posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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::
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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....
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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... Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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]"
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
