compromises have been achieved by buying people off with pork barrel line item bridges to nowhere rather than the hard work of persuasion and understanding. We have to completely break that cycle.
I support Obama in part because I see in his writing a sense that he can do that, that his real gift is for being able to understand the complexity of issue and appreciate all sides of problems.
I don't think it would be a good thing to have a democratic super majority in congress, but I am less afraid of having the house, senate and President of the same party under Obama's leadership than I am of the same old games.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Samprimary, The problem is that there are some Americans who like the shape of the last fifteen years of their life. They've watched their kids grow up. They've gone to school. They have fallen in love, bought houses, gotten jobs. And in a way, throwing out the government under whose auspices all of this happened would render all of it meaningless.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Zero. This is not actually how people work and it is not actually what is going on and it is not why people attach themselves to parties.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Maybe there isn't a sentimental attachment to political regimes or slogans or ideologies, I tend to agree with this insight.
quote:The preparation of victims and executioners which totalitarianism requires in place of Montesquieu’s principle of action is not the ideology itself racism or dialectical materialism-but its inherent logicality. The most persuasive argument in this respect, an argument of which Hitler like Stalin was very fond, is: You can’t say A without saying B and C and so on, down to the end of the murderous alphabet. Here, the coercive force of logicality seems to have its source; it springs from our fear of contradicting ourselves....The coercive force of the argument is: if you refuse, you contradict yourself and, through this contradiction, render your whole life meaningless; the A which you said dominates your whole life through the consequences of B and C which it logically engenders.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. That paragraph is very, very badly written. And it also doesn't apply, unless you think everyone living in this country would consider themselves either a victim or an executioner in this model.
The "A" which dominates my life has not been the Bush administration.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure how likely a 60 seat majority is percentage wise, but I'd say there's a chance. Dems have a lock on six or seven seats new seats. And they have a good chance at one or two more, and then a longshot chance at another one or two. They need huge turnout, especially from new voters in a lot of unusual places, but it's possible. I'd say 58 is likely. 59 or 60 are possible. The DNC and the DSCC are throwing millions of dollars into races in Georgia and Kentucky that before they had left for dead. Can some serious money change the outcomes in just two weeks? I don't know, but I suspect we're going to find out.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh, good. The Rev. Wright will make a comeback in the last few weeks after all. Anyone not see this coming?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Lyrhawn,
If you go here and go to blank slate, you can cook up your own electoral map. It would be a great game if everyone did the map in the way of a March madness pool, saved it as a file, then set it to a moderator.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The low-hanging fruit, ie idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking," he wrote. "These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government," he said.
"All of this behaviour supporting the aristocracy only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I honestly thought he'd leave it alone and keep harping on Ayers and Rezko, for several really good reasons:
1. Do you really want to have a war of crazy preachers when there are multiple videos of your VP candidate in a church that has equally if not more crazy sounding rhetoric than Wright? I've seen some of the video, and I think it'd spook a lot of people, to say nothing of the guest speakers they've had at their church. Obama has laid off it, but if McCain bring Wright back, who knows?
2. Bringing up Wright also I think would serve to emphasize McCain's own past associations with divisive religious figures.
3. Liar liar pants on fire! McCain said that Wright was off limits and then after a despicable offensive of robocalls that several prominant Republican have called on him to stop doing (and I've seen the script they use, it's vile and repulsive), he's going to use an insanely thinly veiled reason to bring him back in? Lewis has nothing to do with Wright, and for that matter, no affiliation with Obama. I think the hypocrisy problem will come back to bite him in the butt.
4. We've already been through Wright, how many minds will it really change? His attacks on Ayers have ticked up his support in red states, but it's cratered out his support among independents who deplore his methods. Going after Wright will look like beating a dead horse.
I think it'll reek of desparation, and that's because it does.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Didn't Clinton do some stuff in the last 15 years?
I am confused.
Kind of like the other day when i saw a bumper sticker that said
"Thank you George W. Bush for our Freedom."
I was like WTF DOES THAT MEAN?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Lyrhawn,
If you go here and go to blank slate, you can cook up your own electoral map. It would be a great game if everyone did the map in the way of a March madness pool, saved it as a file, then set it to a moderator.
For the Senate race or for the General? I'm assuming you mean for the General, and that's an interesting idea.
If people actually want to do that, I'll be the moderator. How exactly would the scoring work? One point for each electoral vote you get right? Would you save it as a screen shot?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I just heard that Obama will be leaving the campaign trail to be with his ailing grandmother in Hawaii. They're saying her condition is "very serious."
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure how likely a 60 seat majority is percentage wise, but I'd say there's a chance.
fivethirtyeight.com has it at ~32% if you count Sanders and Lieberman (Independant, but caucus with the Democrats). If you want 60 Dems outright, that's ~12%.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
60 outright means winning 11 seats. I don't see that happening. I mean that's possible too, but I'd be very surprised. 10 would only surprise me a little bit. 9 wouldn't surprise me at all. Anything less than six would surprise me.
I think Nate isn't giving Georgia enough of an edge given a lot of factors outside of what polling show. I think Chambliss is in more trouble that it looks like. Wicker might be too if Mississippi registration and turnout is anything like what Georgia's is looking to be.
I think it's better than 32%. But that's a gut feeling based on a lot of random information, and a little bit of biased hope.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Thank you George W. Bush for our Freedom." "I was like WTF DOES THAT MEAN?"
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." And Dubya has certainly done his best to make sure that the average American is left with nothing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh come now. He could have done much worse. I don't assign the man malicious intent. I think he's tried to do what he thinks is right, but that he's just disastrously wrong. If he had actually wanted to destroy the very fabric of American life he could have done it a lot more effectively, long lastingly, and faster than what he's done over the last eight years. The messes he has caused can be fixed, even if it takes a couple decades. He could have done far, far worse.
America has always been a fantastically lucky country when it comes to awful leaders followed by fantastic ones. After Pierce and Buchanan we got Lincoln. FDR provided a similar radical change in national direction after the Great Depression set in. America hasn't always had the right man at the right time, for as often as not, the right man would have prevented such problems from ever occurring, but whenever the national really hung in the balance, the right guy HAS been there. 9/11 was the big crisis of the last 30 years or so. Bush was the wrong guy. If history repeats itself again, the next president will be the right guy, and we'll transform again. Into what I don't know, but the precedent is there, and it's been repeated, and I have faith it can happen again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Whoa. I think Jon Stewart was just the teensiest bit hacked off with all the "real" America rhetoric.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
That was brilliant!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Whoa. I think Jon Stewart was just the teensiest bit hacked off with all the "real" America rhetoric.
I know how he feels.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
From 2004' but still relevent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I actually tend to not like Stewart as much when he's not on his show. He comes at every topic obliquely without just saying what he thinks. And he keeps doing this "aw shucks I'm not an important person" thing that looks totally insincere. He's either highly ignorant of his own power and position, or he's intentionally pretending that he's just some comedian. I'm not really sure what is going on in his head, but Colbert out of character is a lot more realistic and open about his effect on viewers.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Colbert also did considerable research on how to form and control cults ^-^
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The preparation of victims and executioners which totalitarianism requires in place of Montesquieu’s principle of action is not the ideology itself racism or dialectical materialism-but its inherent logicality. The most persuasive argument in this respect, an argument of which Hitler like Stalin was very fond, is: You can’t say A without saying B and C and so on, down to the end of the murderous alphabet. Here, the coercive force of logicality seems to have its source; it springs from our fear of contradicting ourselves....The coercive force of the argument is: if you refuse, you contradict yourself and, through this contradiction, render your whole life meaningless; the A which you said dominates your whole life through the consequences of B and C which it logically engenders.
This is a weird construct and it only really applies to extreme circumstances where the affiliation in question is hyperinflated to being the core of one's being. It could — could — apply in rigorously controlling, totalitarian cult-like circles like Scientology or something akin to the DPRK.
It sounds like it was applied to the mentality forced on people during the reign of Nazis in Germany. Unsurprisingly, it is talking about a much different time and a much different scenario from our democratic republic. It does not apply to most anybody's lives in the United States over the subject of who gets to be president/majority party. It's a ridiculous extrapolation.
Also, that was ... hideously written. It's not Heidegger bad, but it's getting close.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Whoa. I think Jon Stewart was just the teensiest bit hacked off with all the "real" America rhetoric.
I know how he feels.
If Obama's people are smart, they'll jump on this. This is far more offensive to a lot of people than some associations or comments about lipstick; this implies the people who want to rule the country think some people "belong to it" more than others. If any comments deserve demands for a retraction or a refutation, this would be it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Biden did a little bit, and Obama will be gone at the end of the week to visit his grandmother, but I suspect you'll start seeing big cities and suburbs hit with ads saying McCain says they unpatriotic and not part of "real" America, and I suspect it'll resonate.
I can't believe that one women didn't qualify her statement when the interviewer gave her a chance to restate herself when she said that Northern Virginia wasn't part of "real" Virginia. He said something like 'I'll give you a chance to fix that before you have to go' and she repeated herself and stuck to it! I don't think she realized what she was saying.
I bet when Obama gets back on the trail he'll hammer away at this though. It'll only serve to illustrate his point that he's an inclusive uniter whereas McCain's camp is literally starting to label American and unAmerican parts of the country.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It really does come full circle with the overarching theme of Senator Obama's political philosophy from the moment he became a national figure.
Might be a perfect time to revisit that theme.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Palin has offered a really half hearted apology for what she said:
quote:Originally posted by Sarah Palin: "I don't want that misunderstood," Palin said. "If that's the way it came across, I apologize."
I think we understood you quite clearly Governor.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To double check Barack Obama meets stipulation to qualify for the Office of the President of the USA yes? On my guild's vent some guy claimed that there was some technicality or stipulation that he wouldn't be able to prove hes an American citizen or something because his mom gave birth to him at age 18 or something involving some 5 year limit.
This was this morning so I am shakey on the details so maybe someone who does know something of constitutional law would be able to piece together what I may have heard and confirm to me that Barack Obama meets every stipulation to qualify to run for president.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's been checked, double checked, and triple checked. I'm not sure on the specifics of the law, but from the early to late 1900's, the law stated that for children who were not born on US soil, they had to have at least one parent who was a US citizen, and if that parent was under the age of 18, had to of lived in the US for 10 years and five of those had to be after you were 18. Something like that. Anyway, many are claiming that since she left for Indonesia when Barack was a kid, that negates his natural born citizenship status.
But the whole thing is a moot point because he was born on US soil, and is thus automatically a natural born citizen. To defeat that you have to listen to the conspiracy theorists who say that secreted off in the middle of the night to give birth to him in Kenya.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There has been a lot of talk about Obama's tightly organized and controlled campaign. I'm trying to figure out if the left has turned monolithic or if people are being silenced out of fear. It's spooky, and I don't know what it means. Where are the peace-niks? Where are the anti-death penalty people? Where are the immigration activists? Where are the unabashed liberals? Are they all tired from the long primary? There is world that's left of Obama, are they going to resurface after the election? ___
I'm thinking about this because I don't throw around American as an empty concept, or even a legal definition. The idea is freighted with controversal intuitions, and that means I do consider some people pro or anti-American, or more manifestly American than others. While I don't agree with Palin's crew about content of the concept, I can't imagine I agree with Obama's conception either, except his "unifying" vision tends to smother dissent in a different and subtle way. Republicans nakedly use fear for votes. I'm not sure that Obama's campaign doesn't invoke a different kind of fear to keep the campaign in line.
[ October 21, 2008, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Do you ever get down from your ivory tower in the marshmallow kingdom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami, seriously, it's bad when Blayne is scoring points off you.
quote:Where are the real liberals?
I think that depends on your definition, of course. Are you defining "real liberal" in a way that excludes 50% of the people who'd call themselves liberals, and 90% of the people who'd be called liberals by others?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Offended or Complimented... Offended or Complimented... Offended or Complimented...
......
Compliffementicated!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: There has been a lot of talk about Obama's tightly organized and controlled campaign. I'm trying to figure out if the left has turned monolithic or if people are being silenced out of fear. It's spooky, and I don't know what it means. Where are or hereor here the peace-niks? Where are the anti-death penalty people? Where are the immigration activists? Where are the unabashed liberals? Are they all tired from the long primary? There is world that's left of Obama, are they going to resurface after the election?
Or a thousand other places in the US. The far left is still out there and still every bit as vocal as they have ever been. They are not intimidated and have not become part of some monolithic Obama mania. They are still doing exactly what they've always done and getting just about as much press as they've always gotten.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Offended or Complimented... Offended or Complimented... Offended or Complimented...
......
Compliffementicated!
Awesome. Good choice.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Offended or Complimented... Offended or Complimented... Offended or Complimented...
......
Compliffementicated!
Blayne
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Blayne, when I see your good humor, it never fails to impress me. That was delightful.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: Where are the anti-death penalty people?
Biding our time. Not being single-issue voters.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
>_< Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
oh holy christ
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: "I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
quote: "I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."
"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
In other words support Obama blindy and please don't treat Biden/Obama the way President Bush was treated.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hey Mr Hack, meet Partisan.
Just me or are you incapable of understanding the nuance of people wanting your support against evidence to the contrary and people wanting your support with all the evidence of the world in mind.
Obama wants to restore public trust in the Office. Do you want this to be ancient Rome where only the populare decisions should be made?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
[ October 22, 2008, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Just me or are you incapable of understanding the nuance of people wanting your support against evidence to the contrary and people wanting your support with all the evidence of the world in mind.
It's you.
quote: Obama wants to restore public trust in the Office. Do you want this to be ancient Rome where only the populare decisions should be made?
Biden did not ask for that, he asked for blind faith in his decisions no matter what. Even if they seem wrong, you must support them which is exactly what he and the rest of Democrats railed against Bush for doing.
That's a bit of a mischaracterization, DK. He was saying that new presidents are always deliberately tested within their first few months in the office, especially given a tense foreign policy climate.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: That's a bit of a mischaracterization, DK. He was saying that new presidents are always deliberately tested within their first few months in the office, especially given a tense foreign policy climate.
I don't think so, TD. I think he was trying to do some fear mongering and invoke the name of JFK for comparison with Obama
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Biden did not ask for that, he asked for blind faith in his decisions no matter what.
Do you think he'll get it? Are you so inclined?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, you're certainly entitled to your incorrect opinion. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And what your doing is what? Pep talk?
The Bush administration has time and again scammed the American people, Barack Obama through all of his career shown nothing but hard work, good intentions, productive results, and integrity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fairness, Blayne, Obama's work has occasionally failed to produce results. He's not Superman. *laugh*
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Do you think he'll get it? Are you so inclined?
I do think he will get it from his supporters and from a large portion of the media. He may have a much easier time of things if he and Pelosi enact their "Fairness Doctrine".
quote: Well, you're certainly entitled to your incorrect opinion.
And you are entitled to your incorrect opinions as well. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do think he will get it from his supporters and from a large portion of the media.
Hm. I don't. Liberals aren't known for marching in lockstep, and the media feeds on controversy. He'll have to be very thoughtful and very careful if he's going to seek consensus.
quote:He may have a much easier time of things if he and Pelosi enact their "Fairness Doctrine".
For what it's worth, I'm a strong opponent of the "Fairness Doctrine," myself. So I'd be deeply disappointed if they tried to ram that through.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Disclaimer: I don't maintain that this is anywhere near an important issue. But it was interesting.
quote:Spending records filed with the Federal Election Commission and obtained by Politico show the RNC paid for "campaign accessories" from upscale department stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue, where nearly $50,000 was spent, Neiman Marcus, $75,000, and $4,700 for hair and makeup.
Okay. Spent lots of money. It's their money to do as they think helps their campaign. I do think the following is a weak excuse.
quote:The McCain campaign released a statement late Tuesday night saying, "With all the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
Charitable purpose? I agree that there are some excellent places that loan out interview clothes. It just seems like a funny thing to pretend that you're getting much value out of your $150k by donating the clothes to charity. I wish I could say that the spent money went back into the US economy. How much of every $100 spent at Saks or Neiman Marcus goes into a US worker's paycheck? Hmm.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Therefore Obama outspending McCain 3to1 means he is three times worse?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Therefore Obama outspending McCain 3to1 means he is three times worse?
If he's spending it on designer suits for Joe Biden, then yes.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: In other words support Obama blindy and please don't treat Biden/Obama the way President Bush was treated.
Or "You know, the next president is going to inherit a hellish situation, period." Of course he thinks that president is going to be Obama.
He'd hardly be the first person to observe that the next president has hard days ahead.
That you choose to interpret those comments in the most negative and partisan light isn't exactly a testament to your piercing insight.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: That you choose to interpret those comments in the most negative and partisan light isn't exactly a testament to your piercing insight.
How would you interpert his statements?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That regardless of who the next president is there's going to be a crisis of some sort. And yeah, he's saying "Trust us," in a similar fashion to what Bush did.
Two things: 1. I wonder how you can complain about liberals and the media going along with Obama when the media and most the nation were overwhelmingly on Bush's side in the run up to and the initial stages of the Iraq War. Criticism of Bush, especially in the media, was sacrosanct for a long time. It was only after some seriously glaring errors became apparent that vocal criticism started reaching hearable levels, and hasn't quieted much since then, because instead of convincing answers, "trust us" became an anthem for eight years.
Well a great many people who otherwise weren't so inclined to did trust him when we got into Iraq. Personally I didn't like the guy from Day 1, but after 9/11 even I was willing to give him support and the benefit of the doubt, and he rushed off in the exact wrong, inexplicable direction. But for a lot of those people, when they saw where their blind trust had gotten them, revolted against it and started criticizing. So here it is: Bush had his freebie. He got elected and spent eight months doing nothing and going on long vacations and then tragedy hit and the nation rallied behind him. He led the nation down a dark tunnel to nowhere, and that trust evaporated.
2. Looking back on the history of the Bush presidency, I think people were foolish to go along with the Iraq War. I didn't like the idea from the beginning. I was hesitant about invading Afghanistan too, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and seven or so years later, I'm still cautiously optimistic about it. Don't ignore the amount of trust it took to get us into that war either.
It wasn't necessarily the blind faith that got us into those wars that people today tend to rail about, it's the continuing blind faith against the mountain of evidence that people rail against.
And so yes, Biden is saying "trust us," and I think it's fair. We might not see the logic at first, but like Bush we should be willing to give some benefit of the doubt, a tie breaker of sorts. I think that's what happened with Afghanistan. If a second thing comes along (Iraq) that looks sketchy, then we refuse to give our trust again if the first thing should not pan out.
That was an awfully written post, but when I'm distracted I tend to ramble. But to try and sum it up: Bush got a massive massive free pass from the country and used it as a blank check to do whatever he wanted. Through it all, Republicans blindly supported him while liberals cautiously went along before changing their minds. Obama should get the same initial benefit of the doubt, but no one is suggesting that regardless of what he does we should just blindly follow him. We saw for eight years what happens when you do that, and I know I won't go along with it. Liberals in general won't either. Not being able to force the footsoldiers into lockstep regardless of circumstance is why Democrats get whooped so often in Congress in Republicans.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Here in Virginia, we got a mailing about Williams Ayers today. ("This is the story of William Ayers... Terrorist. Radical. Friend of Obama.")
I'm donating to the DNC this year. Just called up the local Republican Party office to let them know that they'd motivated me to do it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How did they respond?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Backlash seems to be a buzzword this year.
I've only been following politics seriously since the late 90's (give me a break, before the late 90's I was a pre-teen), and I don't think I've ever seen Democrats getting so much money thanks to Republican actions, especially the DNC. Usually Democrats give to candidates rather than organizations. Now that isn't always true, as women's groups defending abortion have always had enough money to make themselves heard, but abortion to me has always been an outlier.
But Republicans could drum up donations from their base on any number of hot button (to them) issues of morality or religion. And a lot of that money goes to the RNC, which has always had an advantage over the DNC, an overwhelming advantage.
This year however Republican advantages are only stoking the fires. Republicans nominate Sarah Palin and it turns into a one day $10 million drive for Democrats. In reality Obama averaged $5 million a day in September, so you could either call her nomination a one day $5 million spike, or you could call it the very reason Obama raised $150 million in September at all. Or there's the Republican Rep in I think Minnesota (Michelle Bachmann? Name?) who said that the media should do an investigation into whether or not Obama and Democrats in Congress were anti-America, and a few days later her cash strapped opponent got something like $700,000 in donations.
Backlash, as much as Obama's cult of personality, is what is flooding Democratic campaign coffers all across the country. It looks to me that for every dollar Republicans might be getting from their tactics, they're giving two or three to their opposition from pissed off citizens pushed to oppose them financially.
I wonder if, after this election is over, or maybe after McCain is retired, you could ask him if he could do it all over again, knowing that a negative campaign didn't work, would he try it from the beginning running a positive campaign and see it through, what he'd say.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: How did they respond?
The woman who answered the phone sounded young and kinda timid, so I felt sorry for her and didn't go on for long. She asked if I wanted my name taken off the mailing list so that I wouldn't get more mailings. (Wasn't my name, so I said no.)
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
My favorite part was the reaction of the woman behind him, on the right side of the screen.
--Mel
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: How would you interpert his statements?
More or less as I said: whoever the next president is will undoubtedly face problems on multiple fronts- the stock market, the banking sector, the petroleum markets, an increasingly aggressive Russia, an increasingly unstable Pakistan, how to most effectively use our current military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on.
Biden thinks that president will be Obama. There's a very spirited backing behind the man; he's warning that the problems he faces will be real, they're going to require some tough decisions, and he's probably not going to satisfy everyone. The JFK reference may seem excessive, but it isn't entirely inapt: a president who many felt was also young and lacking in experience had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis not very long after his election, and arguably handled the crisis well.
You claim that he's saying "please don't treat Biden/Obama the way President Bush was treated"; actually, he's saying he expects not to be so well received by his own supporters in the wake of the hard decisions of a crisis. Frankly, Obama should be so lucky as to be treated like Bush after a crisis. Bush's job approval rating after 9/11, according to Gallup, was 92%. His level of approval and the public sentiments (including those held by the Congress members of both parties who gathered on the Capitol to sing "God Bless America") allowed him to push through a lot of legislation that many would later come to regret.
If I was going to say anything negative about Biden's comments, it would be that the timing is premature. Obviously, there's about two more weeks yet until we know whether Obama will be president, and he's trying to lower expectations. But arguably, then, the oddest thing is that a leader of a party that may well pick up a presidency and a Congressional majority is appealing to his base for their support through tough times ahead. If things go as planned, he's not going to need the voters' approval to push an agenda after the elections, but he's still seeking it. Maybe we ought to be glad that he's being that honest. A lot of talking heads are openly speculating if the sheer financial wherewithal is going to be there for major portions of either candidate's platform; this is as close as either camp has come to acknowledging that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I came from the people They need to adore me So Christian Dior me From my head to my toes
OMG!!! She's Evita!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Does anyone know where I can find statistics of DNC vs. RNC fundraising totals over the years?
my google skills are currently failing me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I looked and couldn't find a yearly breakdown, but I found some stats for presidential election years:
D vs R fundraising in millions of dollars
1983-84: 84.4 vs 289 1987-88: 116.1 vs 257.5 1991-92: 163.3 vs 264.9 1995-96: 221.6 vs 416.5 1999-00: 275.2 vs 465.8 2003-04: 678.8 vs 782.4
Some pretty incredible numbers. That comes from a book called Presidential Elections, which looks fascinating and for that matter also huge, since that comes from page 1,948.
I saw on a different website that as of the middle of June, the running total for the DNC was something like $77.5 million. But I'm not sure exactly what some of the numbers I'm seeing elsewhere encompass. Do they cover the whole 07-08 cycle like the numbers above, or just one year, or what? I'd have to do more checking, which I can do later, so take that with a grain of salt.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
awesome find, thanks Lyrhawn.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
fivethirtyeight had a pretty big change in numbers today. You know you're way too involved when a 2% jump like that blows you away. But it totally did!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Holy crap.
That recent polling data is even more positive for Obama than my own personal best case guess at what his electoral math might look like. I still don't think Indiana is in Obama's camp though, but I think Georgia is a lot closer than five points.
I don't see how McCain can possibly make up those kinds of numbers in what, 11 days? Especially when things seem to only get better and better for Obama.
If his message hasn't worked thus far, 11 more days of hammering it home isn't going to shift 100 electoral votes.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Obama's been getting a bunch of endorsements from conservatives lately (Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, Scott McClellan). Has McCain picked up any endorsements from Democrats/liberals?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, there's Lieberman.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Everyone keeps saying how liberals are not all in agreement but Republicans are all in lockstep yet Democrats haven't reached out at all, and when Lieberman disagreed he was immediately booted right out of the Democrat party
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.
A TV spot says McCain's plan requires "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both." Obama said in a speech that McCain plans "cuts" that would force seniors to "pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."
Update, Oct. 21: A second Obama ad claims that McCain’s plan would bring about a 22 percent cut in benefits, “higher premiums and co-pays," and more expensive prescription drugs.
These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial "savings" through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Everyone keeps saying how liberals are not all in agreement but Republicans are all in lockstep yet Democrats haven't reached out at all, and when Lieberman disagreed he was immediately booted right out of the Democrat party
Reaching out is all nice and good. But sometimes (and this goes for both sides, and not in all instances) the other side is just wrong. And when the other side is wrong, and also not movable from whatever position they are in, 'reaching out' becomes useless.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
DK, Lieberman quit the Democratic party after he lost a primary election to another Democrat.
He was not kicked out, and was still held in some respect, still held key committee positions, still caucused with the Democrats until he spoke at the Republican convention.
Some members have worked across the aisle with the Republican administration. But that is hard to do when early in the administration they were completely cut out of any discussion.
I heard a caller on a news radio program say something similar to what you say, that the Democrats should reach out to the Republicans more. The radio personality asked for specifics. The specifics were a list of Republican platform initiatives, from outlawing abortion to completely relinquishing all debate on Iraq and torture to whatever the Republican President thought was best.. Basically, the only good Democrat that he was willing to talk to is one that was a Republican.
Is this what you are asking for?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
"If only the Democrats would continue to capitulate, we would get along fine"? Interesting... Hasn't exactly been a winner for Democrats in the past...
If the last eight years have suggested anything to me, it's that the electorate by and large would rather vote for people with destructive ideas who have spines than people with progressive ideas who are jellyfish.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This morning on the local T&T radio station, the commenters expressed an opinion that Obama visiting his ailing grandmother was a great campaign move (they were not cynically implying that this was why he went to see her). Their reasoning was that this would not only emphasize his human/family side but more importantly that the pictures of him seated between his two white grandparents that are hitting the news as a result would send a good racial message.
As a former slave colony, T&T is very sensitive to racial issues but the perspective here doesn't necessarily aline with racial issues and tensions in the US, so I'm wondering how this is playing state side.
First, are pictures of Obama and his white grandmother actually getting much play in the news? Second, is that a positive image that at subconscious level help white people relate to Obama?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I haven't seen any pictures, and frankly I'd think that for anyone who is really racist, pictures of the products of interracial couplings would only make them more mad. But I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of a racist's mind.
I think most of my relating to him has to do with his economic background, not his family or racial background. Having white grandparents and a white mother isn't going to help me relate to whatever he had to put up with growing up as a black kid, or what it felt like having such a unique family nature. But the guy's family struggled with money just like mine has, so I relate in that way, but even if I didn't I'd likely still vote for him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Come to think of it, they have been showing a couple of pictures. They are ones we have seen before, the one where Sen. Obama and his grandparent are sitting on a bench and the one where they are hugging.
It is also Mrs. Dunham's birthday Sunday which probably contributes to the timing.
I do hope that she is able to see her grandson elected.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I haven't seen any pictures, and frankly I'd think that for anyone who is really racist, pictures of the products of interracial couplings would only make them more mad. But I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of a racist's mind.
That was my response as well. The taboos against interracial marriage have never been strong in this region and in fact the majority of people have a mixed racial background so I'm not sure they really understand that for many Americans being part white might be worse than being all black.
But I don't think people who are hard core racist are the real question. There are a lot of Americans who have racial prejudices that are buried so deeply they don't even admit them to themselves. But those suppressed racist tendencies make them feel uneasy about Obama, they make them more likely to listen to the McCain camp when they try to label Obama as "the other", "the foreigner who doesn't share our American values". And for those people, pictures of Obama with his white grandparents and news stories reporting that he plans to help grandma with household chores that have been neglected might relieve some of that uneasiness.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I loved this quote from Good Morning America because its so true to my own experience
quote:MS. ROBERTS: When this airs, you'll be with her. What's the first thing you want to do when you see her?
SEN. OBAMA: Oh, you know. I want to give her a kiss and a hug, and then we're going to find out what chores I can do around the house, because I'm sure there's been some stuff that's been left undone.
When my grandmother and MIL were very ill, we'd come and see them and after the requisite hugs, reports and reminiscing, we would take out the recycling, rake the leaves, change the burned out light bulbs, fix the leaking faucets and all those little things that grandma or MIL were too ill to do.
I like the idea of someone who could easily be the next President of the US, who is in the middle of the final weeks of a campaign taking the time to help out with his ailing grandmothers household chores. It makes me feel that we share something in the way we view life and family and emphasizes his humble origins.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
While driving home today I noticed the large number of Obama signs in yards of houses in what is considered a Republican stronghold. (St. Louis County, west St. Louis County in particular, was mentioned on Fox News as one of McCains strongholds).
I think G'Kar has better diplomacy skills than Spock, although I'm pretty sure Kirk has Londo beat, with Londo's tendency towards poisoning and political trickery, and all.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
or, "Legolas/Gimli--08. Take Diversity to the next level."
"Aragorn/Arwen--08. Return of the King."
"Sauron/Sauramon--08. Promoting pro-active defense since the 3rd age."
"Fudge & Umbridge--08. Tough on crime."
"Adama--08. More than the token ugly guy."
"The Doctor--08. Been there, done that."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I haven't seen any pictures, and frankly I'd think that for anyone who is really racist, pictures of the products of interracial couplings would only make them more mad. But I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of a racist's mind.
That was my response as well. The taboos against interracial marriage have never been strong in this region and in fact the majority of people have a mixed racial background so I'm not sure they really understand that for many Americans being part white might be worse than being all black.
We were talking about some of the roots of racism in my Civil War history class the other day, and I read an essay by an historian who said that by and large, when Europeans went to South America and the Caribbean, they were mostly single men, but when they came to North America, they came in either family units, or equal male to female ratios. The result? In the south there was a lot of intermarriage between white men and local women, and at that time, racism as we know it today just didn't exist. And it never really developed in the same way, nor did the taboo against interracial marriage.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
So... with McCain doing badly now... who would've been a better Republican candidate? With all the current economic trouble/Bush unpopularity, is there a Republican who could win?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Huckabee!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by plaid: So... with McCain doing badly now... who would've been a better Republican candidate? With all the current economic trouble/Bush unpopularity, is there a Republican who could win?
Romney might have crashed and burned for other reasons, but I think with the economic crisis having happened now, him being on the Republican ticket would have reigned in some of the drop off we've seen in McCain support.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Or, you know, if McCain had just been McCain he might be a little better off now.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Honestly, I do not think this was the year for Republicans. I sometimes feel like McCain was almost offered up as a sacrifice by the party. Granted, he didn't do himself any favors by pretending to be someone else, but the only way I think any Republican candidate had a chance was if Clinton had won the nomination. Or maybe that's just because I couldn't stand her. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At the same time, I think Clinton would have had a lot of lower middle class white rural support that Obama isn't getting. Obama will still crush her in terms of total votes, but Clinton wouldn't have ANY means been a pushover. Besides, 10 to 1 says she would have picked Obama as her VP. They would have been a powerful ticket, and I think it would have locked up the White House for 12 years at least.
Who would the better Republican candidate be? Michael Bloomberg maybe, if he had chosen to run, and as a Republican. Other than that, Romney backstopped by a strong evangelical conservative with hardcore abortion credentials, basically Sarah Palin, but if we're playing 20/20 Hindsight, then not Sarah Palin. She turns off as many people as she turns on it seems. Romney would have blunted the bulk of Obama's economic steam, but he would have had his own problems. I think he would've done better in the debates as well.
But like rollainm said, if McCain circa 2000 had shown up to dance, this would be an entirely different hoedown. He dug his own grave in many ways. Too much coaching.
I think Huckabee was the VP candidate that should have been. If you need a strong religious conservative with zero questions about his/her beliefs, choose the ex-minister. Furthermore, he's been vetted in state level gubanatorial elections and a nationwide presidential elections. The guy is ridiculously likeable and folksy. I disagree with him to high heaven but I'd jump at the chance to have lunch with him. He's funny, honestly folksy, and seems genuinely awesome, despite some of his more outside the mainstream views. Palin was chosen to woo disaffected Clinton supporters AND excite the base. She excited the base, brought in almost none of those Clinton supporters, and has totally turned off the center. Huckabee could have excited the base and wooed a crap ton of undecided centrists, and I think it would have played well to McCain's supposed middle of the road stature as well. Huckabee was absolutely the best choice for McCain, and had Romney won, for him too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Huckabee IS awesome same here, I disagree with him on every level but man, I couldn't imagine not hanging out with him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Palin still doesn't know what the VP does Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Anyone catch the "gaffes" bit on Thursday's Daily Show? Ouch. A little pain for everyone.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Hahahahaha...
That daily show had me laughing all night...
(I couldn't fall asleep)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by plaid: So... with McCain doing badly now... who would've been a better Republican candidate? With all the current economic trouble/Bush unpopularity, is there a Republican who could win?
Is it necessary for me to say it? How about the guy who correctly predicted the implosion of the economy and was accused of saying the sky was falling (even here on this forum)? How about the only person who saw this coming and knows how to stop it from happening again and again and again, worse every time?
Right now, Ron Paul is the only person who has the brains and commitment to keep things from getting a lot worse than they already are.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by plaid: So... with McCain doing badly now... who would've been a better Republican candidate? With all the current economic trouble/Bush unpopularity, is there a Republican who could win?
Is it necessary for me to say it? How about the guy who correctly predicted the implosion of the economy and was accused of saying the sky was falling (even here on this forum)? How about the only person who saw this coming and knows how to stop it from happening again and again and again, worse every time?
Right now, Ron Paul is the only person who has the brains and commitment to keep things from getting a lot worse than they already are.
Ron Paul would have been an awful choice for a lot of reasons. His views on the federal government are ridiculously outside the mainstream. McCain might not like pork, but Paul wants to get rid of everything. He's a weak public speaker and a poor campaigner. Obama would have plastered the GOP debates all over the airwaves of the other candidates, McCain included, telling Paul he was wrong left and right about nearly everything.
I think Paul was a breath of fresh air when it comes to the Iraq war, the problems with it, the reasoning behind it, etc, and the attacks he suffered from McCain, Giuliani and the others were despicable and stupid. But there's no way you'd be able to sell his economic policies to mainstream America. Obama would have painted them as two old out of touch white guys.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't want Ron Paul as president, but I certainly see his value as an alternative voice, even if I don't agree with everything he says.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Threads, please tell me that's satirical.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ron Paul has also incorrectly predicted the implosion of the economy again and again and again.
Even a stopped clock is right occasionally.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And apparently Mrs. Palin has decided that she needs to outgrow the McCain campaign machine and begin to strike it out on her own. Either that or McCain needs to clamp down on the aides running their campaign. I can't imagine how these aides think their doing their candidate any favors by leaking this sort of information to the press.
She's just bein' all mav'ricky!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From BlackBlade's link:
quote:A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.
Seriously?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I just can't get the "We've got them just where we want them" line out of my head.
And, with that, John Stewart's comments:
"We've got them just where we want them! Here's the plan...we're going to let Obama win. Then, after three maybe four years of running the country, we spring the trap!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Ron Paul has also incorrectly predicted the implosion of the economy again and again and again.
Even a stopped clock is right occasionally.
Yeah, you could probably fill a small book with his various permutations of incorrect assumptions of economic collapse.
Ironic thing is really that his type of deregulation/nonregulation shtick, especially in the case of credit default swaps, was essentially what brought us to this current state of affairs, so Paul would (if anything) be considered more or less complicit in the factors which created the very situation he now wants to strut his plumage over.
Paul is not in a good position. Libertarian economics has fared poorly in the wake of this event. People now want more regulation, not less. Even Greenspan has morosely shelved his Ayn Rand books and made the ground-breaking personal discovery that markets need more national regulation than he believed in.
quote:The admission that free markets have their faults was a shift for the former Fed chairman who declared in a May 2005 speech that ``private regulation generally has proved far better at constraining excessive risk-taking than has government regulation.''
quote:Alan Greenspan said a ``once-in-a-century credit tsunami'' has engulfed financial markets and conceded that his free-market ideology shunning regulation was flawed.
If you look at the actual transcript, his 'concession' is being misrepresented by the news. He acknowledges that he didn't see it coming, but mostly talks (accurately) about how even a good system has outlying statistical events.
Exactly the same as how about one in twenty results that are confirmed with ninety-five percent confidence will be wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Perhaps bloomberg "is responsible" for "perhaps taking ... [the] statements" "of" "Greenspan ... [out] of context" but there are some telling statements by the guy. He concedes that his regulatory model was too lax.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I've seen a couple different articles now with statements like this :
quote:“The fact is, when you’re the party standard-bearer, you have an obligation to fight to the finish,” this [senior Republican] strategist continued. “I think they can still win. But if they don’t think that, they need to look at how Bob Dole finished out his campaign in 1996 and not try to take down as many Republicans with them as they can. Instead of campaigning in Electoral College states, Dole was campaigning in places he knew he didn’t have a chance to beat Clinton, but where he could energize key House and Senate races.”
That's a hell of a decision to have to make. Go for the chance of the come-from-behind victory and take the chance of losing the Senate... or give up on the White House, and help hold on to the Senate.
Hard time to be John McCain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This is not really a difficult decision, as the chance for a come-from-behind victory is practically impossible at this point.
The election has been over for weeks now, and when I first called it, McCain was still in better shape than he is now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And apparently Mrs. Palin has decided that she needs to outgrow the McCain campaign machine and begin to strike it out on her own. Either that or McCain needs to clamp down on the aides running their campaign. I can't imagine how these aides think their doing their candidate any favors by leaking this sort of information to the press.
See, they screwed it all up from the beginning. If McCain is a Maverick, then Lieberman is a Goose, and therefore Palin is obviously Merlin... makes sense right?
George Bush is Bear. He used to be top dog, but he lost it at the beginning, and now he's down and out. Grounded. And Obama is obviously Iceman- he's going to be Top Gun in the end.
Now all we need is a barechested volleyball scene.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Hadassah Lieberman != Meg Ryan
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: See, they screwed it all up from the beginning. If McCain is a Maverick, then Lieberman is a Goose, and therefore Palin is obviously Merlin... makes sense right?
George Bush is Bear. He used to be top dog, but he lost it at the beginning, and now he's down and out. Grounded. And Obama is obviously Iceman- he's going to be Top Gun in the end.
Now all we need is a barechested volleyball scene.
Quentin Tarantino is what you get when you combine equal parts arrogant, movie fanatic, insight, and cocaine.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Palin said "God is in control, we will win the white house."
Mccain said "I believe I will win."
okey dokey.
with 60% of America being moderate
The Republicans don't stand a chance.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There is a push to leverage Governor Palin into the Republican front runner for 2012.
I think that would just about guarantee 8 years of President Obama.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he can “guarantee” a win on Nov. 4 in a squeaker victory that won’t be clear until late that night.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he can “guarantee” a win on Nov. 4 in a squeaker victory that won’t be clear until late that night.
If this prediction proves true, it really raises suspicions that the elections are rigged.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I'm seriously caught between and . My girlfriend thinks they're seriously just making fun of us.
Meanwhile I'm trying to psychoanalyze them to figure out whether they're trying to use reverse psychology on us and they actually favor Obama or if they seriously support McCain.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: See, they screwed it all up from the beginning. If McCain is a Maverick, then Lieberman is a Goose, and therefore Palin is obviously Merlin... makes sense right?
George Bush is Bear. He used to be top dog, but he lost it at the beginning, and now he's down and out. Grounded. And Obama is obviously Iceman- he's going to be Top Gun in the end.
Now all we need is a barechested volleyball scene.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There is a push to leverage Governor Palin into the Republican front runner for 2012.
I think that would just about guarantee 8 years of President Obama.
She'll never win the primary. It's that simple. I think she'd certainly win a lot of primaries, but I'm betting a more well known GOP governor from a larger state takes a swing at the GOP ticket in 2012, and he'll wipe the floor with her in the big states.
Alcon -
I heard about that. CNN had a quote from the McCain camp about how Al Qaeda was lying or something, I can't remember the exact quote. Frankly I thought they'd come out endorsing Obama to give McCain more fodder to attack him with. But the reasoning behind their support of McCain makes perfect sense. If their enemy is peace, the guy who represents the best chance for peace would be their enemy as well.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Argh. People should be losing their jobs over this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I like to believe that this is in general well-intentioned on both sides.
On one hand, you have a bunch of lists that almost certainly contain a certain number of fraudulent names. On the other, the mechanisms for automatically detecting frauds have a false positive rate of about 25%. So if you don't run those automatic processes well in advance of the election, 25% of your voting population will be forced to re-register within a very narrow timeframe. But if you run them too early, late registrations will still contain an unacceptably high number of frauds.
Frankly, it's for this reason that I support the idea of a national Voter ID.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think Canada has a system like that, I get my voter card in the mail, tells me where to vote and then i go to vote.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The problem is the initial law passed by Congress I think last year or after the last election. It required states to create central databases but without a whole lot of direction. The result is typographical and administrative errors can lead to tens of thousands of mismatches per state. I can't remember the state, I want to say Wisconsin or Minnesota, but one state's federal election commission had a few former judges on it, and a third of them were deemed invalid under the system. I'll have to double check that, I think I got a detail or two wrong there.
But the point is that this purging method is ridiculously prone to error. Part of the problem also is that voters can challenge this at the polls, but a lot of them don't know that, so they just give up and don't vote. It's impossible to know what sort of effect this could have on the outcome, but considering the numbers of new voters and the numbers on a state by state level that are in danger, it's potentially scary stuff.
It's a poorly written law that most of these problems are resulting from.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: Kinda. There's a database gleaned from various places. For example, there's that checkbox on your tax return that lets the Canadian Revenue Agency pass on your name and address to Elections Canada.
But it doesn't seem to be much of an issue since we allow people to register to vote on the day of voting with a big list of valid ID anyways.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yessss.... I am the real BB....
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: From BlackBlade's link:
quote:A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.
Seriously?
Yeah, see, it's like when kids learn that they are supposed to say "no offense" before saying something offensive. Then they think it's fair game to say whatever they want, because they said "no offense." Another classic is "please." Here, Palin thinks that as long as she admits to being bad at answering questions, this will somehow be dismissed as irrelevant to running the most powerful nation on the face of the earth...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lyrhawn, it was Wisconsin. Although the details were a bit wrong. Basically, the AG's calling for a last-minute purge of the voter rolls using the current technology, but the current technology would recommend for purging four of the seven members of the commission and the Attorney General.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yessss.... I am the real BB....
I actually looked to see what question I had asked Mucus when he said that.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Projected ElectoralCollege split McCain -- 163 votes Obama -- 9120 votes
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmm, I guess I'll have to expand it to BlBr and BlBl
Re: the electoral college
I found that pretty useless considering the huge Obama margin in the States and the odd Iraq and Cuba outliers that probably correspond to US military personnel.
Its would probably be better for the Economist to call it an unreliable poll of British and American expats rather than, well, an unreliable poll of the whole world voting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Another classic is "please." Here, Palin thinks that as long as she admits to being bad at answering questions, this will somehow be dismissed as irrelevant to running the most powerful nation on the face of the earth...
though I've been all like 'lol palin!' for a while now I am actually legitimately surprised at how much of a farce she turned the republican ticket into.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Having noticed that CNN had the "Palin Rogue" as its top story today, I thought I'd take a peak over at foxnews.com to see what they have.
Oh my goodness. Each of the top stories highlighted are:
1) 2001 interview of Obama discussing Supreme Court's failure to rule on redistributing wealth gives GOP fresh ammo. 2) A picture of a Palin mannequin being hung in a Halloween display. (the outrage!) 3) A report on how Biden is complaining that reporter comparing Obama to Marx isn't valid. (way to bring up the comparison in the guise of Biden's reaction to it.) 4) U.S.: Strike Killed Al Qaeda Leader (rah rah, go troops)
It really is the Republican news network.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That only proves it is the Republican network if you believe CNN is the baseline.
The Palin rogue article could just as easily prove CNN is the network of the Democrats.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'll buy that CNN leans Democrat. The story on Palin "going rogue" definitely triggered my bias meters.
Foxnews doesn't just lean Republican, it is a Republican propaganda mill.
Not quite the same thing, at least in my eyes.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Okay, we'll use NPR and PBS as a baseline:
NPR 1) Campaigns Ratchet Up Ground Game In Ohio 2) For Some, Housing Crisis Stress Is Unbearable 3) South Dakotans Again Consider An Abortion Ban
PBS 1) Increased Decay Strains Budget-strapped New Orleans Port 2) Attempts to Ease Credit Crunch Reveal Mixed Results 3) Headed Toward Election Day, Candidates Hammer Messages Home in Battlegrounds
Yeah, Fox News is so blatantly biased it's not even funny. But I'd go further than calling them the Republican News Network. They're not really traditionally conservative. They're much closer to the NeoCon News Network.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
MSNBC leans pretty heavily Democratic. CNN is fairly down the middle, but they tilt Democratic maybe a little bit. Fox News is above and beyond. But I don't think it's the stories they choose to highlight, it's their commentary on those stories.
This is the network who coined the "terrorist fist jab" phrase. It's one thing to show somewhat biased news coverage. It's another to actively pursue an agenda.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: MSNBC leans pretty heavily Democratic. CNN is fairly down the middle, but they tilt Democratic maybe a little bit. Fox News is above and beyond. But I don't think it's the stories they choose to highlight, it's their commentary on those stories.
Fox seems to think that commentary is news, and that opinion is just as good as truth.
2 + 2 = 4 ...but let's be Fair and Balanced and give just as much time to the people who say 2 and 2 is 5.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: MSNBC leans pretty heavily Democratic. CNN is fairly down the middle, but they tilt Democratic maybe a little bit. Fox News is above and beyond. But I don't think it's the stories they choose to highlight, it's their commentary on those stories.
Fox seems to think that commentary is news, and that opinion is just as good as truth.
2 + 2 = 4 ...but let's be Fair and Balanced and give just as much time to the people who say 2 and 2 is 5.
I think Fox news understands exactly where it is on the political spectrum and it's there to maximize profits hence it being the most watched news network.
I don't however think everyone who does and will work for that network cares about profits.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Court records were just released regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms & Tobacco's foiling of a "skinhead plot" to kill >100 African Americans, focusing on a high school and moving up to Barack Obama, if possible. From what I'm reading, it was two men behind this, and I am not sure how significant the threat was.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
People suck.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Indeed.
--
Aha. 102 = 14 + 88. Was trying to figure out the significance of the number.
--j_k
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Yeah, sometimes they do. Sometimes they even do on a massive scale.
But I still try to believe they don't intrinsically suck. And I've been blessed to have a few people in my life who were so good they gave me hope for the rest of us.
People suck, but they also rule. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I googled 14 88 and found what I believe is the reference:
This really sucks. The last thing America needs right now is another disputed election. We need a democratic process we can trust.
I really dislike the fact that these voting machines are closed source and haven't been vetted by an independent group. Tthat isn't because I think they are necessarily flawed or even rigged, but because I think many many people don't trust them. I really wish America would have independent verification by outside observers for our elections. Until we do, fears that our elections aren't fair will continue to erode our democratic society.
I also really dislike the fact that, at least in many states, elections are certified by partisan elected officials who at times have even acted as campaign chairs for one candidate. If you are trying to build a system people can trust, that is exactly the wrong way to do it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I googled 14 88 and found what I believe is the reference:
Check CT's link. The skinheads in question were plotting to kill 102 Black Americans, ending with Obama.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
CNN is either pro-Obama or anti-Palin. I still to go to it out of convenience or because the layout is clean, but I think they like taking shots at Palin and McCain too much, while giving Obama a pass.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, practically I have to imagine this gives the seat to Democrat Mark Begich.
Either that or Alaska will elect a convicted felon. That's assuming the judge gives him zero jail time, which frankly I imagine is likely.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: People suck.
And these fellows are even worse.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Well, practically I have to imagine this gives the seat to Democrat Mark Begich.
Either that or Alaska will elect a convicted felon. That's assuming the judge gives him zero jail time, which frankly I imagine is likely.
Oh, how I wish I could count on Alaskans being that sane. Heck, if they were, I might still live there.
(Er, nah. My wife really didn't want to live without seeing sunlight for five months of the year.)
There are actually people who will say with a straight face that Stevens has done great things for the State, that his convictions are a partisan witch hunt, and people aren't respecting others' right to do things the way they want to.
Bless that "frontier mentality" lunacy.
Begich is a good guy; I wish him luck.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Check CT's link. The skinheads in question were plotting to kill 102 Black Americans, ending with Obama.
Ah, thanks Rabbit. Was at work, wasn't fully paying attention.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: CNN is either pro-Obama or anti-Palin.
Or the truth is pro-Obama and anti-Palin.
Just a possibility.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
In the electoral college, just about half of the votes in this country want McCain to win this election. If CNN or the New York Times are to be believed, all of those people are deluded about McCain's chances or stupid. This media group think reminds me of the run-up to the Iraq war, and to be honest, if McCain wins this election-- or even makes it close, or Nader gets higher than 2 percent-- I hope a lot of the editorial staff of CNN and MSNBC get canned for poor coverage.
Edit: It looks like the would be assassins are just kids, 18 and 20. I hope they get counseling instead of hard time. People like that usually come out worse than they went in.
[ October 27, 2008, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In the electoral college, just about half of the votes in this country want McCain to win this election
In the electoral college, that's 350+ vs. about 188.
that's not just about half for mccain.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
oh my god, Daily Show 20th, anyone see the interview with the current mayor of wassila? She doesn't do ANYTHING, dear god. Has a staff meeting and signs checks? Oooooh that is so much more responsible then helping poor people in run down areas of Chicago.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
They do edit those segments for maximum lulz, but I think they still got the essense of things.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Every time Irami posts in this thread, I become more convinced that he is somehow accessing our internet from an alternate dimension that bears only a passing resemblance to our own.
--Enigmatic
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
They were just kids who were planning on shooting up a high school and killing 101 kids before trying for Obama. They knew they probably wouldn't successfully kill him, they hadn't even bothered researching his schedule. If it was just the threat against him, I'd agree it was pretty pathetic and they had no chance of success. But they planned on going into a high school first and shooting or decapitating 100 people who weren't surrounded by secret service agents. Don't forget that part.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Every time Irami posts in this thread, I become more convinced that he is somehow accessing our internet from an alternate dimension that bears only a passing resemblance to our own.
--Enigmatic
I'm sure Irami is quite serious about the opinions he expresses, as much so as you or I. There's no evidence that he just trolls for a response.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's consistent with what Enigmatic said.
Though Irami has said that he often exaggerates for rhetorical effect.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That's consistent with what Enigmatic said.
Though Irami has said that he often exaggerates for rhetorical effect.
Suggesting that somebody is so consistently wrong about the world that the only explanation is that they live in an alternate version of reality is just a more subtle way of saying they are crazy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Which is different from saying that they aren't serious. Crfazy people are often quite earnest.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One very intelligent, friendly, helpful man I knew was also completely certain the government was out to spy on him by planting devices in his brain.
That was because he was schizophrenic. He was never able to convince himself it wasn't true, but he was able to structure his life so he felt the government wasn't likely to be interested in it, which let him function.
I don't think Irami is schizophrenic, but I do think he builds fantasies about how the world works that he likes to argue as if they were true. Furthermore, I know that he exaggerates for effect, as he has said, meaning that he frequently utters statements which are utterly ridiculous that might be at least debatable if qualified.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
BlackBlade, first you say that I'm calling Irami a troll, then you say I'm calling him crazy. Which is it?
In fact I'm doing neither. To put in less colorful terms than my original summary: Irami's logic is sound based on his initial premises, as are his conclusions, but I have absolutely no idea were he gets the information that forms his initial premises, because it rarely matches up with my observed reality. (Case in point: McCain has nearly half of the electoral college? Really?)
Now, admittingly, if he was crazy that would be one possible explanation. So would his being completely accurate in his observations of the world and me being delusional. But I think my explanation is far more interesting.
--Enigmatic
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: BlackBlade, first you say that I'm calling Irami a troll, then you say I'm calling him crazy. Which is it?
In fact I'm doing neither. To put in less colorful terms than my original summary: Irami's logic is sound based on his initial premises, as are his conclusions, but I have absolutely no idea were he gets the information that forms his initial premises, because it rarely matches up with my observed reality. (Case in point: McCain has nearly half of the electoral college? Really?)
Now, admittingly, if he was crazy that would be one possible explanation. So would his being completely accurate in his observations of the world and me being delusional. But I think my explanation is far more interesting.
--Enigmatic
I'm saying Irami does not fit any of these traditional labels folks use to demean other posters. I've read myriad comments like yours and said nothing, but I've decided to start discouraging disparaging remarks directed at just about everyone who comes here.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, practically I have to imagine this gives the seat to Democrat Mark Begich.
Either that or Alaska will elect a convicted felon. That's assuming the judge gives him zero jail time, which frankly I imagine is likely.
Oh, how I wish I could count on Alaskans being that sane. Heck, if they were, I might still live there.
(Er, nah. My wife really didn't want to live without seeing sunlight for five months of the year.)
There are actually people who will say with a straight face that Stevens has done great things for the State, that his convictions are a partisan witch hunt, and people aren't respecting others' right to do things the way they want to.
Bless that "frontier mentality" lunacy.
Begich is a good guy; I wish him luck.
Begich is ahead by like a point, which is pretty much a tie. If this thing gives him a 2-3 point bump, that might be all he needs. He doesn't need a huge 10 point swing.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
That's a noble goal, and I applaud you for it. However, I never said that he does fit any of these "traditional labels folks use to demean other posters" so I find your approach somewhat mystifying. I never said he wasn't serious. I never said he was a troll. I never said he was crazy.
If you'd just said something along the lines of "I find that comment disparaging" that'd be different. As it stands, your first response to me reads as a non-sequitor, in my opinion. I also have a minor quibble with the "only" in your second post because that is also not what I said.
So I guess what I'm saying now is that in your quest to improve the level of discourse at hatrack, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: CNN is either pro-Obama or anti-Palin. I still to go to it out of convenience or because the layout is clean, but I think they like taking shots at Palin and McCain too much, while giving Obama a pass.
I would argue that, as has been said, reality is pro-Obama, and Anti-Palin.
Just think, aside from the current players: if the democrats had nominated an eminently qualified and intelligent choice as their candidate for president, and the republicans had nominated a bumbling idiot with no redeaming qualities as theirs, what would the responsibility of a news organizations be at that point?
We see that Fox news thinks that "fair and balanced" means that the people who say 2+2=5 should be given screen time with the people who suggest that 2+2=4, but what of any possible "responsible" news network? At what point can they be trusted or expected to reflect reality to their viewers, in light of such a vital subject?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well that's Ohio and Georgia. Looks like the courts are smoothing some of this out. And everyone says that lawyers just cause problems in elections Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ten-year-old Malia's reaction to her father's plans to air a 30-minute paid advertisement on national TV Wednesday night? "'You're going to be on all the TV? Are you going to interrupt my TV?'" her mother said Malia asked.
She said Barack Obama reassured his daughter that he hadn't purchased time on the Disney Channel.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe the DNC should create a show on the Disney Channel starring some young teenie boppper Democrat, and all the mean teachers are Republicans out to stifle them.
Can't start working on brand loyalty too early. Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Seriously, between the war in Iraq, abortion, gay rights, taxes, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, public schools, health care, and gun control, you woul think people would have enough information to figure out which candidate they wanted to vote for without having to justify their decision by making the other guy out to be stupid, evil, or both.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I saw a snippet on CNN today that said more than a million of Georgians had voted already in the presidential election, and that's almost a fifth of the registered electorate there. Furthermore, 85% had done so at early voting places in person, which I thought was neat. I think "no excuse" early voting rules are a fantastic idea.
Anyway, I decided to take a deeper look, and because numbers are fun, I'll share it all with you. Some of these numbers are rounded off, so it's not precise, but it's pretty damned close, and considering the amount of time I spent (or didn't) looking some of this up, I think it's credibly accurate:
Georgia
To look at the basics:
In 2004, there were approximately 4.75 million registered voters in Georgia. Since then, registration has swelled by aprx. 850,000 to a current total of 5.6 million registered voters. Of those, like I said, more than a million have already voted, or almost a fifth of the total that are eligible. In 2004, blacks made up 27.7% of the electorate, and now that number is 29.2%. 406,000 new voters have been registered this year alone, and that number may rise as the last day tallys are figured for the final frenzied moments of the voter registration drives in both parties.
About 3.3 million votes were cast in the election in 2004. If that number were to stay the same, then nearly a third of the total votes would already have been cast, and Obama has been a substantial leader thus far in early voting. But everyone is saying this year will see record turnout.
If anyone is curious, Kerry lost Georgia by 548,000 votes (only 18,000 were cast for the Libertarian candidate). That might give you some idea as to what Obama has to overcome this time around. But with new voter registrations, unprecedented black turnout, early voting in such large numbers and favorable Obama numbers, and general excitement in the Democratic party might be anough to cover the half million vote deficit from four years ago. More people by far have registered to vote since 2004 than exist in that gap, so the opportunity is there.
Georgia could make for a fun election night stakeout.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I wasn't planning to vote this year--I'm not sure I want that responsibility on my shoulders. And since I live in Georgia, I didn't think my vote would make a difference. You're definitely making me rethink my decision, Lyrhawn.
Are you in Georgia, too, since you often post about the state's electoral votes?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: To put at least part of Christine's mind at ease:
Well that's Ohio and Georgia. Looks like the courts are smoothing some of this out. And everyone says that lawyers just cause problems in elections
Only part, I'm afraid. My bigger concerns cannot be accounted for by lawyers or judges. I have serious issues with electronic voting which, as it stands, leaves no paper trail and is closed to public scrutiny. Whether or not this has led to actual voter fraud, through manipulation or errors, is unclear, but the possibility is very real. I refuse to trust blindly because failure to do so would mean a little more peace and security. We know that voter fraud, often intentional, is a real phenomenon in this country and, at least on small scales, has been since the beginning. These voter machines are simply making that fraud easier and allowing the possibility of widespread vote tampering. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but these voting machines are insane. If they have nothing to hide, then make them open source and print out a piece of paper!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Christine,
You have to be careful with how you describe electronic voting. In Michigan we use optical scan ballots, where you fill in a little bubble to say who you want to vote for and then you feed your ballot into a scanning machine and it records your vote, and the paper ballot is still around to be easily counted. It seems simple enough to me, I don't know why everyone doesn't do it. But it's still technically electronic voting since the votes are counted electronically.
I guess the alternative would be to have everything done on paper and counted by hand, which I guess would lead to smaller populations to be covered by each voting district and each precinct, but even then you still have to count on the honestly of the little old ladies running hte precinct and counting the votes. There is ALWAYS going to be opportunity for fraud. Optical scan ballots seem like the best way to go for me. Paper trail, easily understood, easily recounted, and few mistakes.
Katarain -
No, I'm in Michigan, but as much as we're ballyhooed as a swing state, we really aren't in contention this time around. McCain pulled out a couple weeks ago and was never really in contention in the polls. Georgia however has shifting dynamics, a down to the wire Senate race with Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin that could have serious long lasting impacts on the final composition of the Senate as far as cloture motion votes go for fillibusters. I love all the factors involved with the election in Georgia. Explosive upticks in registration, huge turnout for early voting, a large but generally apathetic black population that is expected to vote in unprecedented numbers and as much as 95% of that for Obama.
It's just fascinating, and frankly I think it isn't talked about enough in relation to the more well known battleground states that get all the attention. Maybe it's the History major in me, or the fact that I get geeked out and excited by elections. I was thinking about doing a mini-profile of some other non-traditional battleground states, but Georgia has I think 15 electoral votes (10? 15? I don't remember) that never get talked about. McCain is counting on states like Georgia to stay firmly in his camp so he can defend other territory he's losing and even then try and steal Pennsylvania. I just hate to see Georgia get the shaft. Every state is important.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
For those who agree with Malia, ABC is counterprogrammingPushing Daisies against Barack's Wednesday ad buy.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The problem with electronic balloting is that it allows a single person to alter the counts in voting and tabulating machines from a remote location: a feature that makes the machines very amenable to vote rigging.
Plus most of the electronic voting machines are made by a company owned by a person who publicly guaranteed a Republican victory in 2004, and most of the tabulating machines are made by a company owned by his brother-in-law.
[ October 28, 2008, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I read something like this from the NY Times today:
quote:Obama promised better days ''if we're willing to reach deep down inside us, when times are tough, when it's cold, when it's raining, when it's hard -- that's when we when stand up.''
then start thinking about how easily he folded on campaign finance reform and think he is a phony.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I thought this was pretty cool for reasons ranging from Chinese-black racial issues and the fact that random Chinese people can even be polled about a US candidate of all things.
quote: BEIJING–It ran – without a hint of irony – across the top of page A11 in the government-run, English language China Daily newspaper last week.
The report said an online China Daily poll showed 75 per cent of Chinese prefer Barack Obama to John McCain for U.S. president.
How many Chinese actually prefer their own president?
Well, that poll hasn't been done yet, nor is it expected any time soon.
But the notion of polling Chinese people on their preferences for U.S. president, when they have no say in electing their own, was novel to say the least.
Nevertheless, while China can't be said to be in the grip of "Obamamania," there is fascination here about the U.S. race.
How extensive it is in a nation of 1.3 billion people, where 700 million are still peasants, is difficult to gauge – despite China Daily's enthusiastic online poll.
But when expressed in official media, it centres on Obama's colour.
"Senator Barack Obama's skin colour is the greatest focal point of this year's U.S. presidential election," the Communist Party's People's Daily said in a front-page editorial this summer.
The report claimed Western media have "lavished" praise on Obama because he's black and because he promises change.
"His success," the paper said in June after Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, "is because he does not emphasize his racial features and has even drawn a clear line with radical blacks."
But if elected, the paper said, Obama would be "the best and most ideal footnote to the `American dream.'"
...
So news from afar that the world's only superpower is on the verge of electing its first black president can't help but fascinate.
"I didn't care much about the U.S. election before," 23-year-old Xu Kai, who works for a real estate company in Wuxi, told China Daily. She's been following the race more closely this year because "an African-American," is leading, she said.
"I want to see if a black American could become the president," said Xu.
If America elects Obama it would prove the U.S. is not just a white people's country, she said.
You have to be careful with how you describe electronic voting. In Michigan we use optical scan ballots, where you fill in a little bubble to say who you want to vote for and then you feed your ballot into a scanning machine and it records your vote, and the paper ballot is still around to be easily counted. It seems simple enough to me, I don't know why everyone doesn't do it. But it's still technically electronic voting since the votes are counted electronically.
I guess the alternative would be to have everything done on paper and counted by hand, which I guess would lead to smaller populations to be covered by each voting district and each precinct, but even then you still have to count on the honestly of the little old ladies running hte precinct and counting the votes. There is ALWAYS going to be opportunity for fraud. Optical scan ballots seem like the best way to go for me. Paper trail, easily understood, easily recounted, and few mistakes.
No, you're right. I'm specifically talking about the paperless machines, mostly made by Diebold. Those are the machines that service my county. I go in, touch the screen a few times, press bumit, and pray. Those are the ones I can't even believe are legal.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The numbers in this article are, to me, more interesting than the subject of the article itself:
quote:Speaking thereof, Nielsen Media Research just posted an updated analysis of presidential campaign advertising in the seven key swing states: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. And, not surprisingly, Obama's advertising in those states continues to surpass the number of ad units run by his opponent, John McCain.
In those states, Obama placed 155 percent more ad units (62,022 vs. 24,273) than McCain between Oct. 6 and 26, Nielsen reports. Obama's advertising continues to be heaviest in Florida. He ran 18,909 ads there in the same time frame, outpacing McCain's 5,702 ads by 232 percent, Nielsen added. The data include national and local spots seen in these states, as well as syndicated advertising but do not include local cable ads.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We are even seeing some Obama ads here in Chicago! This is a novel experience. It also means that Obama can spend money to make Indiana a contest.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have seen Obama ads and my state is not at all competetive (Texas). Though I was extremely excited during the primaries to have Obama have a rally here.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
As I live close to the Missouri border, I get a lot of Obama ads even though he's not a contestant in Kansas. Strangely, I know a lot of KS Obama supporters. My entire book club discovered last month that we're pro-Obama.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
And my family are all anti-Obama. They're not crazy about McCain, but will probably vote for him. I really don't understand it. They all ask me what Obama has done/accomplished, and being that I never meant to campaign for him, I can't answer the question in specifics.
They all think he's a Muslim, although for 2 of the 3, that's not a deciding factor for them--they're more concerned with the idea that he's going to bring us Socialism.
They also all think that since Palin has executive experience, she is more ready for the presidency than Obama. I don't understand that, either.
One just can't support Obama's policies, although he was initially excited about his nomination. I can respect that. But the one who is anti-Obama because of all of the rumors spread about him...*sigh* that just bothers me so much. And really, how do you counter that, when they claim to have gotten this information from various and nebulous sources, not email, of course, and "just trust me, I *know* he's a muslim" etc. etc. I really can't refute something when I don't know its source.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: As I live close to the Missouri border, I get a lot of Obama ads even though he's not a contestant in Kansas. Strangely, I know a lot of KS Obama supporters. My entire book club discovered last month that we're pro-Obama.
When I was back in Kansas weekend before last for a wedding, everybody I talked to about politics was supporting Obama. But then, I was in Douglas County*, so that isn't terribly surprising.
*for those of you not from Kansas, Douglas County is pretty much an island of blue in a sea of red.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
kinda funny how McCain gauranteed victory when at a place called "Waterloo"
And apparantly Georgia is such a tossup that its changed to Virginia Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you're referring to North Carolina there Blayne.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: And my family are all anti-Obama. They're not crazy about McCain, but will probably vote for him. I really don't understand it. They all ask me what Obama has done/accomplished, and being that I never meant to campaign for him, I can't answer the question in specifics.
I'm still working on my mom. I figure my dad's a lost cause but I haven't given up hope on my mom yet. Last night I explained to her why his tax plan wasn't socialism. I don't know if she heard me or not, but I tried.
At least my parents are realists. They've decided next week to have an "Obama Victory Party" and invite over the neighbors. I was kind of confused until they explained that even if they didn't vote for him, his victory was pretty much guaranteed so they may as well get ready for it. Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
I'm in Maryland, so it's a foregone conclusion that we're going for Obama, but I get TV stations from Virginia and Pennsylvania, so I see a ton of political ads. I'm pretty sure there have been shows lately that haven't had any non-political ads shown. It's overwhelming.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
We haven't heard much this year about anyone "buying the presidency". I seem to remember it being a big deal when Bush won...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well this changes everything! No other endorsement this year has really influenced my vote at all, but this one...this one is IT!
Joe the Plumber 2010! I mean...uhhh...McCain '08!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: We haven't heard much this year about anyone "buying the presidency". I seem to remember it being a big deal when Bush won...
Was it? I don't recall hearing about buying the presidency in 2000, but I'll admit I wasn't paying as much attention to politics then as in '04 and currently. The big complaint I heard (and made) in 2000 about Bush was the name recognition due to his father.
I have definitely seen a lot of news stories about Obama's fundraising this year, especially when he decided to forego the public financing. Most of them were the more positive "Record broken!" type of story, but others have talked about the advertising advantage there and whether or not it was "buying the election."
--Enigmatic
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
given how much money Obama has to spend to convince people he's not a Muslim Manchurian candidate and just in general help people get past the fact that he's black, I think the massive amount of money he's raised balances out in the end with the natural deficit he came into this election with.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I loved Colbert's comments the other night about Rush Limbaugh and other republicans calling Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama "All about race."
When posed the question, "Would Obama have gotten Powell's endorsement if he were a white liberal democrat," Colbert responds: "What a great question! Would Obama have gotten Powell's endorsement if he were a completely different person?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well this changes everything! No other endorsement this year has really influenced my vote at all, but this one...this one is IT!
Joe the Plumber 2010! I mean...uhhh...McCain '08!
I didn't click the link so I don't know if it says it or not butm you ain't kidding. There are reports that Joe is running for Congress in 2010. And he'll likely get his butt kicked by a very popular incumbent Democratic Rep who won last time with like 75% of the vote.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:"My youth and inexperience would definitely make me an awful president," said Obama, whose seven-minute misstep was further exacerbated when he called himself "no expert" on the economy. "To be perfectly honest, I'd be worried about putting me in charge of the most powerful military in the world because I'm not any good when it comes to making important decisions. Also, I'm not sure how much I care about keeping this great nation of ours safe."
"I'm an elitist, I hate Israel, and I want to lose the war in Iraq," Obama concluded, and then, seemingly unaware of the magnitude of his blunder, smiled, gave a thumbs-up to the stunned crowd, and urged his supporters to get out and vote on Nov. 4.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not really sure how Republicans maintain any semblance of hope these days. Some people blame McCain's selection of Palin, but when I look at the trends on Pollster.com, Virginia specifically, I think the Ayres angle is what sunk us.
Well, I can get my game face back by fantasizing about the Palin/Clinton matchup in 2012. It would be funny as heck.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Some people blame McCain's selection of Palin, but when I look at the trends on Pollster.com, Virginia specifically, I think the Ayres angle is what sunk us.
I like to think it was eight years of being constantly, consistently, egregiously wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From pooka: Well, I can get my game face back by fantasizing about the Palin/Clinton matchup in 2012. It would be funny as heck.
Yeah that's certainly a fantasy. 2016 might be a little more realistic. Palin will run for reelection in 2010 in Alaska (I think), and then I think she'll either position herself to run again by herself in 2016, or as a VP candidate again, but frankly I can't ever remember a potential VP being chosen to be a VP again after failing to win the first time. Frankly I think she needs a few years in the Senate. Alaska is just too far removed from national politics, and for that matter Alaska is like almost no other state in a lot of ways, to say nothing of their continual lack of budget problems. It doesn't have to do with her masterful mathamatical skills, they're just flush with cash. She needs experience with national issues, and this election has plainly shown, she's in way over her head.
Frankly though, I don't see how she'd ever win the nomination over other potential candidates. The GOP has other strong up and coming women, to say nothing of a whole new generation of Republicans that are itching to be heard. Lots of young governors angling for the spot light. Palin won't be thrust into the spotlight again, she'll have to claw for it.
quote:From Tom: I like to think it was eight years of being constantly, consistently, egregiously wrong.
Yeah, that probably hurt a bit. That and his amnesia problem, since he seems to have forgotten everything he stood for before 2006.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Palin will run for reelection in 2010 in Alaska (I think), and then I think she'll either position herself to run again by herself in 2016, or as a VP candidate again, but frankly I can't ever remember a potential VP being chosen to be a VP again after failing to win the first time.
Honestly, if McCain loses, I don't even know about her own chances of winning re-election. For all that it's a red state, Alaska doesn't swing "right" so much as "crank". In the past twenty years they've had two Democrats, two Republicans, and an Independent. And I think a lot of the party brass are going to lay a lot of blame for McCain's loss on her doorstep.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I like to think it was eight years of being constantly, consistently, egregiously wrong.
Rub it in, why don't you. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Honestly, if McCain loses, I don't even know about her own chances of winning re-election. For all that it's a red state, Alaska doesn't swing "right" so much as "crank". In the past twenty years they've had two Democrats, two Republicans, and an Independent. And I think a lot of the party brass are going to lay a lot of blame for McCain's loss on her doorstep.
And yet before she was appointed VP, Alaska was actually trending towards Obama. Now the state is +11 to +18 for McCain. She's quite popular there, and the voters put her in office because she wasn't part of the party machinery. Besides, her die hard supporters think she can walk on water, and will blame the loss either on McCain or on Democratic flim flammery. If she loses reelection, it'll be because of her own screw ups in the state, but they seem to love what she is doing there. I think her chances of doing anything on the national stage again are extremely thin, and will depend on what she does for the next four to eight years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In hearing about California's debate over Prop 8, and looking at my own problems with Michigan's Prop 2 (and the general lack of specific knowledge about them amongst the general population), I was thinking of doing a little rundown on some of the more interesting ballot initiatives nationwide in a separate thread (as it doesn't really relate to the Presidential part of the General Election).
Would anyone be interesting in reading such a summary?
Edit to add: Meh, nevermind, I did it anyway
[ October 29, 2008, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.
What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).
You call that balanced?
OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.
And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.
So what?
Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional.
EDIT - I'm looking for the actual study and will add a link when I find, or probably someone will beat me to it Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, this seems to assume that Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain had equal positive and negatives to report. If it reflects reality, it isn't a bias.
Also, does this take into account that many of the stories are about who is ahead in the polls? Saying that Sen. Obama is ahead in the polls would count as a positive story. Should the press not report facts unless they have an equally positive fact to report about the other guy?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I believe someone already said this in this thread, but "fair and balanced" needs to be thrown out the window. I don't think fair and balanced is best for this country; what we should have is the truth, with as much REPORTING as possible, and as little opinion as possible.
If that leads to more "positive" coverage of either Democrats or Republicans, then so be it. I know some people may lose sleep considering this at night, but our country does not comprise of 50% who think one way, but are correct, and the other 50% who think another way, but are still correct. Sometimes some people are right and others are wrong; sometimes one thing is better than the other. Boy, wouldn't that be a hell of a campaign slogan? Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
An email from my dad a while back. It doesn't say if he made this up himself or forwarded it from somewhere else:
quote: A tale of media malpractice:
John McCain declares that lemons are purple. Barack Obama says, “Actually, they’re yellow.” McCain criticizes Obama for implying that lemons are cowardly.
Sarah Palin announces that she saved Alaska taxpayers $33 million by planting purple lemons. The crowd cheers wildly. Obama says “Lemons don’t grow in Alaska.” An Associated Press story is headlined “Candidates clash over color of lemons.” The story is considered “balanced” because it gives both sides equal coverage. The fact that lemons are actually yellow is mentioned in the fourteenth paragraph.
Rush Limbaugh asks, “How can somebody from Kenya presume to know what grows in Alaska?” The McCain campaign produces an ad accusing Obama of anti-citrus bias. It airs nonstop in Florida.
CNN commentators debate Obama’s denunciation of lemons for two days. An MSNBC poll asks “Does Barack Obama hate fruit?” The multiple-choice answers are “Yes”; “No, just lemons”; and “No, it’s politics as usual.”
McCain says that Palin saved taxpayers $43 million and Obama evidently doesn’t appreciate it. In a Gallup poll, 41 percent of voters say they trust Obama less following his gaffe about lemons.
McCain wins the election with 52 percent of the vote.
quote: The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.
The rest of the article is worth reading, and adds a lot more depth than this excerpt you've chosen.
quote:There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
DarkKnight, again, it doesn't take an Obama supporter to tell you that it is not the press's job to create an artificially balanced image of a candidate and present it to the viewer for consumption. They are ostensibly supposed to report the news. Whatever that news is, they do have to decide, but if there are 10 stories available, and 9 of them are negative, it is not their obligation to carry the one that isn't, along with one that is.
basically, we need to keep in mind that the press is a human operation, not a part of government, and run for profit, not necessarily for the good of all, or for the equal service of any means.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Personal note on "balance." I was part of a protest group outside the Supreme Court several years ago. There were also protesters from an opposing point of view. We outnumbered them by 3 or 4 to 1. Most pictures printed in the media were those that made it look like the numbers were equal.
The rolling eyes are a good intro into this latest news piece. I watched "Countdown" last night and actually found Olbermann's "special comment" interesting and not too over the top. It centered on the hay Palin is making about Obama allegedly being a "socialist." You can read about it at Raw Story, but the source for his material - accusing Palin of major hypocrisy - is from The New Yorker:
quote:For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have a hard time believing that Sen. McCain believes half of what his campaign says.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The rest of the article is worth reading, and adds a lot more depth than this excerpt you've chosen.
I chose the opening excerpt as I hunted for the actual study which I haven't found. I am hoping someone out there can find it. The whole article is a great read.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have a hard time believing that Sen. McCain believes half of what his campaign says.
Well, duh, I mean, Who believes their own lies? You can say them, and say you believe them, but they're still lies.
There's no way McCain actually really thinks that Barack "Pals around" with terrorists, or is even a sympathizer with terrorists- it's just thinly plausible that he might believe it's possible that Barack does. That seems to be all that is required.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Don't see the actual report yet, but the Project for Excellence in Journalism has a site where they post analyses of the reports.
Obama is going to be on The Daily Show tonight.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Thanks Chris, at least I feel a little better knowing I have not lost all my google-gu skills. Off to read your links....
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Well, practically I have to imagine this gives the seat to Democrat Mark Begich.
Either that or Alaska will elect a convicted felon. That's assuming the judge gives him zero jail time, which frankly I imagine is likely.
Oh, how I wish I could count on Alaskans being that sane. Heck, if they were, I might still live there.
(Er, nah. My wife really didn't want to live without seeing sunlight for five months of the year.)
There are actually people who will say with a straight face that Stevens has done great things for the State, that his convictions are a partisan witch hunt, and people aren't respecting others' right to do things the way they want to.
Bless that "frontier mentality" lunacy.
Begich is a good guy; I wish him luck.
Begich is ahead by like a point, which is pretty much a tie. If this thing gives him a 2-3 point bump, that might be all he needs. He doesn't need a huge 10 point swing.
If Senator Stevens resigns in the next week, can't Governor Palin appoint herself as his replacement?
--j_k
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, duh, I mean, Who believes their own lies? You can say them, and say you believe them, but they're still lies.
This is *way* off topic for the thread at hand, but memory is plastic enough that it's actually completely possible to believe a lie of one's own making.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:This is *way* off topic for the thread at hand, but memory is plastic enough that it's actually completely possible to believe a lie of one's own making.
Yep. And McCain wouldn't be lacking for company. If the history I've been reading is at all accurate, Thomas Jefferson was infamously capable of belieiving or blocking out memory of his own lies - and stunned when confronted with them.
There have been other, less illustrious, people in the presidency since Jefferson with the same capacity. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Here is an interesting section from one of the links Chris Bridges posted on the Excellence in Journalism Study.
quote:One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.
What the findings also reveal is the reinforcing—rather than press-generated—effects of media. We see a repeating pattern here in which the press first offers a stenographic account of candidate rhetoric and behavior, while also on the watch for misstatements and gaffes. Then, in a secondary reaction, it measures the political impact of what it has reported. This is magnified in particular during presidential races by the prevalence of polling and especially daily tracking. While this echo effect exists in all press coverage, it is far more intense in presidential elections, with the explosion of daily tracking polls, state polls, poll aggregation sites and the 24-hour cable debate over their implications. Even coverage of the candidate’s policy positions and rhetoric, our reading of these stories suggest, was tied to horse race and took on its cast.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, duh, I mean, Who believes their own lies? You can say them, and say you believe them, but they're still lies.
This is *way* off topic for the thread at hand, but memory is plastic enough that it's actually completely possible to believe a lie of one's own making.
Yes, I know this- but I believe it usually regards less deliberate lies, about smaller things. On the other hand, this is the real problem with these gray area claims: it's always possible that McCain really does believe his own spin about Obama, even though actually confronting the facts of his accusation, he would be forced to conclude logically that it is unfounded. Plus, there's nothing in it for McCain (or his advisors) to really become informed about Obama so as to lie deliberately about him.
This is what interests me about the debates- the two people actually sit up onstage with each other and say contradictory things about basic facts- and they both must either know that the truth lies elsewhere, or believe that the other is just flat wrong. Would a candidate deliberately distort his own sense of reality in order to believe he is in the right? Scary if he could.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From pooka: Well, I can get my game face back by fantasizing about the Palin/Clinton matchup in 2012. It would be funny as heck.
Yeah that's certainly a fantasy. 2016 might be a little more realistic. Palin will run for reelection in 2010 in Alaska (I think), and then I think she'll either position herself to run again by herself in 2016, or as a VP candidate again, but frankly I can't ever remember a potential VP being chosen to be a VP again after failing to win the first time.
It seems she has just declared herself for 2012 [if the Republican ticket is defeated on Tuesday], in a surprise to the McCain campaign [according to CNN broadcast, when a representative was reached and read the quote over the phone].
quote:Gov. Sarah Palin suggested that if the Republican ticket is defeated on Tuesday she expects to be a player in the next election four years from now, saying "I'm not doing this for naught."
quote:CNN's Dana Bash: "I just got off the phone, Wolf, with a senior McCain adviser, and I read this person the quote, and I think it's fair to say that this person was speechless. There was a long pause, and I just heard a "Huh" on the other end of the phone.
[ October 29, 2008, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Absent a run in the US Senate, I don't see how she has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. Too many other Republicans with a good grasp of the issues that will carve her up in the debates. Palin's biggest problem isn't her verbal gaffes, her negative rhetoric, or her over the top folksiness, it's her lack of understanding of national issues. Like it or nor, but Alaska is like almost no other state in the lower 48. Conditions there are just too outside the norm. She'll get blown out of the water by a governor from Minnesota or Louisiana (Pawlenty and Jindal) I think. They have just as much experience, and in more diverse states with bigger problems, especially the budget, where you can't just write everyone a check from your oil profits to solve the problem (and they'll say exactly that in a debate). But her performance as VP candidate will hurt her too.
Stevens won't resign, and frankly it won't matter since I think he's going to lose in five and a half days. Her other course of action would be to challenge Lisa Murkowski, who is the daugther of the former Republican governor of Alaska and for that matter is a current Republican senator. I'm extremely doubtful that she'd actually do that though. I think she'll run for reelection for the governorship and then get smoked by a young GOP hotshot.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Well, it's not like she just came out and said this during a campaign speech or had a press conference to make the announcement that she'd run in 2012 without any prompting. She was asked a pretty direct question about what she'd do if they lose the election and she actually answered it instead of giving the typical "I'm just focused on this election and besides we're not going to lose" answer. Good for her.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't see this on any of the front pages of the major news outlets.
quote:After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.
What the hell did McCain say at that rally?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
From an advertising standpoint, probably one of the better political advertisements I've seen in a long time. Really is worth the watch, whether you agree with him or not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Would have been funny if there had been commercials during the ad, and in those commercials were more ads for Obama.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
lol.
Did anyone else see Colbert endorse Obama?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From an advertising standpoint, probably one of the better political advertisements I've seen in a long time. Really is worth the watch, whether you agree with him or not.
Yeah that was good. As much as it was good to try and woo undecideds, and I certainly think it was, I also think it was a major pep rally for people already in his camp. I don't usually buy into the inspirational stuff like that, but I'll admit that even I was a little pumped up after that ad. I think that was for anyone who was considering staying home because Obama has it in the bag. Sure, it was also about getting undecideds on his side, and had a great mix of A. Character. B. Biography. C. Specific plans on issues. But I'll bet a lot of people who were already going to vote for him watched that and got that much more pumped about going to the polls on Tuesday and then partying Tuesday night.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I voted absentee and haven't stopped partying since.
I'm so very tired.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Thanks Chris, at least I feel a little better knowing I have not lost all my google-gu skills. Off to read your links....
Happy to help! I wasn't finding the report either, so I went looking for the source...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: lol.
Did anyone else see Colbert endorse Obama?
Yes, it was brilliant.
The best part? Telling Senator McCain that if he REALLY wanted to be a maverick, he should endorse Obama.
Love it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I guess the alternative would be to have everything done on paper and counted by hand, which I guess would lead to smaller populations to be covered by each voting district and each precinct, but even then you still have to count on the honestly of the little old ladies running hte precinct and counting the votes.
In Canada we run on the Little Old Lady (LOL) system, although a lot of young people get involved too, including myself. Part of my job was to count the ballots. We have both people at the table looking at the votes, we had candidates representatives wandering around checking on the count (although only one person was allowed to touch the ballots.)
It would be possible to rig the ballots at the vote-counting level, I suppose, but to make any significant effect you'd have to get a lot of disparate people on board.
It would be more easy to do it at a higher level- in the returning office, where we reported our numbers. I assume that the computer system, just like the LOL system, spits out a number which is then reported in the same way to a higher office.
Either way, Canada seems to manage fine with a LOL system. The only thing is it takes a lot of paper.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Oh man that was awkward. Frankly, it's embarrassing that this has even become a talking point for the McCain campaign. It's irresponsible and dishonest to try and implicate Obama as a terrorist (or a supporter of terrorists) with such weak evidence. I think that out of Ayers, Wright, and Khalidi, Wright is the only one whose connections with Obama should have been questioned in the first place.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm beginning to get the impression you could make a fairly long montage of McCain campaign people being asked questions, looking like deer in the headlights, and repeating stock phrases and soundbites.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it was on the Colbert Report last night where they had a Fox News correspondent visually and verballly flabbergasted by some of what is coming out of the McCain campaign. Talk about a tipping point. I'll try and find the link.
I was watching part of a campaign event earlier today with McCain, and McCain said that he wouldn't support the massive $700 billion giveaway to corporations and banks, but that Obama was in the thick of it. Apparently McCain has memory flashburns concerning things like: Him voting for that measure, him suspending his campaign to fly to Washington to supposedly spearhead the Congressional efforts to get that measure passed, and him criticizing Obama for not doing the same.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I would think after that that Joe would've been yanked, and on TV it seems he has been for Tito the Builder (God I hate those name), but even today Joe was at a campaign event.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
At this point, I really get the impression McCain is willing to accept the help of anyone who's willing to throw something that might stick. Someone in his campaign ought to know better, though; a lot of analysis suggests this is backfiring with the "undecideds".
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It is incredible that random men have been picked like this and allowed the time to speak on national television. Until today, I thought Joe the Plumber was an allegory.
Someone mentioned Marg the Human Resources Worker. That's a valid point. Why builders and plumbers? Why not people who work in shops? or low level office workers and temps?
In Canada, specialists like plumbers, electricians and builders are in fact quite a rare commodity and make excellent pay after they get started.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Would have been funny if there had been commercials during the ad, and in those commercials were more ads for Obama.
It would have been even funnier if there had been commercials during the ad, and those commercials were for McCain. Imagine McCains "Too Risky" ad coming on right in the middle of Obama's half hour info-mercial.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:At this point, I really get the impression McCain is willing to accept the help of anyone who's willing to throw something that might stick. Someone in his campaign really ought to know better, though; a lot of analysis suggests this is backfiring with the "undecideds".
You do realize that you are backing the candidate who is willing to take any money from anyone willing to give and not caring how often.
I may not like Mark Stryn, but I know the difference between right and wrong. Or Here
quote:As Bill Dyer asks:
Who ordered the anti-fraud protections turned off?
And as he concludes:
What did the wanna-be president know and when did he know it?
I don't understand why this isn't a bigger deal. This is tainting an election. I think this is at least as big of a deal as any voter suppression in the the 2000 election, and most of the talking heads are complicit. As we speak, Obama is knowingly taking advantage of a corrupt system, and truthfully, this is just the kind of executive ethics flaw that led to the financial meltdown. Gift cards are untraceable, why, except for naked greed, would you even open that Pandora's Box.
[ October 30, 2008, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And are you backing the candidate who will probably die in office and have the most unqualified person in the world take over?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
As opposed to the candidate who has no experience, and whose number one qualification for high government office is that he's a good public speaker?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As opposed to the candidate who has no experience, and whose number one qualification for high government office is that he's a good public speaker?
I'm sure Governor Palin will grow into the job.
...oh wait, you said good public speaker.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As opposed to the candidate who has no experience, and whose number one qualification for high government office is that he's a good public speaker?
Must i quote that most of your best presidents were new and inexperienced? And what has experience gotten you anyways? Old white guys doing more of the same? Palin is disastrous for someone to end up becoming President, no matter how bad you may think Obama is but having Palin as President would be a disaster.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And are you backing the candidate who will probably die in office and have the most unqualified person in the world take over?
I'm backing Ralph Nader, and yes, I think it would be neat to have Matt Gonzalez as President.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As opposed to the candidate who has no experience, and whose number one qualification for high government office is that he's a good public speaker?
Point to me please the last country Sarah Palin or John McCain ran.
None of them have presidential experience.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:And are you backing the candidate who will probably die in office and have the most unqualified person in the world take over?
I'm backing Ralph Nader, and yes, I think it would be neat to have Matt Gonzalez as President.
I think Nader is an interesting candiate with a interesting history of consumer protection, however he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Executive experience is a lot closer than legislative experience. There've only been two senators who've become President in the history of the US. It's not a good place for learning the job.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Yes, one of them saved the nation from splitting in two, and the other saved us from nuclear anihilation and took us to the moon. Clearly they were awful.
Regardless, your argument would be a great reason not to vote for McCain either, but even so, executive experience isn't the be all end all. What sort of foreign policy experience does she have? I won't begrudge McCain's credentials or Bidens, and even Obama has been a player on the subject of loose nukes and has been involved for a number of years now with international issues while Sarah Palin has been up in Alaska minding her own business. What sort of experience does she really have with the economy and balancing a budget? Problems with economic stiumulus? She just wrote everyone in the state a bigger check from their extreme oil wealth, which is why taxes or the budget aren't a problem since they are so flush with cash. The measure of a leader isn't how the ride a current of good fortune, it's how they deal with hard times, and Palin hasn't had any in Alaska to deal with. She doesn't even understand the job she's running for.
Just because someone was governor and someone else was a legislator at various levels doesn't automatically make one better than the other. You have to get into specifics. She's run a state for a year and a half with less people in it than most large cities in America. By that measure, most of America's mayors of large cities (or apparently even Wasilla) are more qualified than McCain to be president, which is a ridiculous argument.
Executive experience by itself with no thought to what that experience really entails is not the be all end all. I've yet to see anyone seriously articulate a defense for why any degree of executive experience is automatically better than any degree of legislative experience. History most certainly doesn't bear out that fundamental misconception.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
How do you suppose he managed to say "this was a good conversation" with a straight face?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
viagra?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: You do realize that you are backing the candidate who is willing to take any money from anyone willing to give and not caring how often...
While I wouldn't agree that it's necessarily as disturbing as some of the vote surpression tactics used in 2000 (I don't accept that campaign dollars are equal to votes), and I think the articles may overstate their case somewhat (that 2/3 of a candidate's income come from a system with faulty safeguards doesn't equate to 2/3 of that income coming from questionable sources by a long shot), I agree that there's something there to be concerned about. I dare hope the Obama campaign will follow through on investigation of its contribution list. And I recognize that the fundraising arm failing to apply safeguards may imply laziness or an excessive desire for an efficient monetary stream, and not necessarily intentional malfeasance. When I contributed to Obama, I filled in all the checkboxes that said I was a U.S. citizen, that I wasn't giving over the legal limits, and so on. That someone(s) are doing so fraudulently and the campaign isn't doing as much as it might to prevent it is unfortunate, and should be corrected, but is not necessarily the same as encouraging such actions.
The lenient inflow policy may be giving the Obama campaign a (temporary, if they follow through on investigations and returns) unfair advantage. But aside from that, the nature of the way the questionable contributions are given allays my biggest fear about excessive or overseas contributions: that the contributor feels he's buying the candidate. An annonymous benefactor can't come to an officeholder looking for favors later.
I grant that I have thrown in with Obama, and perhaps I find justifying or excusing the campaign's possible misdeeds too easy. But I do believe that his record contributions have far more to do with the kind of genuine supporters he's getting (I have many friends who say they've given to Obama and it's the first candidate they've ever given money to), and I do believe that he's still much the superior candidate on most issues.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
How do you suppose he managed to say "this was a good conversation" with a straight face?
I suspect it's much the same way some surgeons train themselves to say "Excellent!" during surgery when they want to say "Oh, @$#%."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm backing Ralph Nader...
Irami, would it really kill you to, just once, let yourself win something?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just think he wants to renew his obstinate self-righteousness cred for another four years. If he votes for the man he might feel he's not as justified in trying to tear everything around him down.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Also, Obama does not have Palin's executive experience, such as it is. But he has run the largest and by far most effective presidential campaign ever seen. He may very well have more people in his campaign than live in Alaska... And little to no dissension in the ranks, no problems with money, no embarrassing scandals from campaign workers. His people mobilized, fired up more people, and did their jobs.
He speaks well. He picks good people. He listens to ideas. He seems to understand that America is made up of more than just his base. Right there he's an improvement over President Bush.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Executive experience is a lot closer than legislative experience. There've only been two senators who've become President in the history of the US. It's not a good place for learning the job.
Says you. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Executive experience is a lot closer than legislative experience. There've only been two senators who've become President in the history of the US. It's not a good place for learning the job.
And her 'experience' shows her abusing her power, acting unethically, and giving positions of power to her friends with little to no concern for their abilities.
Sounds familiar, no?
That's not the kind of experience we need.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Seriously Lisa, why isn't it enough to simply say "I disagree with Sen. Obama because of his political, socio-economic, and ideological views" and from there at least respect the man for what hes done? I was like this with McCain and Huckabee, but the former hasn't done much recently to retain that respect.
Why with the unfounded attacks on the mans accomplishments and character?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Javert,
I agree with your assessment of Palin, and I don't think she's helping the McCain campaign much right now, but I have to agree with columnist Eugene Robinson that Palin's long-term prospects are very very good.
quote:My view of Sarah Palin has changed in the two months since John McCain named her as his running mate. I'm guessing that McCain's view of Palin may be changing, too, and not entirely in a good way.
I thought Palin was a lightweight; she's not. I thought she was an ingenue; she is, but only as long as her claws are sheathed. I thought she was bewildered and star-struck at her sudden elevation to national prominence; if she ever was, she isn't anymore. I thought she was nothing but raw political talent and unrealistic ambition; it turns out that she has impressive political skills. I thought she was destined to become nothing more than a historical footnote; I now think that Democrats underestimate her at their peril.
Robinson's column is worth reading - especially for Obama supporters inclined to write her off as a lightweight.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Executive experience is a lot closer than legislative experience. There've only been two senators who've become President in the history of the US. It's not a good place for learning the job.
Uh, actually... there have been FIFTEEN. Only two made the jump directly from Senate to Presidency.
That's about one in three, no?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lincoln ran for the Senate but lost. He had been in the House.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The thing with McCain/Palin is that if they win the presidency, there's going to be a lot of disenfranchised citizenry. McCain and Palin both (but especially Palin) have made it quite clear that they don't care one lick about the concerns of what may be over half of the people. We're not "real" America. At least with Obama, even if you don't agree with his politics, he has made it clear that he wants to work with the other side. He at least wants to make the attempt to be everyone's president.
McCain and Palin haven't even tried to present themselves that way. It's always Us vs. Them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Javert,
I agree with your assessment of Palin, and I don't think she's helping the McCain campaign much right now, but I have to agree with columnist Eugene Robinson that Palin's long-term prospects are very very good.
quote:My view of Sarah Palin has changed in the two months since John McCain named her as his running mate. I'm guessing that McCain's view of Palin may be changing, too, and not entirely in a good way.
I thought Palin was a lightweight; she's not. I thought she was an ingenue; she is, but only as long as her claws are sheathed. I thought she was bewildered and star-struck at her sudden elevation to national prominence; if she ever was, she isn't anymore. I thought she was nothing but raw political talent and unrealistic ambition; it turns out that she has impressive political skills. I thought she was destined to become nothing more than a historical footnote; I now think that Democrats underestimate her at their peril.
Robinson's column is worth reading - especially for Obama supporters inclined to write her off as a lightweight.
Being a demagogue is not the same thing as being material for being President. She's unqualified period.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:At least with Obama, even if you don't agree with his politics, he has made it clear that he wants to work with the other side.
There is the difference in perception. With the McCain campaign, there is a lot of us against them. With the Obama campaign, there is a lot of unifying, one America talk.
With McCain's approach, there is a healthy conflict of ideas that acknowledges the existence of opposition. With Obama's approach, and all the talk of a disciplined, controlled campaign, put together with the sense I'm getting that an Obama term will be a tacit four campaign for 2012, anyone who is not in his One America will be disappeared.
___________
I was listening to this Florida congressman yesterday, and he was talking about how all of the donations means that America is behind Obama, 110 percent. I thought to myself, "No, anywhere from 45 to 55 percent of the voters are for Obama. The a large balance of the rest are probably pissed."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Executive experience is a lot closer than legislative experience. There've only been two senators who've become President in the history of the US. It's not a good place for learning the job.
Uh, actually... there have been FIFTEEN. Only two made the jump directly from Senate to Presidency.
That's about one in three, no?
And if you add to that Madison, Filmore, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Ford and GHW Bush who had seats in the House, you get 22 Presidents who've had legislative experience or more than half.
Only 15 of our Presidents have had executive experience as eight Governor or Vice President prior to their election.
I dislike the way people cite "executive experience" as though being the "executive" of anything automatically gives you experience that would be relevant to being President. The mayor of Wasilla signs checks, not exactly something relevant to being President unless you consider that practice for putting signatures on bills.
As I've pointed out before, the division of powers between state and federal government means that there is relatively little over lap between a Governor's duties and the President's duties.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:anyone who is not in his One America will be disappeared.
And what rational evidence do you have to support this?
Or is it just a 'gut feeling', that we can dismiss as quickly as you put it forward?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:anyone who is not in his One America will be disappeared.
And what rational evidence do you have to support this?
Or is it just a 'gut feeling', that we can dismiss as quickly as you put it forward?
We may as well. After all, if he's right, he's going to "be disappeared," anyway. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Javert,
I agree with your assessment of Palin, and I don't think she's helping the McCain campaign much right now, but I have to agree with columnist Eugene Robinson that Palin's long-term prospects are very very good.
quote:My view of Sarah Palin has changed in the two months since John McCain named her as his running mate. I'm guessing that McCain's view of Palin may be changing, too, and not entirely in a good way.
I thought Palin was a lightweight; she's not. I thought she was an ingenue; she is, but only as long as her claws are sheathed. I thought she was bewildered and star-struck at her sudden elevation to national prominence; if she ever was, she isn't anymore. I thought she was nothing but raw political talent and unrealistic ambition; it turns out that she has impressive political skills. I thought she was destined to become nothing more than a historical footnote; I now think that Democrats underestimate her at their peril.
Robinson's column is worth reading - especially for Obama supporters inclined to write her off as a lightweight.
I think it depends entirely on what she does in the next three years. What moves she makes, how she keeps her name in the GOP sphere of influence. But I don't think her chances are that good. She has zero crossover appeal to independents and moderate Democrats. She's fantastic with the conservative base, and that's it. The only crossover appeal this year's GOP ticket has is because of lingering attachment to pre-2000 McCain who actually was a maverick of sorts. As soon as she joined the ticket, the base went nuts, and moderate independents in the country grew wary, and then most jumped ship.
Running by herself will excite the base, but everyone running against her will cite the exact same credentials and then bring up electability. That's going to be the buzzword of the next GOP primary if she runs for president. If she does with the nomination, her victory I think will depend entirely on Obama, and not a bit on her. She can't use the "look who he pals around" crap after he's been president for four years. And she can't use scare tactics. She'll have to attack his record. So if he screws up, the GOP has a window. If he does a good job, then I don't see what they'll be able to do. Especially if they use a figure like Palin who unifies the Left as much as it unifies the Right.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I look at Samantha Power and I look at Jeremiah Wright, two good Americans who didn't march in lock-step and were banished to the phantom zone. I, myself, worked in Obama's Senate office a few years ago, before he announced. I've seen the machine up close, and I didn't like the view.
The nation gets what it deserves. When Powell pointed to tire tracks and said WMDs, the media bit and the country went along. Obama's biggest campaign issue is himself. We are going to forget that he literally lied, cheated, and dropped his church to get there. The long term effects of such egregious behavior in public service is impossible to determine.
I wouldn't even mind an Obama election, if people were suitably outraged about the consequences of buying the US Presidency, with credit cards. Honestly, I don't even think that credit card campaign donations should be allowed.
[ October 31, 2008, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Eh, Obama was playing chess with Clinton in the primary, and Power was a strong piece that Clinton was able to force off the board. I'm hopeful that Samantha Power will be a part of the Obama White House.
[Edit - If she's not a part of it, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. I think that Samantha Power was what I liked best about the Obama campaign during the primaries.]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm backing Ralph Nader...
Irami, would it really kill you to, just once, let yourself win something?
For a very long time, I voted in every election but never voted for anyone who won. It was a comfortable position to be in because whenever things went wrong -- it wasn't my fault. I voted against the idiots.
I'm not sure that logic can really hold if you vote for Nader or any third party candidate that has no chance of winning. When you vote third party, you are choosing to use your voice for a purpose other than deciding the election. The purpose may be important to you, but from a pragmatic standpoint its no different than choosing to stay at home.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Power was a strong piece that Clinton was able to force off the board.
Forced? She was sacrificed. Campaign reform, sacrificed. An entire tradition of aggressive social justice Christian preaching, sacrificed. These were choices he made because he decided his Presidency was more important than these inconveniences.
[ October 31, 2008, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Welcome to American politics.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Sam Power made NSA or Deputy NSA in Obama's White House. She was forced out because of comments she made, but that doesn't mean she's gone for good. It was an election tactic. If it meant him getting elected over McCain, I doubt she had a problem with it, especially knowing she'd be back in a few months, and I'm sure that's what is going to happen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You don't think it is? You'd rather have McCain?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yes, forced (and sacrificed. both). I'm not enamored of the game, but at that point the two sides were engaging in a back and forth of taking public umberage at and demanding the resignations of strong people in the opposing camp. If Obama hadn't sacrificed Power at that point, Clinton's umberage would have dominated the news for longer than it did, and would have hurt Obama's chances of gaining the nomination. It may not be high minded, but if you have to sacrifice a rook or something to save the king, you do it.
I was furiously angry about the situation, but it wasn't directed toward Obama. If he doesn't offer Power a high level position in his administration, then I'll be angry at him.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:When you vote third party, you are choosing to use your voice for a purpose other than deciding the election. The purpose may be important to you, but from a pragmatic standpoint its no different than choosing to stay at home.
The difference between staying at home and voting 3rd party is making your voice heard to stand up for something you believe in, rather than dictate the outcome of the election. That person may have no chance in winning, but if you have a problem with our two party system and want the nature of the dialogue to change, then you're making a worthy point voting 3rd party.
That being said I voted main party the last two elections because i thought the election was too important and too close to cast my vote for a principle. If Gore or Kerry had had huge leads I would've voted 3rd party just to make a point.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Wright decided to use the spotlight given him by his congregant's enemies to reiterate positions he knew that congregant didn't agree with. I don't feel a lot of pity for him.
This kind of rhetoric suggests you're seeing things in absolutes, Irami. I can see things about Obama's campaign I don't like and even decisions that he's made that I disagree with and still think he's far better than the other (REAL!) alternative. Or, frankly, any candidate we've seen in years.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: The difference between staying at home and voting 3rd party is making your voice heard to stand up for something you believe in, rather than dictate the outcome of the election. That person may have no chance in winning, but if you have a problem with our two party system and want the nature of the dialogue to change, then you're making a worthy point voting 3rd party.
::nods::
In 2000, I voted for Nader even though I thought he'd make a horrible president. I knew that my state was guaranteed to go red, so my voting for Gore wouldn't have actually helped him at all. By voting for Nader I was trying to help a third party get enough votes to qualify for federal funds during the next election. Didn't work, but if I could go back in time I wouldn't change that vote.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
She also seems to be confused as to what the term "negative" means.
If saying your opponent "Pal's around with terrorists" isn't negative campaigning its hard to imagine what might qualify.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It would be great if she actually tried that "Who're you voting for?" thing.
And Rabbit, if someone pals around with terrorists, how is saying so negative campaigning? If someone isn't, I can see how claiming he is would be negative campaigning, but in this case, it's true.
And Palin has a point. When the not inconsiderable weight of a protected institution like the press is thrown behind one candidate to the extent that it has been for Obama, it basically has the power to make or break presidential candidates.
And Irami, Sam Power is one of the big reasons why I'm against Obama (as if I needed more). You're absolutely right that he sacrificed her for political expediency. I'm sure that she'll be back, unfortunately. She's a filthy antisemite.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: It's sort of perplexing to me, because I'm a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington
I'm more concerned over her constant subject-verb-object conflicts. Reading quotes from Sarah Palin makes me sad. I realize this is probably some kind of mild cognitive disorder beyond her control (I'm not an expert, but I'd love to hear an expert opinion...), but it really does concern me that she may not have the reading comprehension skills necessary to do the job she is campaigning for. When everything that comes out of her mouth is semi-coherent word-salad, I start wondering if she understands the words she reads during scripted speeches, when she doesn't make those same mistakes. Even more important, I wonder if she would actually be able to write a coherent paragraph of her own, which seems like something the President or Vice-President should reasonably be expected to do from time to time.
This thing about the first amendment seems kind of minor to me. She may be using "the first amendment" as a kind of glyph for "the ability to speak freely," because it is associated with "free speech." But again, this goes down to her reading comprehension and expressive abilities. If she can't be aware enough of her words when talking about "the ability to speak freely," to avoid using "first amendment" as an inappropriate glyph, I am concerned about her ability to communicate in diplomatic situations. The understanding *might* be there, but she sure has a hell of a time expressing herself.
And, in the unlikely event that she actually believes that the first amendment protects people from being criticized for what they say, she is unqualified for the job.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And Rabbit, if someone pals around with terrorists, how is saying so negative campaigning? If someone isn't, I can see how claiming he is would be negative campaigning, but in this case, it's true.
No, it's not.
It's a lie in TWO ways. First of all, the specific claim is "terrorists" and "Bill Ayers". Unless they know of anyone else, then pluralizing "terrorist" is misleading and a lie.
Secondly, Obama didn't 'pal around' with him. He worked on a board that was put together by a bunch of conservatives with the man.
But by all means, keep perpetrating the lies if it makes you feel better.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Clearly she has one of those misprinted versions. Her version reads:
quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or from the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This version also has the expanded version of the duties of the Vice President.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
And there's a third lie - that the present Bill Ayers fits into into the conventional mental mold of a terrorist. The implication is that Obama is discussing the finer points of shrapnel selection with would-be suicide bombers.
Ayers did some bad crap, a long time ago. He could have hurt people, but he tried not to and largely avoided doing so. He turned himself in to authorities, but got off on a technicality. Yes, he was a terrorist. He did terrible things and he should have gone to jail. In the end he became a productive member of society and ceased his illegal activities. That's hardly the picture that is being painted. To refer to ayers as a terrorist is no more correct than referring to a recovered alcoholic as a "drunk".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And Rabbit, if someone pals around with terrorists, how is saying so negative campaigning?
Evidently you are also confused about what "negative campaining" means as well.
Any claim of "vote for me because my opponent is bad", constitutes negative campaigning whether its true and just or not. Similarly, any claim of "vote for me because I'm really super" constitutes positive campaigning whether the claim is true and just or not.
You are confusing truthful campaigning with positive campaigning -- they aren't the same.
quote:If someone isn't, I can see how claiming he is would be negative campaigning, but in this case, it's true.
That's at the very least, disputable. I have yet to see any credible claims that the relationship between Obama and Ayers could reasonably be considered "paling around". And to be technically accurate, Ayers is someone who is at worst a former terrorist like Menachem Begin and other prominent Israelis.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: To refer to ayers as a terrorist is no more correct than referring to a recovered alcoholic as a "drunk".
Ayers is on record as having no regrets about the bombings. Terrorist.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any claim of "vote for me because my opponent is bad", constitutes negative campaigning whether its true and just or not. Similarly, any claim of "vote for me because I'm really super" constitutes positive campaigning whether the claim is true and just or not.
You are confusing truthful campaigning with positive campaigning -- they aren't the same.
Interesting definition. I suspect that 90% of people who would say they are opposed to negative campaigning would change their minds if presented with that definition. Truth trumps courtesy when it comes to who is going to be running the country.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The Ayers issue became a real problem when Obama started making up stories about it. Their kids weren't at school at the same time. The simple situation is that if you live in Hyde Park and you care about schools, you are going to find yourself in a room with Bill Ayers. I've met both him and Bernadine Dorhn a few times, and I find them delightful. One can say the same thing about Reverend Wright. The problem wasn't the association, it's that when he started denying these guys like Peter on the morning of Jesus' death, it became obvious that Obama is entirely too comfortable shading the truth to suit his advantage and his opinion of the "greater good." Barack Obama knows Bill Ayers, pretty well, I imagine. It's just too hard to be an official in the neighborhood and not know him. It's the squeamishness about it that gets me. He could have owned it. He could have owned the issue, stuck with it, stuck with Wright, and actually have his actions meet that soaring rhetoric everyone loves so much.
It's the same with this campaign funds issue. I don't want to have to spend four years worrying about some lawyer telling me that he isn't a liar because it depends on what the definition of is is.
[ October 31, 2008, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any claim of "vote for me because my opponent is bad", constitutes negative campaigning whether its true and just or not. Similarly, any claim of "vote for me because I'm really super" constitutes positive campaigning whether the claim is true and just or not.
You are confusing truthful campaigning with positive campaigning -- they aren't the same.
Interesting definition. I suspect that 90% of people who would say they are opposed to negative campaigning would change their minds if presented with that definition. Truth trumps courtesy when it comes to who is going to be running the country.
Which may be why despite the fact that the majority of people say they dislike negative campaigning, it works.
I doubt any politician who has ever engaged in muck-raking has ever claimed he was doing anything other than looking for the truth.
You certainly aren't naive enough to think Palin picked the phrase "Paling around with terrorists" because it was the most truthful way to present the facts. If she had been honestly just trying to get the facts out, she would have picked "Associating with a former leader of the Weather Underground". If she thought that people might not remember exactly who the Weather Underground were and what they did she could have added "a radical leftist organization involved in riots and bombings in 1969 and 70".
But you and I both know that she chose the words "paling around" rather than "associating with" to imply a close, personal relationship and there is no credible evidence to support that claim.
And I can't believe that anyone living in the US in 2008 and using the word "terrorists" does not intend people to make an association with radical Islamic terrorism.
What Palin does goes way beyond "negative campaigning" its typical muck-raking. You make a claim which runs a narrow border between truth and outright lies so that you can evoke a strong negative emotional response but have probably deniability if you are pressed to back it up with facts.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Interesting definition. I suspect that 90% of people who would say they are opposed to negative campaigning would change their minds if presented with that definition. Truth trumps courtesy when it comes to who is going to be running the country.
You could have just said: "Yeah, but still."
What kind of perplexes me about the Ayers point of attack is that they're criticizing Obama for having been associated with, in any way, a free member of our society, and a U.S. citizen. He's not in prison, and he isn't being indicted for a crime, so the idea that Obama was even in the same room with him, when they did in fact live in the same neighborhood, doesn't seem to be particularly damning. I just don't see how McCain/Palin can sell the de-facto enemy of the state angle on a guy who's walking around free- he's not on some kind of blacklist of personas non grata. Yeah, maybe he's a despicable guy, but we've all dealt with despicable people in our lives, and we don't get docked for the fact that we got through it without crapping a brick. What's Obama supposed to do about a guy who's allowed to be part of whatever committee he can get himself appointed to? Run away screaming "I renounce you!!!"?
And for McCain to then haughtily say to Obama: "I am not George Bush," when the relationship between the two men has been one in which they have introduced each other and endorsed each other in front of national audiences, is ridiculous. McCain would like to avoid association with a man he has publicly associated himself with hundreds of times, and he wants also to turn around and associate Obama with a man who, so far, hasn't even been shown to be on a first name basis with him. And to be perfectly honest, I don't give two bags of crap if Obama ate sunday dinner at the Ayers household, and McCain plays squash with George Bush every saturday. I've known lots of people who acted very differently than I would. Big Freaking Shocker.
[ October 31, 2008, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Deleted to preempt the fight that might have shutdown the thread.
I hate having to censor myself on certain issues but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Orincoro, it plays to the fears of people for whom Sen. Obama is different and for whom different is scary.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any claim of "vote for me because my opponent is bad", constitutes negative campaigning whether its true and just or not. Similarly, any claim of "vote for me because I'm really super" constitutes positive campaigning whether the claim is true and just or not.
You are confusing truthful campaigning with positive campaigning -- they aren't the same.
Interesting definition. I suspect that 90% of people who would say they are opposed to negative campaigning would change their minds if presented with that definition. Truth trumps courtesy when it comes to who is going to be running the country.
quote:Negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as "mudslinging", is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
errrm... palin' around with a terrorist bomber?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Ayers is on record as having no regrets about the bombings"
Why are you lying again?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
To be fair, I think a lot of average people do define negative campaigning the way Lisa seems to be. They take negative more to mean crossing some line of civility rather than discounting the other candidate in any way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Orincoro, it plays to the fears of people for whom Sen. Obama is different and for whom different is scary.
Well, yeah. It's just perplexing that it flies at all.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: To be fair, I think a lot of average people do define negative campaigning the way Lisa seems to be. They take negative more to mean crossing some line of civility rather than discounting the other candidate in any way.
I have heard "attack ads" being used with some frequency.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Ayers is on record as having no regrets about the bombings"
Why are you lying again?
Paul, could you please at least attempt to back up your attacks. You waded into this thread and made untrue things about me, then ignored the links I made that disproved your attacks.
Now you're calling someone a liar without even the courtesy of a link. A quick Google search shows at least some mainstream media support for the claim that Ayers does not regret the bombings. It's certainly possible that the NYT and Chicago Magazine articles are inaccurate, but I'd think someone calling someone else a liar could be bothered to link to the proof.
I agree that those who took the NYT quote as Ayers' saying he wished he had bombed more were reading more into the quote than is there. But that's not what you're calling a lie.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: To be fair, I think a lot of average people do define negative campaigning the way Lisa seems to be. They take negative more to mean crossing some line of civility rather than discounting the other candidate in any way.
Honestly curious, what makes you think so? I always just interpreted it literally, and I can't remember ever hearing it used to mean something dishonest, although the two may go hand-in-hand.
On re-reading, I don't think I was very clear. While I think dishonesty is often viewed as going along with negative campaigning, I don't think it's the defining characteristic.
Furthermore, I think positive campaigning is often viewed as having many dishonest components. Throwing truthfulness into the definition simply confuses things, I think. Let honesty be a separate issue.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:"I'm often quoted saying that I have 'no regrets,'" he writes. "This is not true. For anyone paying attention--and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/ways--life brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I'm sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say 'no, I don't regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.' Sometimes I add, 'I don't think I did enough.' This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings."
That's hardly conclusive enough to call someone a liar (not that you did).
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There were two classes of attacks. The first involved people, and he has repudiated those often. Even planning. The second involved buildings, and I don't think he is sorry about those at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: To be fair, I think a lot of average people do define negative campaigning the way Lisa seems to be. They take negative more to mean crossing some line of civility rather than discounting the other candidate in any way.
Honestly curious, what makes you think so? I always just interpreted it literally, and I can't remember ever hearing it used to mean something dishonest, although the two may go hand-in-hand.
On re-reading, I don't think I was very clear. While I think dishonesty is often viewed as going along with negative campaigning, I don't think it's the defining characteristic.
Furthermore, I think positive campaigning is often viewed as having many dishonest components. Throwing truthfulness into the definition simply confuses things, I think. Let honesty be a separate issue.
I rarely think of ads in terms of negative or positive, I think of them in terms of fair and unfair. But if you want to combine them then that's fine I suppose. I don't have a big problem if a candidate spends 60% of their money on negative ads so long as they are TRUE. Pointing out the flaws of your opponent, so long as they are perfectly legitimate flaws, is perfectly fine with me, and I think that's a reasonable part of any campaign. You can't just say "you're wrong!" you have to say WHY the person is wrong and what you think he's done wrong in the past. And you have to be truthful about your own plans and accomplishments.
I'm far, far more interested in the fairness aspect rather than whether an ad is negative or positive. I value positive campaigns more, just because I want to hear the person's ideas more than I want to hear them go after the other person's, but once I've got those ideas down, I want to know what's wrong with the other guy too. If one guy runs 9:1 negative to positive ads that are all true, and another guy does 1:9 negative to positive ads that are all false, I'm going to side with the "mudslinger." At least he didn't lie to me.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
You neatly summed up what I was trying to get at. Thanks. Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:If saying your opponent "Pal's around with terrorists" isn't negative campaigning its hard to imagine what might qualify.
It's more than that though, what happens when someone says that Obama pals around with terrorists is that the real power of the statement does not lie in it's truth. It doesn't matter how true the statement is or whether or not Gov. Palin can justifiably say it, what matters is that she hopes that people infer their own truth from the statement. Of course, she hopes that their truth of the statement is that Obama is dangerous, Muslim, foreign, or other and not American, and thus, that is where the real negativity of the statement and the candidate lies.
In that sense, it really isn't about whether a Obama or McCain can speak about the other in a negative manner, hell any candidate should be able to disagree and bring up faults in the arguments of the other candidate, but the real difference is in the intention of each statement and how that reflects an overall approach to politics. When McCain and Palin said these things about Obama and Ayers and others, what they really wanted wasn't to know the true relationships that Obama had with them, they wanted people to draw their own conclusions about Obama and they wanted them to think he was different. The really subversive thing about all this is that the McCain campaign can stand back and claim that they never really did anything wrong, and so, if people drew the wrong conclusions that was their own fault. You see that in every apology from politicians these days, you saw that when Palin apologized for the "real" versus "fake" America thing, and you see it everyday on cable news where the same strategy works. All you need is a question mark apparently...
That being said, I would sacrifice an Obama win in a split second for a Texas Tech win over Texas this weekend. Wreck 'em Tech!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In his ads and speeches, Obama wants you to believe that McCain is a fine and honorable war hero who is mistaken in nearly everything he does. In McCain's ads and his people's speeches he wants you to think that Obama is a Muslim terrorist communist Marxist Black Liberation flag-hating negro who wants everyone who's not busy turning gay to run out and get an abortion, quick.
Let me amend: I don't think McCain actually believes this. I do believe he is giving his campaign managers their heads in promoting this idea so that he can win the election, which isn't any better in my view and gives me a dangerous look into what a McCain administration might be like.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
I like the photo of George Bush paling around with Kenneth Lay.
Also, did anyone see Mrs. Dole put out adds claiming that her opponent pals around with Athiests?
HA HA HA HA HA
Those Atheists are bad. We should not elect anyone who is friends with them. Criminalize atheism now!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Don't forget, McCain palled around with Charles Keating much, much more than Obama palled with Ayres. And Palin pals around with her husband, who pals around with a group that wants Alaska to secede from the union.
Guilt-by-association is fun! And easy!
Thing is, we have no evidence whatsoever that Obama shares any goals with Ayres beyond improving education for kids in Illinois. Whereas McCain did in fact try to use his influence on Keating's behalf, and Todd Palin was a member of that group.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That's hardly conclusive enough to call someone a liar (not that you did).
Nor that he never said something that could be interpreted otherwise. But I thought it should be put out there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: I like the photo of George Bush paling around with Kenneth Lay.
Also, did anyone see Mrs. Dole put out adds claiming that her opponent pals around with Athiests?
HA HA HA HA HA
Those Atheists are bad. We should not elect anyone who is friends with them. Criminalize atheism now!
I haven't seen the actual ad, but from what I've heard, she isn't doing guilt by association, she's actually coming right out and saying that Kay Hagan is a godless atheist.
I hear this sort of last minute uber attack isn't unusual in North Carolina politics, though the particular vehemence of this ad might be.
Alright, she isn't coming right out and saying it, but she's trying something a little more sly than just guilt by association, she's suggesting a backroom deal. The fundraiser wasn't even thrown by the Godless Americans PAC (which IS a real PAC), I believe it was held at the home of a member of the PAC, but it wasn't sponsored by them. Hagan's response wasn't as strong as I would have made it, but it's hard to be that clear and efffective in 30 seconds. She could have done better. Dole is desparate to win in a race where she expected an easy win and has been down for weeks in the polls. The problem for Dole is that more than half of North Carolina's voters have already voted, and Obama has a big lead thus far in votes cast, and if they aren't split ticket voters, so does Hagan. There could be a limit to how many votes Dole can even effect, if her ad is even effective.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Dagonee, i didn't respond to your links because, well, you started saying untrue things about me, and I parodied your remarks using basically the same form. I would say that there's at least as much truth to my remarks as there were to yours.
As far as Lisa's remarks, here's a link to a letter Ayers sent in immedinately following the column on him that Lisa's remarks come from.
I hope Dole loses so bad that it becomes the stuff of legend. Good gravy, I love my grandma, but I don't want her to be my senator. LOL
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I wish Obama would just send people who have a problem with Bill Ayers to Paul's link.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:When you vote third party, you are choosing to use your voice for a purpose other than deciding the election. The purpose may be important to you, but from a pragmatic standpoint its no different than choosing to stay at home.
The difference between staying at home and voting 3rd party is making your voice heard to stand up for something you believe in, rather than dictate the outcome of the election. That person may have no chance in winning, but if you have a problem with our two party system and want the nature of the dialogue to change, then you're making a worthy point voting 3rd party.
That being said I voted main party the last two elections because i thought the election was too important and too close to cast my vote for a principle. If Gore or Kerry had had huge leads I would've voted 3rd party just to make a point.
You made the right choice. You may think you are making your voice heard by voting third party, but your voice isn't being heard if no one is listening.
To be more accurate, the only people who are listening are those who are tallying your independent vote as one vote against the actual viable candidate who might have received your vote otherwise.
And since that has at times been a distorted voice of several percentage points in a single swing state, your voice is oftentimes heard very loudly by the candidate who is likely the last person you would vote for.
But more power to you.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Voting third party, even if your candidate can't possibly win, still brings up their numbers and makes them that much more viable for the next time. And you should vote for the candidate you believe in or what's the point of this whole thing?
Re: Ayres. His remorse is a tricky thing. I've read quite a few of his comments and interviews and blog posts about it, and he never, never comes out and says "Hey, I'm sorry I set bombs." He admits to regrets over some of the things he did, he says his comments about wanting to do more were meant to be about doing more to stop the war, he condemns the 9-11 terrorists for their actions, but I've never heard or read him say explicitly that setting bombs in government buildings is a bad thing and should never be done. His apologies are actually convoluted and rambling, odd mea culpas that convey a vague sense of undirected remorse. I get a real sense of the "I'm sorry you're so upset" kind of apology. (If he has apologized directly, please let me know, I haven't been able to find it)
That said, it still doesn't bother me if Obama hangs out with him. From all reports Ayers does a lot of good in education these days -- many Republicans, including the ones who funded the committee that he and Obama both served on also seem to pal around with him -- and I don't think he and Obama sit up late at night and plot the overthrow of the United States.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote: It's sort of perplexing to me, because I'm a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington
I'm more concerned over her constant subject-verb-object conflicts. Reading quotes from Sarah Palin makes me sad. I realize this is probably some kind of mild cognitive disorder beyond her control (I'm not an expert, but I'd love to hear an expert opinion...), but it really does concern me that she may not have the reading comprehension skills necessary to do the job she is campaigning for. When everything that comes out of her mouth is semi-coherent word-salad, I start wondering if she understands the words she reads during scripted speeches, when she doesn't make those same mistakes. Even more important, I wonder if she would actually be able to write a coherent paragraph of her own, which seems like something the President or Vice-President should reasonably be expected to do from time to time.
You should try transcribing a recording of yourself during a natural conversation sometime. Unless you are like me -a freak of nature- you will find that your conversational English is atrocious. (I actually use "whom" properly when I speak. Did anyone see The Happening? Remember when the conductor of the train says, "we lost contact," and Wahlberg says, "with whom?" Perfect English; but even so, it sounds so awkward!)
(If you don't believe me, this is a video of me ad-libbing for about 8 minutes total [unedited, about 20 minutes.])
(Maybe this isn't so uncommon, but I'm constantly surrounded by "educated" people who don't seem to be capable of speaking a complex sentence without an error or two.)
In fact, catch Barack Obama in a candid moment and you will find that his spoken English is a far cry from what you might expect to see on a freshman-level, two-page, double-spaced, one-inch-margins paper due every other Wednesday. To be sure, if you want to know when someone is giving a rehearsed answer, listen for grammatical errors. If you don't hear any, be suspicious.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Interesting definition. I suspect that 90% of people who would say they are opposed to negative campaigning would change their minds if presented with that definition. Truth trumps courtesy when it comes to who is going to be running the country.
You could have just said: "Yeah, but still."
Not really; here she says something completely different from her post that engendered the response to which she is counter-responding. Clever response though; I suppose wittiness has a great effect on how you view certain issues.
quote: What kind of perplexes me about the Ayers point of attack is that they're criticizing Obama for having been associated with, in any way, a free member of our society, and a U.S. citizen. He's not in prison, and he isn't being indicted for a crime, so the idea that Obama was even in the same room with him, when they did in fact live in the same neighborhood, doesn't seem to be particularly damning.
Seriously? I don't think you are aware of some of the basic facts of the situation. But supposing you do, can you not place yourself in a non-Obama supporter's shoes and see why it is perfectly reasonable to find issue with this?
quote:I just don't see how McCain/Palin can sell the de-facto enemy of the state angle on a guy who's walking around free- he's not on some kind of blacklist of personas non grata. Yeah, maybe he's a despicable guy, but we've all dealt with despicable people in our lives, and we don't get docked for the fact that we got through it without crapping a brick. What's Obama supposed to do about a guy who's allowed to be part of whatever committee he can get himself appointed to? Run away screaming "I renounce you!!!"?
Yes!!! But not running away, running toward. If he was anywhere near to possessing the level of virtue and principle that he is like to be painted with, then his first order of business as a fledgling member of an education activism board would be to demand the removal of fellow board members who have proven and continue to stand by their treasonous, disloyal, and aberrant attitudes toward their country and government. If this meant sacrificing advancement in the political scene in which these trials of character take place, then so be it.
Knowing what you may about McCain, do you think he would tolerate someone like Ayers, or Wright, or that Palestinian guy, or anyone like that? Well, actually, he does, but those types are his fellow Senators, and so he really has a valid excuse...
quote: And for McCain to then haughtily say to Obama: "I am not George Bush," when the relationship between the two men has been one in which they have introduced each other and endorsed each other in front of national audiences, is ridiculous. McCain would like to avoid association with a man he has publicly associated himself with hundreds of times, and he wants also to turn around and associate Obama with a man who, so far, hasn't even been shown to be on a first name basis with him. And to be perfectly honest, I don't give two bags of crap if Obama ate sunday dinner at the Ayers household, and McCain plays squash with George Bush every saturday. I've known lots of people who acted very differently than I would. Big Freaking Shocker.
So you are equating a U.S Senator's working relationship with the President of the USA with that of a young, unknown political activist and a former, completely unrepentant domestic terrorist? As I said, Obama's associations with these unsavory characters had little to do with the unfortunate circumstances of the political scene of Chicago and much to do with compromised values for the sake of political ambition.
Of course, if Obama is the savior of our disgusting political process today, I suppose certain ends could justify certain means. If you believe that, then by all means vote Democratic with a clear conscience.
[edit] Much content added, I went on another rant and couldn't stop myself.
[ November 01, 2008, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Chris, I tend to agree with you. Its clear that he thought he should have resisted the vietnam war, but its not at all clear what he thought the methodology should have been. He's obviously stepped away from advocating violence, plotting violence, or carrying out violent attacks... there's not a whole lot about the Iraq war that seperates it from the vietnam war in terms of why he said he resisted the government at the time.
But its not at all correct to say he's on record as having no regrets about the bombings. He's never said those words.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Dagonee, i didn't respond to your links because, well, you started saying untrue things about me, and I parodied your remarks using basically the same form. I would say that there's at least as much truth to my remarks as there were to yours.
I'm referring to this:
quote:*Of course, I'm not surprised. One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives. I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?
Really? Considering I pointed out specific places where I actually did that, it's an interesting take on "truth" you've got there.
What I said was based entirely on what you said - YOU said that the only two possibilities were untruthfulness or idiocy in that discussion. You've repeated the same attacks that conservatives don't call out ridiculous conservative posts in more general form at Ornery. It's quite simply not true, either as specifically applied to me or in the general sense.
Your self righteousness in this regard is simply not justified.
quote:As far as Lisa's remarks, here's a link to a letter Ayers sent in immedinately following the column on him that Lisa's remarks come from.
That letter does NOT say that Ayers regrets the bombings. It says he a thousand regrets, but doesn't specify. He says that a quote from his book was taken out of context.
It's reasonable to interpret that as him regretting the bombs. It's also reasonable to think that, considering the explicit quote in the article ("'I don't regret setting bombs,' Bill Ayers said."), that his failure to say he does regret the bombing or that he was actually misquoted in his letter correcting the article means that quote was accurate.
For you to believe that the NYT made up that quote is one thing. It's not enough evidence to support a charge of lying about it.
According to the NYT, he said, "I don't regret setting bombs." At least in the letter you linked, he doesn't deny saying that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Knowing what you may about McCain, do you think he would tolerate someone like Ayers, or Wright, or that Palestinian guy, or anyone like that?
Well he did chair a board that gave "that Palestinian guy{'s}" group a whole bunch of money.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
And he embraced Hagee's endorsement, who said stuff a ton more vile than Wright.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: In fact, catch Barack Obama in a candid moment and you will find that his spoken English is a far cry from what you might expect to see on a freshman-level, two-page, double-spaced, one-inch-margins paper due every other Wednesday. To be sure, if you want to know when someone is giving a rehearsed answer, listen for grammatical errors. If you don't hear any, be suspicious.
I agree to a point. When I speak, I am generally very careful about what I say. I phrase things correctly most of the time, and do tend to finish my sentences. I am in training to be an ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher- I'm almost done with the course. Ive had to transcribe quite a few conversations and monologues, and I've just got to tell you, if Sarah Palin were doing this program with me, based on her performance in interviews, she would fail. An English teacher has to be able to speak clearly and precisely, using the correct words.
You're being a little dismissive of what seems to you like a minor point. It could be minor, but it has some big implications in my opinion. One might wonder why Palin is fine in front of a Teleprompter or in a debate with strictly rehearsed responses, but goes to pieces in the face of a question that is outside her immediate experience? Why, at the very least, can she not teach herself to think about what she is saying before she spits it out? Is she thinking at all?
The lack of coherence in her off-the-cuff speaking is far more egregious than the average person on the street. But even if it wasn't, people have different registers of speaking for different environments. One cannot expect Barack or Palin to speak in their "public voices" when having a coffee with friends. However, when the candidates ARE in front of cameras and microphones, they aught to be able to pull it together and get through one sentence after the other. I'm not nitpicking some little errors- we were talking about a fairly massive miscomprehension, or at the very least a glaring misuse of the word "first-amendment."
And, frankly, I expect a lot more from the person running for the executive branch, than I do from a random person off the street. However, I'm convinced that the average person off the street has a fair chance of being more thoughtful and well-spoken than Palin is.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Yes!!! But not running away, running toward. If he was anywhere near to possessing the level of virtue and principle that he is like to be painted with, then his first order of business as a fledgling member of an education activism board would be to demand the removal of fellow board members who have proven and continue to stand by their treasonous, disloyal, and aberrant attitudes toward their country and government. If this meant sacrificing advancement in the political scene in which these trials of character take place, then so be it.
Given that the project was totally unrelated to Ayers' past and that Ayers committed the bombings decades before, why do you think this would have been an appropriate situation for Obama to make a big stink over Ayers' participation?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As I said, Obama's associations with these unsavory characters had little to do with the unfortunate circumstances of the political scene of Chicago and much to do with compromised values for the sake of political ambition.
Your claim seems to be that if Obama were not so willing to act on his political ambition then he would have taken a stand against Ayers' position on the education board. Why should I grant that?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Because someone like Ayers should not be given any quarter under any circumstances. If I was managing a McDonald's I wouldn't give him a job.
I'm not saying anyone should agree with this sentiment, but to accuse Republicans of being cheap and trying to distract with this sort of thing is highly dismissive of what many people have a perfectly reasonable right to feel. Many conservatives equate it with Obama serving on some committee -it doesn't matter what it is- with someone like O.J. Simpson or Nancy Pelosi...
I think the difference between the two perspectives on associations comes from the same place that the differences liberals and conservatives have on other issues come from, like abortion and flag burning, that sort of thing. Liberals seem to be more tolerant of disagreeable things, and conservatives are not.
[edit] to add: Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting.
[ November 01, 2008, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nancy Pelosi is an unconvicted terrorist?
I understand the Conservative mindset even less than I thought I did.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
No, Lyrhawn, duh. She's an unconvicted double murderer.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Because someone like Ayers should not be given any quarter under any circumstances. If I was managing a McDonald's I wouldn't give him a job.
I'm not saying anyone should agree with this sentiment, but to accuse Republicans of being cheap and trying to distract with this sort of thing is highly dismissive of what many people have a perfectly reasonable right to feel. Many conservatives equate it with Obama serving on some committee -it doesn't matter what it is- with someone like O.J. Simpson or Nancy Pelosi...
I think the difference between the two perspectives on associations comes from the same place that the differences liberals and conservatives have on other issues come from, like abortion and flag burning, that sort of thing. Liberals seem to be more tolerant of disagreeable things, and conservatives are not.
[edit] to add: Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting.
So your saying someone acquited of being a domestic terrorist 40 years ago should not have a career, a job, or a life under any circumstances?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To make an attempt at Resh's position...it's not a ridiculous mindset. Had Ayers actually killed anyone in his attacks instead of specifically going out of his way to ensure their safety, I might agree with him on a basic instinctive level.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Whether Ayers is a terrorist or not, Obama does not "pal around" with him in such a way that suggests that he supports setting bombs to make a political point. Spending time in a professional way with somebody who committed crimes in the past, whether they are repentant or not, is not "paling around". Even going out for a drink because you know each other in a professional way is not "paling around." The accusation is totally ludicrous. Prominent people spend a considerable amount of time with people they strongly disagree with.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wait a minute, I'm spending time posting in this thread with people I disagree with like Resh and DarkKnight...are we paling around?!
I had no idea!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: So your saying someone acquited of being a domestic terrorist 40 years ago should not have a career, a job, or a life under any circumstances?
If you or Obama or Kathy Lee Gifford want to help him with those things, that's up to you. Just don't expect me to feel warm and fuzzy about having a president who would feel comfortable with doing so.
I know Obama didn't do anything like provide him with food, shelter, and warm hugs to help him sleep at night. But he was comfortable with working with the guy and allowing him to host political events in his (Obama's) honor at his (Ayer's) home.
Again, disagree with the relevance if you like. Don't let it keep you from voting. I find the whole thing despicable, but I wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. But don't try to tell people who don't know if they want to vote for Obama that their aversion to his associations are unwarranted and should not factor into their decision making. That's not for you or anyone else to decide.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Whether Ayers is a terrorist or not, Obama does not "pal around" with him in such a way that suggests that he supports setting bombs to make a political point. Spending time in a professional way with somebody who committed crimes in the past, whether they are repentant or not, is not "paling around". Even going out for a drink because you know each other in a professional way is not "paling around." The accusation is totally ludicrous. Prominent people spend a considerable amount of time with people they strongly disagree with.
This is what I'm saying. It's irrelevant to you. But it isn't to me, and it isn't to a lot of people. To call it ludicrous is to assert your superior judgment.
Wait, you're calling the descriptor of "palling around" ludicrous. Ok, that I can agree with.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting."
Actually it shows what Obama is willing to put up with for a greater good; in this case an education non-profit and an anti-poverty board. You have no evidence that Obama joined those organizations merely to move up in politics.
I don't think his associations shouldn't be of any account, but this is being pitched like the ONLY people he hangs around with are terrorists. How many people has he served on a committee with? How many other people served on those boards? What about the Republicans who helped fund them? Shouldn't they also be outed as terrorist-sympathizers? Shouldn't we also be looking at the other people Obama talks to, confides in, takes advice from? By that standard, the Rev. Wright is a much more damaging association - although there I think Obama already had his say, in one of the best speeches on race in America ever made.
And why aren't more Republicans bothered by McCain's associations with Charles Keating? McCain accepted $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates; his wife Cindy and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center a year before McCain helped pressure bank regulators on Keating's behalf; McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet, three of them to Keating's Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.
Until evidence pops up that Obama spent many happy hours at Ayres house making pipe bombs, McCain's Keating connection is much more relevant to how he will deal with the economic crisis as president.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
True. I can point to some things about McCain that are even more negative than that. But I still prefer him over Obama.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Until evidence pops up that Obama spent many happy hours at Ayres house making pipe bombs, McCain's Keating connection is much more relevant to how he will deal with the economic crisis as president.
This is why I love you, Chris. I think people spend too much effort trying to demonize people they don't agree with. Political discourse has degenerated in this country to the point that we lose sight of issues in the fervor to prove that 'the other guy' is evil.
I'm a registered independent and have voted for Republicans AND Democrats in the past. The last presidential election was agony for me, for various reasons.(I supported McCain four years ago, but his platform is so different now, he hardly seems like the same person.)
This time the decision is not a difficult one at all, for me. America needs a leader who can inspire people, bring people together. It seems pretty clear to me who that is.
I can't hardly wait to see how this turns out.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Is that really enough, Olivet? Is that your sole criterion for preferring Obama? His charisma?
Do you really think he is bringing people together? Any more than any other candidate? Because it seems like about half the country doesn't feel any kind of affection for the guy, and speaking as one of those people, I don't feel like he's been trying to reach out to that half at all. It feels like he looks down his nose at us, and if you don't support him, you can go jump in a lake as far as he's concerned. Maybe someof us don't pay any income taxes, but he seems to think that he can bribe us into voting for him buy promising us someone else's money. But the only way he can take it from them is if we give him the power.
[Edited]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
No. No. (I assume the third question is rhetorical, but No.)
Yes. Yes. I wouldn't know, though he does seem to be reaching out with his campaigning in traditionally Republican states. He's not spending a lot of time defending himself from continued attacks about the same issues, because he's already addressed them.
I am not going to argue about it. In my experience, people argue more to reassure themselves than to convince others. I am convinced, for many reasons I have no particular drive to share, and I have zero interest in converting anyone.
I am excited, though, to see the huge lines for early voting all around where I live. It is thrilling to see my neighbors so involved in the democratic process. It probably helps that my state has fallen from the "leaning Republican" category to the "toss up" category in the last few days.
Whoever wins, this will be one for the history books. I feel like a child on Christmas Eve. I have faith that, whoever wins, the sun will rise as i always has, and my Beloved and I will continue to care for our family, and make the best of what we have been given.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: In my experience, people argue more to reassure themselves than to convince others.
Hah, I think in large part that may be true....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Olivet, where are you? Indiana? Missouri?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Georgia.
O_O
I know. It kind of freaked me out, too.
Of course, I've been following the RCP electoral map, but I think McCain's polling lead has fallen within the five point margin of error:
I believe the state will still go Republican, but you've gotta love a squeaker!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Wait a minute, I'm spending time posting in this thread with people I disagree with like Resh and DarkKnight...are we paling around?!
I had no idea!
Lyr, as somebody who pals around with right wing wackos, what makes you think you have a future in politics. What you should have been doing was never posting anything in response to anything these people were saying. Don't enter into conversation with them, at least not without pre-condition.
Well, let's face it, at this point your political career is just about over. We have waaayyy too much dirt on you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Is that really enough, Olivet? Is that your sole criterion for preferring Obama? His charisma?
Do you really think he is bringing people together? Any more than any other candidate? Because it seems like about half the country doesn't feel any kind of affection for the guy, and speaking as one of those people, I don't feel like he's been trying to reach out to that half at all. It feels like he looks down his nose at us, and if you don't support him, you can go jump in a lake as far as he's concerned. Maybe someof us don't pay any income taxes, but he seems to think that he can bribe us into voting for him buy promising us someone else's money. But the only way he can take it from them is if we give him the power.
[Edited]
And if McCain won with only half, what about the other half? Are they less important?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Olivet -
Oh Georgia, yeah. I didn't think of that because most of the major news networks still have it as leaning McCain, but personally I think it's leaning Democratic. I don't know if it was here or elsewhere but I put a little electoral bio out about Georgia to explain why I thought the state would be a real toss-up this year. Between voter registration, early voting, and some other factors, I think it really will be a squeaker, and I even think there's a decent chance that Obama could end up pulling it out.
Blacks and to a smaller degree the youth vote have been underpolled, which I think gives Obama a 2-3 point edge over what any poll says. That makes it a virtual tie. Georgia's senate race is going to be even more interesting considering the national implications.
Your vote might matter more than most in some ways this year Olivet.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
RCP actually has Arizona as a toss up now, but that's new, and the state is still polling for McCain, within the margin of error. Interesting.
At this point, Lyr, what's your no BS assessment of the chances of a McCain win? I've been going over and over the numbers, and McCain would have to pull out a victory in what, 10 states in which he is either down, or barely ahead? How could he do it at this point?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I know, Lyr. It is awesome to see the lines that have run around the corner of the local library every day this week.
My husband, who is voting for McCain (but not terribly excited about it, poor lamb-he has no faith in either candidate or party, but usually votes for the party that does not control Congress as a sort of "Damage Control") offered not to vote if I wouldn't vote, since our votes will "cancel each other out," but I want us to set an example for our kids, you know? The example that good citizens vote, as well as the example that two people can disagree politically and still be very much in love and a united parental front.
Either way, I have faith in the process.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: [edit] to add: Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting.
I really don't understand why that's insulting.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Because someone like Ayers should not be given any quarter under any circumstances. If I was managing a McDonald's I wouldn't give him a job.
I would. In a second I would.
You know why? Because he is a human being. It's a common refrain these days, especially from me, but compassion and forgiveness mean little when you can't embrace them in the face of the worst.
Now back to regular programming...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In Canada, the gov't keeps track of who doesn't vote. If you don't vote, you cannot ever have a say in how things are run until you vote.
My mom doesn't vote, and one time when she sent a complaint about something back when jean Cretien was Justice Minister he sent her back an angry letter.
It was awesome, jean Cretien was made at us!
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I know there were legitimate strategic reasons for doing so - Georgia's not exactly considered a major player in this election - but had Obama continued to run a few ads here he'd have it in the bag already. Then again, the "get out and vote" people, Obama signs, and bumper stickers are everywhere, and these things tend to have a more direct influence on people than an easily ignored commercial.
As for the senate race, though, I'm pretty sure Chambliss is going to mop the floor with Martin. Chambliss's ads are just ridiculous (Martin was fired, was he?), but Martin is so out of touch he's missing every obvious opportunity to get himself out there and take the lead.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: My husband, who is voting for McCain (but not terribly excited about it, poor lamb-he has no faith in either candidate or party, but usually votes for the party that does not control Congress as a sort of "Damage Control") offered not to vote if I wouldn't vote, since our votes will "cancel each other out," but I want us to set an example for our kids, you know? The example that good citizens vote, as well as the example that two people can disagree politically and still be very much in love and a united parental front.
Either way, I have faith in the process.
So, have you decided on how you are going to get your husband not to show up to the polls? Cutting his brakes seems drastic, and a little dangerous. You could pretend that there has been a family emergency... or you could just tell him, "actually let's just not go to polls," and then sneak off and vote. It's up to you. We're counting on your deviousness! Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: [edit] to add: Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting.
I really don't understand why that's insulting.
Basically, if you disagree with Resh, you are attacking his character.
Also you are a ferret.
Posted by TheBlueShadow (Member # 9718) on :
quote:I know there were legitimate strategic reasons for doing so - Georgia's not exactly considered a major player in this election - but had Obama continued to run a few ads here he'd have it in the bag already. Then again, the "get out and vote" people, Obama signs, and bumper stickers are everywhere, and these things tend to have a more direct influence on people than an easily ignored commercial.
I agree with this, I've been watching the polls for months and Georgia has pretty much only leaned Republican this election with neither candidate focusing on the state very much. It seems like had they just spent some money here it would've been an easy flip.
However, I've seen just as many Martin ads as I have Chambliss ads. I really do think this one will be close. The problem is Martin's approach. "Saxby Chambliss earned an A+ in George Bush economics" seems to be the only thing they're focusing on and really its been overplayed.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Honestly, our local polling places are within walking distance, and I hope that we shall walk together, hand-in-hand.
I wish both candidates for Senate would STFU. We've started joking every time an ad comes on. "Saxby Chambliss eats babies." "Oh yeah? Jim Martin rapes squirrels with burning American flags." We've been trying to outdo the mudslinging ads, but it's hard.
That said, chances are very, very slim that I will be voting a straight one-party ballot.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Is that really enough, Olivet? Is that your sole criterion for preferring Obama? His charisma?
Of course it's not enough, but it is a huge point in his favor. Let's not forget that the primary duty of a president is as a figurehead representative of our nation to other countries. In that respect, I find his charisma most appropriate.
McCain, meanwhile, is refusing point blank to even sit down and talk with certain foreign leaders.
quote: Do you really think he is bringing people together? Any more than any other candidate?
Yes. The race isn't nearly as close as other races in the past. Bush won by the skin of his teeth and did not win the popular vote! You'll never get 100% of the people to agree with you, of course.
quote: Because it seems like about half the country doesn't feel any kind of affection for the guy, and speaking as one of those people, I don't feel like he's been trying to reach out to that half at all. It feels like he looks down his nose at us, and if you don't support him, you can go jump in a lake as far as he's concerned.
I'm sorry you feel that way. During his infomercial, one of the things he said that struck a chord with me was this:
quote:I'm reminded every single day, that I am not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect president. But I can promise you this, I will always tell you what I think and where I stand; I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you when we disagree, and most importantly I will open the doors of government and ask you to be involved in your democracy again.
In fact, many of the things that have drawn me to Obama are these sorts of things. He wants us to be involved in our own government and solving our own problems. He doesn't claim he'll be able to solve them for us.
I know you disagree with him and I know many who do, but I do not understand the resentment. When I hear about it, most of the time it seems people are attributing attitudes and positions to Obama that I do not perceive and have seen no evidence of.
quote: Maybe someof us don't pay any income taxes, but he seems to think that he can bribe us into voting for him buy promising us someone else's money. But the only way he can take it from them is if we give him the power. [Edited] [/QB]
I still don't get this. Maybe it's a matter of perspective, but he has not promised anyone someone else's money. I may say it until my face turns blue, but here it is again: We all pay into the income tax system. Some of us pay more than others. Some of us make more than others. It is a difficult and complex system, but determining who pays what part of the burden is the job of president. It's not like we're taking all the money made in the country and dividing it back out by the # of people in the nation. No, we're asking that people who make more money pay a little bit more to make sure that we have a strong military, a good education system, highways, police, etc.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes? Where do you think that money will come from? Actual taxpayers pockets, and a highly disproportionate amount will come from the top 5%.
That top bracket employs the overwhelming majority of American workers. When they have less money to pay their employees, how are they supposed to make new hires? We're in the middle of a full blown recession, possibly heading into a depression, and Obama wants to limit American businesses' ability to employ more people. Why? So he can promise a handout and sway ignorant people into voting for him out of a selfish desire for free money.
I don't think there will be many people who will vote for him for that reason, but I bet his campaign is banking on there being enough of them to tip a couple of swing states in his favor. Maybe he'll come to his senses if elected and take back some of his ridiculous economic proposals. I don't think it will hurt his popularity as a president, seeing as how his constituents believe he can do no wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes?
So does McCain.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tuesday when people vote, when do we know the result and when does Barack Obama manage to get in office?
Also, in furthermore people are ignorant, I was talking to some texans online over vent, it was insane, all of them were convinced in every lie ever uttered and utterly confident that "he may get elected but he won't be president" and in the next sentence that the Secret Service "ain't want him neither" and that "they can't see you when your 8000 meters away behind a rifle"
What are the current security arrangements to prevent 1 madman with a rifle from damaging your country's reputation for the end of time?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes?
So does McCain.
Not to mention the fact that they already do. It's called the earned income credit. I'm not saying you shouldn't disagree with it, but it's not new.
As for jobs...doesn't he plan to offer a tax credit to companies for every American employee hired in the US? Also, to take away their tax credit for shipping jobs overseas. (I mean, come one! I can't believe the Republicans did that.)
On a completely different subject, I looked up some information for my mom because she didn't believe me that the Republican party has been the big deficit spenders rather than the Democrats. I found some great graphs that I thought I'd share with you guys, too. I didn't realize how pronounced this was!
quote:Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes?
So does McCain.
I recieved a Bush stimulus check, and it was worth more than I payed in taxes that year. Just saying...
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
In other news, I've gotten 7 calls from 312-348-3696 on my cell phone (which I haven't been carrying on me). Looks like these are from the Obama campaign trying to verify my citizenship, in regards to that $15 donation. Persistent little buggers. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes? Where do you think that money will come from? Actual taxpayers pockets, and a highly disproportionate amount will come from the top 5%.
Wow, you don't know about the earned income credit?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Dagonee, i didn't respond to your links because, well, you started saying untrue things about me, and I parodied your remarks using basically the same form. I would say that there's at least as much truth to my remarks as there were to yours.
As far as Lisa's remarks, here's a link to a letter Ayers sent in immedinately following the column on him that Lisa's remarks come from.
And how hard would it have been for him to say, "I do regret having resorted to bombings." He didn't. Terrorist. And Paul, why are you being a credulous fool?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He was acquitted wasn't he? Is he still making bombs? He is still planting them? Has it been proven that he at this moment continues to plot to destory the american government?
Also does it mean nothing that his actions past actions 40 years ago I might add are comparable to various notable Israeli's as it was already mentioned?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
As far as I can tell, the only people injured or killed in these activities were people who screwed up while making a bomb. If an innocent had died or even been injured, I might care more about his actions. He seemed to go out of his way to ensure that no one was hurt- it wasn't just luck. I can understand why he doesn't feel too bad about what he did (considering everything about the time). All he ever hurt were buildings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That top bracket employs the overwhelming majority of American workers. When they have less money to pay their employees...
Resh, do you believe the wealthiest 5% of Americans pay the salaries of their employees out of their personal incomes?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That top bracket employs the overwhelming majority of American workers. When they have less money to pay their employees...
Resh, do you believe the wealthiest 5% of Americans pay the salaries of their employees out of their personal incomes?
Actually, the vast majority of Americans are employed by small businesses. Just saying...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Actually, the vast majority of Americans are employed by small businesses. Just saying...
I don't think that actually contradicts what Tom's getting at. I'd be surprised if most of small businesses making over $250K are not incorporated and thus subject to a different set of tax laws than apply to personal income. To the extant that this is true, their employees are not being paid from the personal income of the owners of these businesses.
[ November 01, 2008, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd be surprised if most of small businesses making over $250K are not incorporated and thus subject to a different set of rules than personal taxes.
Actually, partnerships, most small* LLCs, and many corporations* (specifically, so-called "S-Corps") are subject to pass-through taxation, which means that the owners (partners, members, or shareholders, depending) report their share of the entity's income on their own personal tax returns.
*these can have tens of million or more in revenue.
quote:To the extant that this is true, their employees are not being paid from the personal income of the owners of these businesses.
It depends on how one defines it, but in the situations I've described above, every dollar of salary paid to an employee is taken from the amount of income passed through to the owners. In this sense, it is being paid by them, in a way that is not true of shareholders in non-pass-through business entities.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I know there were legitimate strategic reasons for doing so - Georgia's not exactly considered a major player in this election - but had Obama continued to run a few ads here he'd have it in the bag already. Then again, the "get out and vote" people, Obama signs, and bumper stickers are everywhere, and these things tend to have a more direct influence on people than an easily ignored commercial.
As for the senate race, though, I'm pretty sure Chambliss is going to mop the floor with Martin. Chambliss's ads are just ridiculous (Martin was fired, was he?), but Martin is so out of touch he's missing every obvious opportunity to get himself out there and take the lead.
Martin has by all accounts I've seen been an awful candidate. He seems to be within spitting distance of winning despite himself. As things look there's a good chance of a special run off election between Chambliss and Martin, where I imagine Martin will get smoked, though maybe not if Obama turns his entire organization to helping Martin get elected in December, which would be...interesting. His place in the polls is solely a result of Obama's popularity among the black population and backlash against Republicans. It has little to do with an actual preference for Martin. I still think it'll be a tight election due to downticket support from Obama.
Obama put a lot of resources into Georgia at the start, but pulled it out to fight battles in far more winnable states. If he had to choose between lacing North Carolina and Virginia with ads, and Georgia, obviously he'd pick the other two. Better to shore up two sure things than to throw money at a state where he's never led in the polls. But that doesn't mean he isn't spending money there. He's spent money on staffers, on opening offices, on a massive voter registration effort that has registered hundreds of thousands of new Democrats in Georgia. He's spending money, but it's groundwork money, not ad money, and if you look at what McCain spent there in groundwork money, Obama trounced him, and it's not even a state he was focusing on really.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: RCP actually has Arizona as a toss up now, but that's new, and the state is still polling for McCain, within the margin of error. Interesting.
At this point, Lyr, what's your no BS assessment of the chances of a McCain win? I've been going over and over the numbers, and McCain would have to pull out a victory in what, 10 states in which he is either down, or barely ahead? How could he do it at this point?
Slim. Before he could even look at the states he needs to steal away from Obama, he needs to save a lot of states that are bleeding blue away from him. North Carolina is on the cusp, that could swing back his way. He'd need to hold onto Virginia, where he's currently down like six or seven points. He'd need to win Ohio where he's down four or five, and Florida, where it's neck and neck. Now that's just to get him within striking distance. I think that right there is hard to accomplish. Obama has led in the polls in Virginia for weeks, months even. He'd need for the polls to be wrong in a bad, bad way.
On top of that, he has to steal CO, NM, or IA. All Obama needs to do to win is win every Kerry state plus IA and VA, or if not VA, then NM and CO. He's ahead in every state I just mentioned by at least five points. Races tighten in the last few days of a campaign, especially when the party of the incumbent is not leading. But that's too much ground, and he has too much ground to cover.
Obama just has too many outs. It's like a poker hand where McCain is driving for the inside straight while Obama is looking for 20 different cards to make his hand. He'd need pretty much EVERY poll to be wrong, and he'd need for Obama's turnout to be hugely depressed. But we already know that isn't going to happen from the huge numbers that have ALREADY voted. Another way to win would be some sort of hail mary play in Pennsylvania, but most polls have Obama up DOUBLE DIGITS there.
Short of a New Hampshire primary style snafoo in the polling, he has a chance, but it's ridiculously tiny, especially with the money he had to pull from his GOTV game plan to pay for the last TV ad buy. Obama is going to have the strongest election day team on the ground in the history of presidential politics. McCain's won't even rival what Bush had in 2000 and 2004.
There are maybe a half dozen states just east of the Mississippi that you can watch if you want Orincoro that'll decide the election before they even finish voting on the West Coast. Polls close at 8 in a lot of places around here, and based one exit polls you'll start to see results by 9 or so. Watch OH, FL, VA, NC and PA. McCain needs ALL of those to go red for him to win, and if any go blue, it's an almost automatic loss. In fact, I think if he wins all of those, he has a pretty good chance of winning, but the chances of him winning all of those are probably like 5%. It's a tiny, tiny chance. The reason I call it an automatic loss is that the other states he's safely considered to win right now, in the east and west, give him enough votes that if he wins ANY of those states I mentioned, he wins the election, even if just barely. That's a lot of ground for McCain right now in states where Obama is ahead in a lot of polls.
If you want my best guess? Obama wins with maybe 340-350 electoral votes. Florida has almost 30 electoral votes, and is neck and neck right now, so that could throw off my guess. Without Florida I think he wins around 330, with it, 357. He might pick up some surprises like Georgia, or maybe Montana or North Dakota, and maybe Missouri. I guess there's that chance that Obama even gets into the 380's, but best case scenarios make me nervous. I think the 340's are likely.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
quote: That top bracket employs the overwhelming majority of American workers. When they have less money to pay their employees, how are they supposed to make new hires?
I've always been interested by conservative focus on the supply side of economics (to exclusivity, it sometimes seems). Now, I'm a bio-medical engineer, not an economist, damnit, but isn't the demand side also important?
Yes, the wealthy make hires, but they only make hires when it's profitable. If the increase in hires is not going to be followed by an increase in units moved and therefore profit, there is no reason to make a new hire. Rather, they'll sit on their larger profit.
In order to increase demand, you need more people able to buy. Now, I'm sure no one wants to see a 50's style redistribution of the wealth (when the United States' top tax bracket was 90%) - even though that's what created the much vaunted American Middle Class. But a balance is needed between supply and demand, and it seems to me that you've been swerving too far towards supply in the States (while here in Canada I think we have the opposite problem).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
McCain was on SNL earlier tonight and it was absolutely hysterical.
He's pretty funny. And the material they had for him was great.
Good stuff. If McCain were running for commedian in chief rather than President, he'd have my vote.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"But a balance is needed between supply and demand, and it seems to me that you've been swerving too far towards supply in the States"
I think there are 3 problems.
1. America has large Black/Hispanic/Asian populations, unlike, for instance, Sweden, Norway, etc., and in fact, all of Europe, except for the last 20 years or so. (Muslim migration was recent)
2. Many American communities are isolated by geography, and have been for hundreds of years. Media, particularly the internet, are starting to rememdy this. Starting. It's going to take a few years, at least.
3. Many rural communities (and for that matter, entire states. like Utah, Idaho, etc.) are lacking in diversity, racially, culturally, religiously, etc.. This is historically true.
The ignorance that arises from isolation can often lead to fear of the "other". It's more likely that politicians who seem to share this fear will get votes from people who also have this fear. We end up electing people who tend to err on the side of NOT funding government programs that might redistribute the wealth to minorities, members of other religions, and other cultures. I think it might change, though, if the internet and other media become a big enough part of people's lives. Hopefully it will allow people to become more comfortable with those who are not of the same race, etc. There are a lot of social programs that are questionable, but, unless we fund education, and focus lots of time and energy of making sure the money is well-spent, we will be sorry later. This is my belief, my mantra. It's the most important political fact for me. You can't just throw money at education, you have to make sure it's being well-spent. With the world changing so fast, there's more and more to learn. Minorities are less likely to turn to crime if they are given a good enough education. We are likely to be more qualified to handle the types of jobs that the 21st century will bring about if we fund education, and make sure the money is being well-spent. IMHO.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So Lyr, do you think the shrillness of the debate here at Hatrack has ratcheted up due to the impending landslide? Maybe people are just marking their political territory for the next 4 years?
Posted by YoYo Pwnzer (Member # 11790) on :
srry
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Why?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
wtf
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: McCain was on SNL earlier tonight and it was absolutely hysterical.
He's pretty funny. And the material they had for him was great.
And, to be honest, it will probably get him more votes than anything else he's done recently.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by YoYo Pwnzer: srry
Then delete it!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: So Lyr, do you think the shrillness of the debate here at Hatrack has ratcheted up due to the impending landslide? Maybe people are just marking their political territory for the next 4 years?
I don't know, do you really think it's gotten that shrill here? I think it's two things: Denial on the side of McCain fans (or resigned, accepted defeat), and a certain sense of giddiness or vindication on the side of Obama fans. Things will settle down soon enough. I think the GOP is just waiting for Obama to not live up to a lot of his promises so they can say "I told you so!"
But people will settle into a new reality once this thing is decided Tuesday. I think a lot of natural emnities will fall away, and maybe new ones will be built, but the changing of the guard in Washington I think will also signal the start of a new era, be it for better or for worse, in both American politics and civil discourse.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So to rephrase my earlier question: How effective is the Secret Service in guarding the president from snipers? For example, can't the Berreta .50 cal fire accurately from 3km away?
:EDIT: Correction the world record is 2,430 meter by a Canadian.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I believe they're aware of the threat.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given the lack of snipers killing the President, despite quite a few people presumably trying to set up such a situation, I'd say they're very, very effective.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I believe they're aware of the threat.
Yeah, they are *now.*
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:For example, can't the Berreta .50 cal fire accurately from 3km away?
In a vacuum, sure.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody heard anything about a supposedly damning interview that Obama gave with a San Francisco paper back in January? My manager came back from lunch in a froth over it; apparently some right wing talk radio host was going on about it, but I'm not seeing a whole lot about it online.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Which includes a response from the United Mine Workers.
quote: United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil E. Roberts issued the following statement:
"Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America.
Here what the McCain campaign left out of Sen. Obama’s actual words: ‘But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.'
Sen. Obama has been consistent with that message not just in the coalfields, but everywhere else he goes as well. Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal.
I noted that Sen. McCain even went so far yesterday as to say he has always been a supporter of coal. I wonder, then, how he can justify his statement at a Senate hearing in 2000 that, ‘In a perfect world we would like to transition away from coal entirely,’ and his leading role in sponsoring legislation in 2003 that would have wiped out 78 percent of all coal production in America?
Fortunately, UMWA members, their families and their friends and neighbors in the coalfields know all too well what is going on here. They’re not going to fall for it, and we urge others throughout America who care about coal to review what the candidates’ records on coal actually are. We are confident that once they do, and once they see the many other benefits to working families of voting for Sen. Obama, they will make the right choice for themselves and their families."
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Lyrhawn posted links to McCain's skits on SNL last weekend. I watched the show too and thought that some people might be amused by the long and hysterical parody that Ben Affleck did of Keith Olbermann on Countdown.
(Guess I'm not the only one who finds Olbermann coming close to being a left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh, which is not a compliment.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It was an absolutely brilliant impression of Olbermann. Sometimes I watch clips of him just for the entertainment. It doesn't matter that I totally disagree with him; he's so... pure. His disgust and outrage and utter clarity that he's right is actually inspirational.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It was an absolutely brilliant impression of Olbermann. Sometimes I watch clips of him just for the entertainment. It doesn't matter that I totally disagree with him; he's so... pure. His disgust and outrage and utter clarity that he's right is actually inspirational.
Apparently they also brought in Olbermann during rehearsals (he does work in the same building) and he gave it his 'blessing'. Nice to see people with a sense of humor about themselves.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Apparently they also brought in Olbermann during rehearsals (he does work in the same building) and he gave it his 'blessing'. Nice to see people with a sense of humor about themselves.
I watch Countdown pretty regularly. Politically, I'm not that far from Olbermann on many things and still find him obnoxious - and getting moreso.
I'll be interested to see how Affleck's impression of him is dealt with on Countdown tonight - I've never seen humor as one of Olbermann's strong points.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Just heard that Obama's grandmother has died. Looking for a link.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
When I was in Winnipeg the weekend before last, I read a story in which Obama said that his grandmother might not make it to election day.
I teared up right in the middle of the hotel lobby where I was reading the story.
I was beginning to think she'd live to see the end of this.
It's so sad.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Washington Times confirms it. If so I'd say I wish she could have seen him win the election, but I think she already knows what is going to happen.
edit: Beaten to the punch.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks to Kate, Stephen, and BlackBlade, all three.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Is that one of the relatives that he actually cares about?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a pretty callous, jackass thing to say lobo.
I wish she could have lived one more day, whether he wins or not, just to see him finish it out. She should have gotten the chance to vote for her grandson.
Has anyone else been seeing some truly despicable ads today? It's like they waited until the day before the election to put out the absolute sleaziest ads there are, and they are all against Obama. The ones that I've seen have been anyway.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Despicable people call for despicable adds. I don't get the feeling that Obama cares much about his brother and aunt; is it unreasonable to questions his feelings regarding a grandma?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I stab you.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Please do not make personal threats. It is ugly...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Despicable people call for despicable adds.
So you're saying McCain actually called and asked for the ads to be put on the air? Shocking!
quote:I don't get the feeling that Obama cares much about his brother and aunt; is it unreasonable to questions his feelings regarding a grandma?
Yes, at least based on your reasoning there. His grandmother helped raise him and they've always been close. He's only met his aunt and brother a couple times, actually only once I think for his brother (half brother). I have fourth and fifth cousins that I've met as many times as that, and I wouldn't put them anywhere near the same level of importance that I put my grandfather on the list of things I care about.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Despicable people call for despicable adds.
Great! Then I'm off to film a national advertisement entitled, "lobo Is An Effin' Douchebag."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Considering that Sen. Obama had little contact with his father's side of the family as he was growing up, and that his grandmother had raised him, yes, it is pretty unreasonable.
Also nasty.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Please do not make personal threats. It is ugly...
I didn't make a real personal threat, I am merely in a whimsical way displaying my displeasure in a way I do in real life.
Example: Someone tries to take my ketchup away I say "I stab you!" and protect my ketchup.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He's only met his aunt and brother a couple times, actually only once I think for his brother (half brother). I have fourth and fifth cousins that I've met as many times as that, and I wouldn't put them anywhere near the same level of importance that I put my grandfather on the list of things I care about.
You can't seriously equate a 4th or 5th cousin with a brother or aunt can you? The fact that he has only met or talked to them once or twice says alot about the man as well. The Aunt donated a substantial amount of money to his campaign and the brother has pictures of Obama plastered all over his mud hut walls... Sad
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that he has only met or talked to them once or twice says alot about the man as well.
Have you read his books? His relationship with that side of the family is explained pretty well.
quote: the brother has pictures of Obama plastered all over his mud hut walls...
Man, your manufactured "sympathy" for the poor guy -- who's actually perfectly happy where he is, thank you very much -- almost masks the latent racism.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I wondered how long after Obama's grandmother died there would be nasty comments.
Congrats, lobo, you win the race to the bottom at ~20 minutes.
Obviously, that says a lot about you.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Blayne Bradley. Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that people were so attached to BHO. Almost as attached as you are to your ketchup it appears...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You might want to take a look at McCain family relations - or those of Mrs. McCain - before you go deciding to use that as a measure of a person.
Family matters are complicated.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'm on my phone so I don't have a source, but I'm pretty sure this "substantial" contribution from Obama's aunt was in the range of $125.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
According to the FEC via WaPost, she contributed $265, which the campaign of course gave back when it was found that she was here illegally.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Just heard that Obama's grandmother has died. Looking for a link.
I find it really sad that she didn't live to see the outcome of the election. Of course I guess that's because I'm confident of an Obama victory tomorrow. If something goes really wrong, then maybe she was spared some unnecessary agony.
I also think its very sad for Obama to have her die right now, the day before the election.
I am reminded of McBeths soliloquy beginning "She should have died hereafter, there would have been a time for such a word"
Let us hope the remainder of that soliloquy does not become more appropriate in the next 24 to 48 hours.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am consoled by the thought that she now has a first class seat.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"You can't seriously equate a 4th or 5th cousin with a brother or aunt can you?"
There's a ranking? You're not allowed to make your relationships as events require, you absolutely have to love your relatives in a specific order? I am much, much closer to my brothers-in-law who are not related to me by blood than I am to any of my blood relatives.
Frankly, Iobo, I am astounded that someone who's been here as long as you (judging by the member #) would stoop that low. Whatever you feel about his policies, beliefs or life, how is it in any way OK to mock the man for losing one of his closest relatives?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The most important issue of the election has finally surfaced: sagging pants. If this doesn't push undecides into the Obama camp - nothing will.
quote:ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: In an interview with MTV, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called local laws against sagging pants a "waste of time."
But while he does not favor legal prohibitions on low-riders, he said "brothers should pull up their pants."
"Here is my attitude," said Obama. "I think people passing a law against people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time. We should be focused on creating jobs, improving our schools, health care, dealing with the war in Iraq, and anybody, any public official, that is worrying about sagging pants probably needs to spend some time focusing on real problems out there."
"Having said that," he added, "brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. There are some issues that we face, that you don't have to pass a law, but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people and, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear -- I'm one of them."
Amen brother. I can't tell you how many times I've been tempted to walk up behind some guy with sagging pants and just pull them up. This is the kind of real world common sense we need in a President. I'm so glad this came to light before election day.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Despicable people call for despicable adds. I don't get the feeling that Obama cares much about his brother and aunt; is it unreasonable to questions his feelings regarding a grandma?
There are moments I wish this was a house, and it was my house, and I could ask you to leave.
quote:(Guess I'm not the only one who finds Olbermann coming close to being a left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh, which is not a compliment.)
He irritates the heck out of me too. I was watching a clip of him on YouTube and I had to turn it off-- it's embarrassing.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I actually am a little concerned about Obama's African family. While he may not be close to them, they seem like easy targets. I hope they have some security forces out there.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The most important issue of the election has finally surfaced: sagging pants.
Has Joe the Plumber taken a position on this issue?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, but white skinheads wearing white tuxedos and tophats would tend to stand out in Kenya.
But locals could hold them hostage, that would get ugly quick.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Given the insane popularity that Obama holds in eastern African, I don't think that's likely, and if it did happen, I think the pro-Obama locals would probably attempt a rescue before we even know there was a problem.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Goodbye thread! It's been fun!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Is this the longest non-fluff thread? I bet it is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Shall we officially close this election season?
66 pages of speculation, analysis, gut reaction, outrage, fury, laughter, struggle, hope, fear, withering sarcasm, frustration and more than a little weariness.
I say good work Hatrack . We discussed issues without attacking each other, got heated without boiling over, and on the whole I think made a good showing of this quadrenniel tradition. I'll meet you all in two years at the 2010 Midterm Election thread. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Can we just get this guy going again so I can be all like LOL GUYS HILLARY CLINTON IS JUST GONNA WIN OK I ALREADY CALLED IT JUST MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES
2017-2018 is actually where the bulk of my long time arrogant statements on demographic changes lie so there you go
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Elizabeth Warren is back in the presidential picture a bit.
After years of categorically denying any interest, she said the other day that she can never rule anything out, and never knows where her the road might lead to. But for now she's just a senator.
Words right out of Hillary's mouth.
Frankly no one out there could even come close to giving Hillary a run for her money that has the name recognition and zazzle that Warren has. O'Malley is the only governor even thinking about it. He'd be a dark horse, so would almost anyone else seriously interested that I can think of.
Warren has star power. She's quotable. She's smart, savvy, one of the best campaigners we've seen in years, and she's fantastic with both high and low brow public. Despite being an ivory tower figure, I think she'd clean up with blue collar workers given her populist platform and blue collar history. Plus I think she'd eat up the youth vote.
But more interesting, I think, is the possibility of a Clinton-Warren ticket. I'd vote for Clinton to keep a Republican out of the White House. I'd vote for Warren to put her IN the White House. But I'd be thrilled to vote for a unity ticket. I think they're a good balance of centrist and leftist too, one that might smooth out some ruffled feathers in the party. Plus if Warren can force Hillary's hand before agreeing to the ticket, she can make sure she has the power to get traction on her issues that have been stuck in the muck since she got to the Senate.
Everyone wins, and Millennials finally get a pit bull for their issues in the White House.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I've been pretty skeptical of her claim that she had no intention of running ever since she published A Fighting Chance back in April. That didn't really seem like the act of a politician who didn't have their eye on higher office.
I don't think that Warren could beat Clinton in the primaries, but what she *could* do is shift the national conversation toward the issues that are important to her, which would be valuable. A Clinton/Warren ticket would definitely be interesting, but I'm not sure which ruffled feathers that would be likely to smooth out. Are you thinking that those of us on the left would be mollified by Warren's presence on the ticket?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'll be bold and say that the democratic establishment is not much more excited about Clnton than they were in 2008. There was a reason she lost big early donors to a complete rookie like Obama. Those reasons have changed a bit, but they're still relevant. She's not the politician her husband is, or was, and while she was an effective senator, she doesn't do a lot for the republican base (putting that mildly). Obama won by absolutely dominating his demographics. Are black and Latino voters going to out voting for Hillary? I don't know yet.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am completely uninterested in Clinton as a president, but would be intrigued by a Warren candidacy.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
What intrigues you about Warren that doesn't work for Clinton?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't like electing family members of past presidents. It seems like we're heading in a rather dynastic direction. I know there are counter-arguments, like that such people have been close enough to learn the job, but for the most part I don't think more of the same is the right answer.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'd take more of the same if I thought she would be as effective as Bill was. But then, a lot of his legacy is not as shiny as it once was. He rode a subsiding crime rate into office, then effectively signed into law a prison industrial complex that made us the envy of the world's dictatorships for our ability to imprison inconvenient members of our population. He was the only really sane president when it came to economics for 3 decades, but he utterly failed to strike a health care deal in a time when a deal was in the offing. We didn't make up ground on that for another 14 years or so.
But today, I'd take someone that republicans could at least be begrudged not to despise and hate with the fire of 1000 suns. Race relations are worse than they have been in decades, in many ways, and while I don't think Obama of all people is responsible for that, he is, and so we are, certainly the victim of those circumstances today.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I don't think that Warren could beat Clinton in the primaries, but what she *could* do is shift the national conversation toward the issues that are important to her, which would be valuable. A Clinton/Warren ticket would definitely be interesting, but I'm not sure which ruffled feathers that would be likely to smooth out. Are you thinking that those of us on the left would be mollified by Warren's presence on the ticket?
I think Warren mollifies, to a degree, liberals who aren't excited about Clinton.
But I think her bigger draw is actually youth turnout. Millennials are in love with Warren, but they only so-so like Clinton. Warren has made a political career over speaking about youth issues in a way no one has in, well, my entire life time. If the youth vote stays home, I think the Dems have a hard row to hoe.
If the youth vote turns out and an Old Lady ticket snaps up the women's vote, I think they win in a landslide.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
warren would be an exciting presidency because we have an entire party dedicated to their galloping full-bore consternation at obama's supermegaduperhyperultraextremeonehundredpercent leftism because he's the scariest ultra left leftist megaliberal ever, so what happens when we actually move to a leftist progressive as president? the gop will get the vapors trying to come up with as-yet untrammeled hyperbolic verbiage to describe how warren is now a for reals for seriousies actual the most liberal ever.
and that, that might be kind of cool to watch.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I know many young people who love Hillary, but I am exposed to an extraordinary biased population, as she wen to my alma mater.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: warren would be an exciting presidency because we have an entire party dedicated to their galloping full-bore consternation at obama's supermegaduperhyperultraextremeonehundredpercent leftism because he's the scariest ultra left leftist megaliberal ever, so what happens when we actually move to a leftist progressive as president? the gop will get the vapors trying to come up with as-yet untrammeled hyperbolic verbiage to describe how warren is now a for reals for seriousies actual the most liberal ever.
and that, that might be kind of cool to watch.
I think their simple answer will be, essentially "You know she's radical when she makes OBAMA look moderate!!"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: warren would be an exciting presidency because we have an entire party dedicated to their galloping full-bore consternation at obama's supermegaduperhyperultraextremeonehundredpercent leftism because he's the scariest ultra left leftist megaliberal ever, so what happens when we actually move to a leftist progressive as president? the gop will get the vapors trying to come up with as-yet untrammeled hyperbolic verbiage to describe how warren is now a for reals for seriousies actual the most liberal ever.
and that, that might be kind of cool to watch.
I think their simple answer will be, essentially "You know she's radical when she makes OBAMA look moderate!!"
*nod*
They'll also just point out this proves that the Democrats are shifting left because they keep electing increasingly radical candidates, so of course Republicans have no choice but to be the party of no.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Eh. I think this is the cycle that the tether snaps. I think the republicans may now realize that there is no room remaining on the right, and that loony conservatism is not going to win them national elections. They've pulled the national debate so far right already, that a good chunk of liberals are ready for their own insurrection candidates, exhausted as we are with middle of the road policies after Bush.
But democrats have the advantage of being still able to span a wide array of ideologies. People can be religious and liberal. Can they be conservative and atheist? It's getting harder. Pro gay and conservative? Near impossible. I think the republican establishment knows this extremely well, and is terrified of what will happen in 2016 if they can't control their base during primaries. They got a taste of the embarrassment that was Sarah Palin in 2008, and they don't want to go through that again. I would bet we get a fairly middle of the road candidate like huntsman this time around, paired against Clinton. It will be a relatively dull cycle, perhaps, but I don't see how they can hope to succeed any other way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And, I'll add, that while some of these Tea party republicans might get big press and shake hands, they are despised in the party machinery. A recent piece by the New Yorker (I think it was), polled scores of congressmen and senators on who they hate most, regardless of party. Republican and democrat alike, Ted Cruz was the Runaway victor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The republicans campaigning here are insisting they are not really republican. If you didn't know, you wouldn't know what party they belonged to. Could be very confusing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i just realized you have over ten thousand posts on hatrack
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i just realized i have over fourteen thousand posts
on hatrack
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
who wants to go drink heavily and read nate silver articles about the next few elections
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll drive!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There's no like button on this forum.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
so i guess one of the reasons why this election gets to be a contest at all for control of the senate stems in large part from that Brownback basically got control of the entire future of Kansas, went full bore on a quintessentially conservative program (including tax cuts for Job Creators as a way to stimulate economic growth, all that laffernomics / trickle down stuff at work) with no democrats to impede him nor to take any blame, and it's all gone belly up
now it's a dark money pit and the costliest race in kansas history
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Bush vs. Clinton 2016
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Jeb will not run. I'm almost certain of that. Clinton will. But I honestly don't see her as the nominee.
[ October 27, 2014, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
His son (George...doesn't that get confusing at family dinners?) says otherwise. As far as GOP candidates go, he's pretty moderate and I would prefer him over most others.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Believe what you like. He is not going to run. The party and backers have no interest in associating themselves with a deeply troubled administration. Time has not been overly kind to W's legacy, and The last thing they want is to excite the democratic base to the extent that another Bush candidacy would.
All that, and Jeb Bush has no reason to want to run. He risks deep embarrassment if he loses or if republicans desert him, which they will, and he is not likely to win in the general. Now, granted, no republican is likely to win in the general anymore, but Jeb doesn't want to be another Romney.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't think an association with W would last past the initial reaction of "Oh great, another Bush!", once people hear him speak. He's well-spoken, doesn't have a Texas drawl, and knows his stuff and is somewhat of a policy wonk compared to his brother.
[ October 27, 2014, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: GaalDornick ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, I have a tomato on my kitchen counter who is something of a policy wonk compared to his brother.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I actually think Jeb is more likely to run than not. Regardless, he's not only NOT tamping down excitement on a potential run, his answers to presidential musings and questions are only heating up the conversation.
Orincoro - Who do you think beats Hillary?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be fair, I have a tomato on my kitchen counter who is something of a policy wonk compared to his brother.
OOC, it sounds like your tomato is a policy wonk compared to the tomato's brother.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The tomato is female.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I don't think an association with W would last past the initial reaction of "Oh great, another Bush!", once people hear him speak. He's well-spoken, doesn't have a Texas drawl, and knows his stuff and is somewhat of a policy wonk compared to his brother.
I think you underestimate a very powerful narrative, that will not just go away in a few weeks. W was haunted by his association with his father, and that would pale in comparison to his own haunting of his brother. Bush, don't forget, is one of the most unpopular people in America. That isn't going away, and people will not forget.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I actually think Jeb is more likely to run than not. Regardless, he's not only NOT tamping down excitement on a potential run, his answers to presidential musings and questions are only heating up the conversation.
Orincoro - Who do you think beats Hillary?
Realistically? No one. And Jeb wouldn't make it through a primary. If he did, I think he would sacrifice any moderation he has to the loss of the narrative against Hilary, that almost any other candidate could use: that she is an establishment figure.
But then, I'm not sure Hillary will win in the primary. Maybe I'm a minority, but I do remember that she was beaten by a complete novice just 6 years ago. What's changed? Perhaps she's more popular now than she was then, but perhaps not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think she's more popular, I think she learned some really valuable lessons, and I think, other than Warren, no one has the name recognition or money to keep up with her. No one else even seems to be trying. She's scared just about everyone out of even running let alone contending.
Plus I think Obama ruined it for a lot of people. Democrats voted in an unknown over Hillary last time and the vast majority of them have buyers remorse now. I think his presidency makes it very unlikely that most of those people will choose another dark horse in the next election. They all know too well the dangers of an unknown quantity.
The reason i think Jeb does well in a primary is institutional support. I think the party elders will support him as the only choice that has a chance of winning. It's possible they look at Romney and say they didn't win because they weren't conservative enough, but there are still, despite how it looks and feels, a lot of smart people in the GOP ranks. They know conservatives win primaries and lose generals and they know the numbers are against them more and more with each passing year. Jeb is probably their best chance.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I actually think Jeb is more likely to run than not. Regardless, he's not only NOT tamping down excitement on a potential run, his answers to presidential musings and questions are only heating up the conversation.
Orincoro - Who do you think beats Hillary?
Realistically? No one. And Jeb wouldn't make it through a primary. If he did, I think he would sacrifice any moderation he has to the loss of the narrative against Hilary, that almost any other candidate could use: that she is an establishment figure.
But then, I'm not sure Hillary will win in the primary. Maybe I'm a minority, but I do remember that she was beaten by a complete novice just 6 years ago. What's changed? Perhaps she's more popular now than she was then, but perhaps not.
That was a really narrow victory. When was the last time a primary wasn't decided until June?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I really wish it didn't have to be a Democrat or a Republican.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I actually think Jeb is more likely to run than not. Regardless, he's not only NOT tamping down excitement on a potential run, his answers to presidential musings and questions are only heating up the conversation.
Orincoro - Who do you think beats Hillary?
Realistically? No one. And Jeb wouldn't make it through a primary. If he did, I think he would sacrifice any moderation he has to the loss of the narrative against Hilary, that almost any other candidate could use: that she is an establishment figure.
But then, I'm not sure Hillary will win in the primary. Maybe I'm a minority, but I do remember that she was beaten by a complete novice just 6 years ago. What's changed? Perhaps she's more popular now than she was then, but perhaps not.
That was a really narrow victory. When was the last time a primary wasn't decided until June?
That's true, of course. But people forget that it happened partially because Democratic donors abandoned the Clintons before she had even managed to lose in New Hampshire. As Obama was projected to win there, quite a few in the party decided it was the perfect opportunity to cut her off at the knees and throw support to someone else. Obama was in a perfect position.
Clinton had expected to lose in NH, mind, but she had no expected the party to abandon her so quickly. It looked like a fight the rest of the way, but she knew as early as the closing polls on super Tuesday that she was done.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The reason i think Jeb does well in a primary is institutional support. I think the party elders will support him as the only choice that has a chance of winning.
What in recent history tells you that the party has been effectual in supporting moderate candidates? Romney was humiliated by the parade of idiots that rose above him in the polls in the last Republican primary. He was soundly beaten in the general, partially because he had been so diminished by the level of debate in the primaries.
Jeb Bush is no different, plus baggage. He'd have a better shot in the general, but a) Democrats will hate him for his family, and b) Republican primary voters will hate him for being moderate. No, I say, Jeb Bush has no business running.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The tomato is female.
So you're saying females can't be policy wonks?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Oh, the Atlantic Wrote about it? Well, it's not like they have an interest in getting you to believe it will happen or anything. So.
Just for some perspective, this is all, and don't doubt it for a minute, carefully orchestrated. Jeb has a few of his proxies test out the idea, and see what the media has to say about it, what the twitters have to tweet, and what the dem response would be. Jeb leaves most of the likely candidates from the GOP far behind in terms of fund raising ability, and electability. That's true. But he won't run because he can't win. His party won't nominate him, and even if they would, his is a ship that sailed long ago. It had a dumber version of him as the skipper, and it sank. And if it's "Clinton v. Bush," in terms of baggage, Clinton wins. And that's saying a lot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So you're saying females can't be policy wonks?
I'm saying that the pronoun "his" would not apply to this tomato.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Oh, the Atlantic Wrote about it? Well, it's not like they have an interest in getting you to believe it will happen or anything. So.
I'm not understanding, why would they have an interest in the public believing Jeb will run?
quote: I'm saying that the pronoun "his" would not apply to this tomato.
I meant to add a to the end of my comment
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [qb] Oh, the Atlantic Wrote about it? Well, it's not like they have an interest in getting you to believe it will happen or anything. So.
I'm not understanding, why would they have an interest in the public believing Jeb will run?
They have an interest in you believing it enough to read the coming series of dozens of articles in which some comment Jeb planted with his son is sited as this all-important token of proof that he will indeed run. It's all just running up his flag to get calls from his donor buddies.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
But why would he waste his time using these proxies to test the waters if, as you say, he's not interested in running?
Or are you saying that he is interested right now but he will soon realize he will not win and then decide not to run?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes, I think he *wants* to be president. But I think he will realize that it isn't in the cards.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I thought Jeb Bush was pretty genuinely interested in not running based on Game Change Double Down.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I thought Jeb Bush was pretty genuinely interested in not running based on Game Change Double Down.
Well, he, and many others, weren't interested in running in 2012.
But Double Down never said he wasn't ever interested in running.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
As I say, I don't think he'll run.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
here's another one of those conservatives who doesn't quite get what he gets and what he doesn't get, and is so close to getting it about what he gets but he just doesn't get it, and that's why he gets it
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I really wish it didn't have to be a Democrat or a Republican.
What would you prefer?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I really wish it didn't have to be a Democrat or a Republican.
What would you prefer?
Someone who isn't invested in preserving wedge issues and isn't beholden to a party.
I'm just making silly wishes here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Pretty silly.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Orincoro, has your certainty of Jeb not running wavered at all? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Please run, Jeb. Bring Ted Cruz with you. Make the next republican primaries as much of a clown car event as last time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The "Draft Warren" campaign is heating up this week, especially following her stance on the "cromnibus."
She picked up a lot of support in a short period of time and she has all the buzz going in her favor.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Your facebook circle of friends may be a little skewed.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Please run, Jeb. Bring Ted Cruz with you. Make the next republican primaries as much of a clown car event as last time.
Why are you putting Jeb and Ted Cruz in the same car? Ted would be coming in the Tea Party car, which would make it a clown car event. Jeb isn't one of them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He's his own kind of clown, I suppose.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Why do you say that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mittens is officially in it for 2016.
I don't know what he's thinking, but he's hiring staff.
It's going to be a really fun campaign season.
I may have to start up my 2016 Primary thread early this time around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's quite possible he's in it (or plans to be) simply for image rehab or seat at the table purposes. Even taking campaign psychology into account, it's difficult to imagine he believes he has a shot.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Hopefully if its enough Crazy(tm) it might drive enough Democrats to vote to flip the Senate again come 2016.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The GOP knows they're renting the Senate for two years. The numbers don't look good at all for them hanging on in 2016.
Rakeesh -
Have you read Double Down? Mitt Romney's super power is a super human ability to convince himself of things divorced from reality. His mindset throughout the 2012 election was bizarre. I think he absolutely believes he can win. I don't know what kind of power role he could envision. He represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the party ideologically.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm not sure what Mr. Romney is thinking either. I don't think he can beat Hillary (Assuming they both just play the campaign out without unusual occurrences), and I wouldn't wish anybody the long incredibly stressful road that is a presidential electoral defeat. Mr. Romney is coming back for thirds.
He's basically Henry Clay all over again. But if I *had* to accept a Republican nominee for President. I'd take him over "teh crazies" and King George Bush III.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:and King George Bush III. [/QB]
I can see the campaign slogan next year "third time's the charm, vote Bush 2016!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm not sure what Mr. Romney is thinking either. I don't think he can beat Hillary (Assuming they both just play the campaign out without unusual occurrences), and I wouldn't wish anybody the long incredibly stressful road that is a presidential electoral defeat. Mr. Romney is coming back for thirds.
He's basically Henry Clay all over again. But if I *had* to accept a Republican nominee for President. I'd take him over "teh crazies" and King George Bush III.
Come on now, let's not besmirch the legacy of Henry Clay.
He doesn't get much respect now, but as far as the history of American statesmen/legislators/icons, Clay easily ranks in the top 10. He was in the government for like 100 years, the US history books of the 19th century can't go five pages without mentioning him, and despite his never winning an election, he had enormous power, influence and experience that everyone respected.
(I know what you meant by your comparison, just trying to give Clay a much needed shout-out)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Suddenly Romney is really concerned about rising income inequality, even though last election he called 47 percent of the country who don't pay tax moochers and said he wasn't concerned about the very poor. Last election he said it was about envy and class warfare; now I guess it's about giving a cynical and opportunistic liar a chance to attack the president.
Keep flip-flopping, Mitt. Maybe one of these days you'll say something you actually believe in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quelle surprise
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm sure he's as shocked as we are.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Reading that honestly made me feel a little gross inside. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I was about to write, "If you think reading it makes you feel gross, imagine how gross Romney felt saying it!" But then I remembered that robots don't have feelings.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I was about to write, "If you think reading it makes you feel gross, imagine how gross Romney felt saying it!" But then I remembered that robots don't have feelings.
Robot or not, I expect Mr. Romney will at least publish some of his ideas, I'll read those at least.
But man, is it already 2015 and a campaign year again?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'm more surprised that is Fox News reporting.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I was surprised that they allowed an editorial to insinuate this was only strategy and not, you know, people actually caring about the problem.
I was not surprised to see the first comment "With "the most Americans EVER unemployed, in poverty and on welfare," I think they have a pretty strong case to make." Surely it's better than 2009?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: He's his own kind of clown, I suppose.
I don't think I've ever seen you elaborate past your one sentence zingers on politics. What makes you think Jeb is unfit to be a Presidential candidate?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I was surprised that they allowed an editorial to insinuate this was only strategy and not, you know, people actually caring about the problem.
I was not surprised to see the first comment "With "the most Americans EVER unemployed, in poverty and on welfare," I think they have a pretty strong case to make." Surely it's better than 2009?
Or 1933.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I was surprised that they allowed an editorial to insinuate this was only strategy and not, you know, people actually caring about the problem.
I was not surprised to see the first comment "With "the most Americans EVER unemployed, in poverty and on welfare," I think they have a pretty strong case to make." Surely it's better than 2009?
True believers always make up crap and earnestly believe it no matter what.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Looks like Romney is out.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Hehehehe.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Translation: "Romney, having briefly flirted with the idea of another disastrous run for President, was quickly able to secure the promises of top donors that, if he would politely decline to run, he would be in strong consideration for a vice-presidential nomination."
Here is a nice example of how incompetent the "cool liberal" press has become: Vice Totally Not Getting It. Romney doesn't want to run again. He does want to be vice president if Bush runs.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Translation: "Romney, having briefly flirted with the idea of another disastrous run for President, was quickly able to secure the promises of top donors that, if he would politely decline to run, he would be in strong consideration for a vice-presidential nomination."
Here is a nice example of how incompetent the "cool liberal" press has become: Vice Totally Not Getting It. Romney doesn't want to run again. He does want to be vice president if Bush runs.
I would be very surprised. Very, very surprised. Not eat my hat surprised, but pretty close.
Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, is pretty obviously angling for at least a cabinet-level post or perhaps a VP nod.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
goddamn people
gas is back under two dollars a gallon, suge knight totally just stone cold murdered a man, and we're ramping up for a Clinton vs. Bush presidential election
if the universe is conspiring to recreate the 90's, then i want crystal pepsi back at least
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, is pretty obviously angling for at least a cabinet-level post or perhaps a VP nod.
*Wants to*. Not will. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: if the universe is conspiring to recreate the 90's, then i want crystal pepsi back at least
You say that, but you don't really want it. Nobody really wants that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: if the universe is conspiring to recreate the 90's, then i want crystal pepsi back at least
You say that, but you don't really want it. Nobody really wants that.
I very clearly remember crystal pepsi.
It was good.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I was 4 when it was discontinued so I have no memory of it. What did it taste like?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mostly it just tasted like regular Pepsi, but I always thought it was a little more carbonated, a little less sweet, and didn't leave any aftertaste (which I think regular Pepsi does).
I preferred it as a kid and was sad when it was discontinued.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
My recollection of it is a clearer more citrusy notes with slightly less kola, but it was still predominantly pepsi
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: if the universe is conspiring to recreate the 90's, then i want crystal pepsi back at least
You say that, but you don't really want it. Nobody really wants that.
I very clearly remember crystal pepsi.
It was good.
You *remember* that it was good. That's what it does. It's craft that way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It was just a more citrusy kola nut flavor. I liked it! I did not like orbitz or surge. I liked ok soda though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: if the universe is conspiring to recreate the 90's, then i want crystal pepsi back at least
You say that, but you don't really want it. Nobody really wants that.
I very clearly remember crystal pepsi.
It was good.
You *remember* that it was good. That's what it does. It's craft that way.
It's Crystal Pepsi, not the Crystalline Entity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
huckabee is a Credible Republican Entry for Republican President
I admit as an outsider to that particular culture, I get pleasure in seeing figures such as Huckabee struggle so ineffectually at trying to articulate their supposed status as an infringed upon group in the United States. That feeling isn't helpful to dialogue, but I rarely don't experience it at least in passing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I really do love the whole thing with a christian persecution complex. It's fascinating on many levels.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
His apparent logic calls for a) the return of prohibition, and b) severe limitations to the 1st amendment. So thats... um... yes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:“In hindsight I regret contributing to the premature deification of Sarah Palin,” columnist Matt Lewis wrote Wednesday in the Daily Beast.
He added that “maybe her early critics saw some fundamental character flaw — some harbinger of things to come — that escaped me.”
maybe like how she didn't know that africa was not a country but a continent with a large number of countries on it
or maybe how she adamantly refused interview preparation and training for her on screen time with katie couric, and was just generally so abrasive to the 'little people' around her that staff members had an annoyingly consistent pattern of literally quitting in tears
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:“In hindsight I regret contributing to the premature deification of Sarah Palin,” columnist Matt Lewis wrote Wednesday in the Daily Beast.
He added that “maybe her early critics saw some fundamental character flaw — some harbinger of things to come — that escaped me.”
maybe like how she didn't know that africa was not a country but a continent with a large number of countries on it
or maybe how she adamantly refused interview preparation and training for her on screen time with katie couric, and was just generally so abrasive to the 'little people' around her that staff members had an annoyingly consistent pattern of literally quitting in tears
Being unable or unwilling to name a single publication that she reads? Being unable to speak in clear, concise sentences? Having less political experience than literally every other governor in the country at the time?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Sarah Palin > Rick Santorum
Its always a little bit amazing when a person like Santorum is essentially aware and worried about the impact of being forced to defend their policy exactly as it is, so they try to ... Carefully sidestep it and like in this case make DADT to be not what it actually is
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Even though it was a setup, it was fun watching him eat crow when the quote he agreed with was against racial integration. He then pointed out that black rights and gay rights aren't the same thing because, essentially, black people can't help the fact that they're black but gay people can stop being gay.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am completely 100% sure after he spent years being crushed down for his legitimately bigoted statements and legislative motives he chalks it up to being a poor oppressed christian held down by cruel secular society which is the real bigot
because, you know, that's what they do. even after they get called out for literally making the same arguments against gays that were once made against blacks to try to keep them intentionally persecuted second class citizens in any way possible
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Russert had his detractors, but I always liked the guy. He got massive kudos from me last month for being the first prominent newscaster (well, after Olbermann perhaps) to bluntly point out that Obama was, short of complete self-annihilation, going to be the Democratic nominee.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
The Pixiest.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Stray