U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Xiahou]

I thought it was an interesting debate- as opposed to the painful ones I remember in recent history.

I think McCain managed to come out slightly ahead, but it was by no means a blowout. I think McCain missed many opportunities on the bailout questions, but showed Obama up on foreign policy- as expected.

[Lemur]

What, you think we should get into a shooting war with Russia if they invade Georgia? You want to see your buddies shipped over to a hot conflict with a major military power because of Georgia? What part of that strikes you as a good idea? And moreover, what's our stake? What's our interest?

[Koga No Goshi]

I thought it was an interesting debate- as opposed to the painful ones I remember in recent history.

I think McCain managed to come out slightly ahead, but it was by no means a blowout. I think McCain missed many opportunities on the bailout questions, but showed Obama up on foreign policy- as expected.

From the point of view that continuing exactly the same foreign policy as the last 8 years is wise... yes. I saw no major divergence from Bush, whatsoever.


What, you think we should get into a shooting war with Russia if they invade Georgia? You want to see your buddies shipped over to a hot conflict with a major military power because of Georgia? What part of that strikes you as a good idea? And moreover, what's our stake? What's our interest?

Honestly I've never found any good reason for it, people can put up various justifications but what it comes down to is a mindset of: war good, beat up bad people good. And that passes for foreign policy sense. If you're not of that mindset it's very difficult to understand why we would commit to a possible WW3 scenario over Georgia. If in Russian debates we had Putin sitting there saying he might attack the U.S. over Iraq, you can imagine what all the hawks here would have to say about it. He'd be sitting in Akmedinijad's boat real quick.

[Xiahou]

What, you think we should get into a shooting war with Russia if they invade Georgia? You want to see your buddies shipped over to a hot conflict with a major military power because of Georgia? What part of that strikes you as a good idea? And moreover, what's our stake? What's our interest?I can't say that I got that from their statements. :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

What, you think we should get into a shooting war with Russia if they invade Georgia? You want to see your buddies shipped over to a hot conflict with a major military power because of Georgia? What part of that strikes you as a good idea? And moreover, what's our stake? What's our interest?

I do, depending on our association with Georgia at the time. I believe that, despite of Putin and Medvedev's posturing regarding their actions, that had Georgia been part of NATO the tanks would have never rolled across the border. I believe that NATO is a great counter balance to the natural urge toward totalitarianism when threatened on national borders. Are you saying that you wouldn't be for intervention with our NATO allies in Estonia? What about Germany? How about Canada?

One day Russia will be part of a northern hemispheric alliance, but until they recognize that they can have security without despotism, they will be a threat - and don't forget that they straddle our border. I'm not advocating all-out war with them, but defensive war when they roll into another country that is allied with the U.S. has very much to do with our interests.

I didn't get that from either of their statements either, but the reality exists - and it is sound judgement to defend our NATO allies.

[Lemur]

If Russia wants to invade Canada, I say let 'em. Those Canucks have been getting uppity ever since their dollar got more valuable than ours.

Honestly, I think admitting Georgia to NATO is lunacy. But that's probably meat for another thread.

Xiahou, how did you feel about McCain saying that he wanted to make sure that we "never torture again"? How does that square with your view that we never have tortured?

[Koga No Goshi]

Xiahou, how did you feel about McCain saying that he wanted to make sure that we "never torture again"? How does that square with your view that we never have tortured?

Credibility - 3

[m52nickerson]

Obama did well on foreign policy when ever he spoke about getting help from our allies and other countries.

MaCain's advantage on foreign policy stemmed from speaking about small specific areas where he has been. Even if his view or approach may not be as well thought out as Obama's, the fact McCain has been to these places seem to lead more credibility to him.

Obama nor McCain ran away with this one.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If Russia wants to invade Canada, I say let 'em. Those Canucks have been getting uppity ever since their dollar got more valuable than ours.

Honestly, I think admitting Georgia to NATO is lunacy. But that's probably meat for another thread.


It very much pertains to this thread. You don't suggest defending our allies on our own border and you are talking about national interest? What would you have done in WW2? Perish the thought.

What is our national interest according to you. Safe neighbors usually means safe you.

[Koga No Goshi]

It very much pertains to this thread. You don't suggest defending our allies on our own border and you are talking about national interest? What would you have done in WW2? Perish the thought.

What is our national interest according to you. Safe neighbors usually means safe you.

Can't answer for him but I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. I think what he means, and rather, what *I* mean while I'm at it on this point... is that Georgia is not a NATO ally and they still have all kinds of issues with their surrounding former-USSR states (some of which still wish to be part of Russia) and half-cocked charging off to war over them is not worth it. We have no strategic interest in Georgia whatsoever other than "we like that they are irritating Russia." And, anyone who both defends the Iraq policy and STAY THERE, AND wants to threaten war with Russia is not a foreign policy genius, he's ... an idiot.

[Lemur]

A silly grammar thing -- McCain claimed early on that Obama didn't know the difference between strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy) and tactics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics). And then he went on to list a bunch of tactics and called them strategy. Nobody's going to bring it up on the cable channels, and I doubt it will get remarked on by any newspapers. We grammar nazis are a tiny slice of the electorate. But still, it bugged me to no end.

[Lemur]

You don't suggest defending our allies on our own border and you are talking about national interest? What would you have done in WW2? Perish the thought.
Oh get off your shampooed high horse. My reference to allowing Canada to be invaded was (just possibly) not entirely serious, as you might have noticed if you weren't in a high partisan dudgeon. Neither did I question our obligations under the NATO treaty, another blindingly obvious fact you would have picked up if your typing had not outpaced your reasoning.

My point was that admitting a small, strategically irrelevant country that is historically part of the Russian sphere to NATO is a seriously dumb idea, and being willing to go to war with Russia over it is an even sillier idea. Of course we should honor our alliances. That's why we should be cautious and prudent about whom we cement alliances with.

Let's say Russia made a deal with Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact back in the day. Would we see this as a provocation? Just maybe? Please explain to me why we need to poke the Russian bear with a stick when it does not serve our national interest to do so.

And yes, if we really want to get into this, it belongs in its own thread. If you really want to go ten rounds on this subject, fire it up.

[Xiahou]

Credibility - 3I agree. If he's going to lie about what I've said he should have his credibility marked down. :yes:

Lemur feels the need to lash out sometimes, it's best just to let him get it out of his system. He's apparently upset because he thinks Obama plans to nuke Georgia. :wink:

[Koga No Goshi]

I agree. If he's going to lie about what I've said he should have his credibility marked down. :yes:

Lemur feels the need to lash out sometimes, it's best just to let him get it out of his system. He's apparently upset because he thinks Obama plans to nuke Georgia. :wink:

bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..

That's the guy I want in charge.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I thought that was a really good debate. Plenty of back and forth, both candidates performed well, good questions were asked.

On the economy, McCain spoke forcefully about earmarks but that's only 18 billion dollars (as was mentioned several times). I don't think that's sounds important when "700 billion dollars" has been in everyone's thoughts this weak. Obama hit him on the 300 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy which McCain unsuccessfully tried to defend with the comments about the us having high business taxes (he never replied to what obama said about the loopholes). Tax cuts for the wealthy are unpopular. McCain hit back with the amount of spending obama has proposed, and obama never described what he would cut given the bailout even though asked several times. McCain mentioned a spending freeze but didn't get specific about what he would cut either. I guess it's a prisoner's dilemma type scenario--if you get specific and your opponent doesn't, you lose.

During the foreign policy section, McCain came off as being extremely confident that he was more knowledgeable and experienced. He made good use of confident tone and repeating "he doesn't understand". He hit obama hard on the surge, obama hit him hard on iraq. McCain clearly felt that this was the part of the debate where he had an advantage, you could see him trying to hammer it home during the "preconditions" talk.


I think Obama did what he wanted to do this debate--he comes off as someone who does understand foreign policy. I disagree with McCain on a lot of points but I can tell that he knows a lot about what he's talking about, and obama gives that same sense. Some of the things that hurt obama are the perception that he's inexperienced on foreign policy, that he's going to raise your taxes, and that he's going to spend huge amounts of money (the last two are general perceptions of democrats). There are people who don't know much about him and are watching the debate to learn about him, and if they don't agree with tax cuts for the wealthy as a way of boosting the economy or if they think the iraq war is a huge mistake, they'll like what they heard.

McCain did better on the economy than on foreign policy, just because the expectations were higher there. He tried to make too big a deal out of the "preconditions" and failed to hammer it home--it ends up sounding like an argument about semantics and the dreaded consequences he mentions are vague.

McCain also took too many liberties with the truth; if "he doesn't understand" was McCain's phrase for the night, "That's just not true" was obama's.


We'll never know how this effects the polls (too many conflicting factors and the vp debate looms), but I suspect it will depend on the media reaction.

Side note: nuclear power plants cost 10 billion dollars. 45*10 = 450 billion dollars :smash:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Can't answer for him but I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. I think what he means, and rather, what *I* mean while I'm at it on this point... is that Georgia is not a NATO ally and they still have all kinds of issues with their surrounding former-USSR states (some of which still wish to be part of Russia) and half-cocked charging off to war over them is not worth it. We have no strategic interest in Georgia whatsoever other than "we like that they are irritating Russia." And, anyone who both defends the Iraq policy and STAY THERE, AND wants to threaten war with Russia is not a foreign policy genius, he's ... an idiot.

absurd. They are physically contiguous with NATO, they serve a strategic energy purpose, they seek western values and security and they are friendly to us. They want to be part of the EU. They will help to open up the black sea to a quick response naval force. They are currently being brow beaten by an aggressor nation with increasingly nationalistic tendencies that is shedding its democratic skin.

Long story short they want a bright future and Russia believes it can sabotage their national interest. We stand up to those kinds of nations. Georgia and Ukraine are solid candidates for expansion. Russia doesn't get that they are the next on the list for expansion if they correct the dangerous course that they are on.

[Koga No Goshi]

absurd. They are physically contiguous with NATO, they serve a strategic energy purpose, they seek western values and security and they are friendly to us. They want to be part of the EU. They will help to open up the black sea to a quick response naval force. They are currently being brow beaten by an aggressor nation with increasingly nationalistic tendencies that is shedding its democratic skin.

Long story short they want a bright future and Russia believes it can sabotage their national interest. We stand up to those kinds of nations. Georgia and Ukraine are solid candidates for expansion. Russia doesn't get that they are the next on the list for expansion if they correct the dangerous course that they are on.

If you'd like to fight Russia, by all means, go sign up in Georgia's military. But any attempt to start a fight with Russia here will, rightfully, provoke outstanding public dissent.

[Lemur]

He's apparently upset because he thinks Obama plans to nuke Georgia. :wink:
I know you're being silly, but I'll just point out to the folks at home that I never said any such thing in any context whatsoever. Amazing how hard it is for you to wrap your brain around a very simple sentiment, that pledging our full military might against all comers for Georgia is a terrible idea.

I'm sorry you feel I'm "lying" when I suggest that you take the position that we don't torture. Would you care to clarify? 'Cause I don't believe I've heard you say different, but I'm always willing to learn. Do you now support what McCain was saying about not torturing anymore? You're sort of dodged my entire question, and I'd like a real answer.

-edit-

Just to be clear -- torture is a very serious issue for me, and I'm very happy that both of the men running for President are committed to ending the authorized, institutionalized practice. As various documents leak and court cases progress, I will be interested to see what logical contortions are necessary to sustain the position that we haven't been doing what we have so obviously been doing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know you're being silly, but I'll just point out to the folks at home that I never said any such thing in any context whatsoever. Amazing how hard it is for you to wrap your brain around a very simple sentiment, that pledging our full military might against all comers for Georgia is a terrible idea.



Lemur. If Hawaii was invaded, would you approve of sending aid to help them? Why is that, because there is a treaty that links you? How much did you have in common with the people in Hawaii when that treaty was signed? In fact, when Pearl harbor was attacked, they weren't even a State yet - we just had troops hanging out "asking" the Japanese to attack us.

In fact, Tbilisi isn't that much further away than honolulu from where I'm sitting.

[Lemur]

TuffStuff: You're out of your mind, and your latest argument bears no relationship to what I have been saying. And if you want to keep on this subject, could you please start a thread on it. If you're going to keep hammering on this, you really owe it to the other posters to take it to its own thread.

[ICantSpellDawg]

TuffStuff: You're out of your mind, and your latest argument bears no relationship to what I have been saying. And if you want to keep on this subject, could you please start a thread on it. If you're going to keep hammering on this, you really owe it to the other posters to take it to its own thread.

I see that it is going off topic, but what do you mean I'm out of my mind?

[Koga No Goshi]

Lemur. If Hawaii was invaded, would you approve of sending aid to help them? Why is that, because there is a treaty that links you? How much did you have in common with the people in Hawaii when that treaty was signed? In fact, when Pearl harbor was attacked, they weren't even a State yet - we just had troops hanging out "asking" the Japanese to attack us.

In fact, Tbilisi isn't that much further away than honolulu from where I'm sitting.

The fact that Hawaii was a sovereign monarchy illegally overthrown by American sugar plantation elites kinda debunks your argument Tuff. The idea that we protected Hawaii out of "our legal obligations" is ridiculous, it was at that time just a conquered colony of the U.S., nothing more noble than that. And Hawaii as a strategic point in the Pacific for the U.S. Navy =/= Georgia.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Can we step away from the increasingly personal snipes, please?

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[CountArach]

CNN Poll on Debate (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/initial_polls_show_obama_winni.php)

Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the best job in the debate -- Barack Obama or John McCain?
Obama 51%
McCain 38%

Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think Barack Obama or John McCain would better handle each of the following issues:
• The war in Iraq: Obama 52%, McCain 47%
• Terrorism: McCain 49%, Obama 45%
• The economy: Obama 58%, McCain 37%
• The current financial crisis: Obama 54%, McCain 36%

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:
• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%
• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%
• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%
• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%
• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%
• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%
• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%
CBS News poll of Uncommited Voters (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml)

CBS News and Knowledge Networks conducted a nationally representative poll of approximately 500 uncommitted voters reacting to the debate in the minutes after it happened.

Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.

Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Thirty-two percent said their opinion of McCain got better.

Sixty-six percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-two percent think McCain would.

Forty-eight percent of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. Fifty-six percent think McCain would.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here is a good David Brooks article about McCain.

Thinking About McCain
By DAVID BROOKS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

I’ve been covering John McCain steadily for a decade. A few years ago, I worked on a book, which I foolishly never completed, on the U.S. Senate with McCain as the central character. So when I step back and think of McCain, even in the heat of this campaign, I still think of him first in the real world of governing, not in the show-business world of the election.
I think first of the personal qualities. He was an unfailingly candid man. When other politicians described a meeting, they always ended up the heroes of the story. But McCain would always describe the meeting straight, emphasizing his own failings with more vigor than his accomplishments.
He is, for a politician, a humble man. The most important legacy of his prisoner-of-war days is that he witnessed others behaving more heroically than he did. This experience has given him a basic honesty when appraising himself.
His mood darkened as the Iraq war deteriorated, but his accomplishments mounted. I don’t think any senator had as impressive a few years as McCain did during this span of time.
He lobbied relentlessly for a change of strategy in Iraq, holding off the tide that would have had us accept defeat and leave Iraq to its genocide. He negotiated a complicated immigration bill with Ted Kennedy. He helped organize the Gang of 14 and helped save the Senate from polarized Armageddon over judicial nominations.
He voted against opportunist bills like the pork-laden energy package and the prescription drug plan. He led a crusade against Jack Abramoff and the sleaze-meisters in his own party and exposed corrupt Pentagon contracts.
I could fill this column with his accomplishments during this period, and not even mention the insights. At a defense conference in Munich, I saw him diagnose and confront Russian hegemony. Week after week, I saw him dissent from G.O.P. colleagues as their party lost its way.
Some people who cover the campaign seem to have no knowledge of anything but the campaign, but I can’t get these events — which were real and required the constant application of judgment, honor and courage — out of my head.
Do I wish he was running a different campaign? Yes.
It’s not that he has changed his political personality that bothers me. I’ve come to accept that in this media-circus environment, you simply cannot run for president as a candid, normal person.
Nor is it, primarily, the dishonest ads he is running. My friends in the Obama cheering section get huffy about them, while filtering from their consciousness all the dishonest ads Obama has run — the demagogic DHL ad, the insulting computer ad, the cynical Rush Limbaugh ad, the misleading Social Security ad and so on. If one candidate has sunk lower than the other at this point, I’ve lost track.
No, what disappoints me about the McCain campaign is it has no central argument. I had hoped that he would create a grand narrative explaining how the United States is fundamentally unprepared for the 21st century and how McCain’s worldview is different.
McCain has not made that sort of all-encompassing argument, so his proposals don’t add up to more than the sum of their parts. Without a groundbreaking argument about why he is different, he’s had to rely on tactical gimmicks to stay afloat. He has no frame to organize his response when financial and other crises pop up.
He has no overarching argument in part because of his Senate training and the tendency to take issues on one at a time — in part, because of the foolish decision to run a traditional right-left campaign against Obama and, in part, because McCain has never really resolved the contradiction between the Barry Goldwater and Teddy Roosevelt sides of his worldview. One day he’s a small-government Western conservative; the next he’s a Bull Moose progressive. The two don’t add up — as we’ve seen in his uneven reaction to the financial crisis.
Nonetheless, when people try to tell me that the McCain on the campaign trail is the real McCain and the one who came before was fake, I just say, baloney. I saw him. A half-century of evidence is there.
If McCain is elected, he will retain his instinct for the hard challenge. With that Greatest Generation style of his, he will run the least partisan administration in recent times. He is not a sophisticated conceptual thinker, but he is a good judge of character. He is not an organized administrator, but he has become a practiced legislative craftsman. He is, above all — and this is completely impossible to convey in the midst of a campaign — a serious man prone to serious things.
Amid the stupidity of this season, it seemed worth stepping back to recall the fundamentals — about McCain today and Obama on some other day in the near future.

[Koga No Goshi]

The main problem with McCain isn't, per se, his stance on this or his stance on that. The main problem with McCain is that if we go off what his spoken platform is, then we really have no idea what he will do as President because he has changed direction on everything from deregulation to abortion to making the Bush tax cuts permanent to the importance of Afghanistan, based on whatever was most expedient at the moment in his bid to become President. And if we actually go on his record, ignoring what he says today or tomorrow, then we have to assume 4-8 more years of Bush, guaranteed, since even if he dies, Palin is even more obviously, one-dimensionally a Bush-bot.

[Lemur]

Sounds like a mini-meltdown (http://www.wegoted.com/) in the McCain campaign:


Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."

Here's a response (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-blindness-o.html#more) to the David Brooks column by a political blogger:

The Blindness Of David Brooks

He's sticking by the McCain he says he knows. He wants to separate the despicable lies and insane ploys that this man has been throwing into the mix in this election season as some kind of aberration. Please. He knows what he is doing: lying and lying and offering the most reckless, cynical gambits I can ever remember in a political campaign. His contempt for his oppponent is as obvious as it is unmerited.

Brooks: "He was an unfailingly candid man." So why the stream of bald-faced lies now? To give one simple example, he said on live television that Sarah Palin never received federal handouts for Alaska as governor. He lied. He has not apologized or retracted that lie.

Brooks: McCain is "a humble man". Is Brooks really saying that a humble man would come back from Vietnam and among his first actions write a massive piece about his heroism in US News and then "write" five memoirs detailing his own heroism? Does a humble man bring up the Hanoi Hilton even when discussing his own many houses today? Real heroes never talk about their war records. McCain has milked and milked and milked his shamelessly for political advantage from the minute he got home. Men of the Greatest Generation wouldn't dream of this disgusting exploitation.

Brooks cites his legislative achevements but omits the fact that this torture victim was critical in putting into American law the first legalization of torture of prisoners by the American government in 2006, a betrayal of ancient principles so deep only a man without any integrity at all could have agreed to it. Someone somewhere is being tortured right now because John McCain made it happen. Standing over the shoulder of the torturer is the presence of McCain, as the pain and terror of the torture victim is milked for false confessions, then used for political purposes. That is integrity?

And Brooks, of course, omits Palin: the worst act of political judgment in my lifetime. She is indefensible. By any standards and by any reasonable person. No candidate with an ounce of concern for his own country would have selected her with such insouciance, cynicism and incompetence.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sounds like a mini-meltdown (http://www.wegoted.com/) in the McCain campaign:


Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."




I wonder what the obama campaign has to say:


“We’ve looked at tapes of Gov. Palin’s debates, and she’s a terrific debater,” Plouffe told reporters on a conference call. “She has performed very, very well. She’s obviously a skilled speaker. We expect she’ll give a great performance next Thursday. “

...

“She’s obviously prepping this weekend in Pennsylvania,” Plouffe continued. “Anyone who watches any of her previous debates would be impressed by her debating skills.”

:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Blindness Of David Brooks

He's sticking by the McCain he says he knows. He wants to separate the despicable lies and insane ploys that this man has been throwing into the mix in this election season as some kind of aberration. Please. He knows what he is doing: lying and lying and offering the most reckless, cynical gambits I can ever remember in a political campaign. His contempt for his oppponent is as obvious as it is unmerited.

Brooks: "He was an unfailingly candid man." So why the stream of bald-faced lies now? To give one simple example, he said on live television that Sarah Palin never received federal handouts for Alaska as governor. He lied. He has not apologized or retracted that lie.

Brooks: McCain is "a humble man". Is Brooks really saying that a humble man would come back from Vietnam and among his first actions write a massive piece about his heroism in US News and then "write" five memoirs detailing his own heroism? Does a humble man bring up the Hanoi Hilton even when discussing his own many houses today? Real heroes never talk about their war records. McCain has milked and milked and milked his shamelessly for political advantage from the minute he got home. Men of the Greatest Generation wouldn't dream of this disgusting exploitation.

Brooks cites his legislative achevements but omits the fact that this torture victim was critical in putting into American law the first legalization of torture of prisoners by the American government in 2006, a betrayal of ancient principles so deep only a man without any integrity at all could have agreed to it. Someone somewhere is being tortured right now because John McCain made it happen. Standing over the shoulder of the torturer is the presence of McCain, as the pain and terror of the torture victim is milked for false confessions, then used for political purposes. That is integrity?

And Brooks, of course, omits Palin: the worst act of political judgment in my lifetime. She is indefensible. By any standards and by any reasonable person. No candidate with an ounce of concern for his own country would have selected her with such insouciance, cynicism and incompetence.

I'm all for retorts but "some blogger"? You must know Andrew Sullivan. I've read a piece or two that was well thought out, but the majority of things that I read from him are from the mind of a psychotically partisan (not political party partisan, the other kind), emotional, homosexual, weirdo.

He is nuts and very well known.

As far as Palin goes I am worried. I am suprised that her replies sound so robotic, nervous and canned. She must know Alaska 100% but blur on National and International issues. I'm afraid that she might be too regional to be the VP. On the one hand I like her very much, on the other I'm afraid to have her as the VP. She sounds like such an amazing pro when talking about Alaska, I figured that she'd sound convincing on the national stage. I've sold electronics, clothing, watches, vitamins, sweetener, books, cd's, computers, movies for separate companies and considered myself an expert in all after a very short period of time; hell, I can build computers, fix mechanical timepieces, deliver presentations at neutraceutical conventions, play in a band, put on a fashion show and get straight A's in college and I'm 25. It shouldn't take too long to become proficient enough to answer the turd questions that these hack anchors lob at you. We will see as of the first debate what to think. If I were the campaign I would put off debates indefinitely, but I don't think that would be right to do to the American people. I'm hoping for anything short of a nervous breakdown for Palin in debate with Biden would be miraculous.

[seireikhaan]

Exactly Tuff.

Just because a person adheres to philosophy which one might consider to be ideal or superior, it doesn't mean that they are someone who can handle something like being VP. There's lots of 'conservatives' out there; heck, I know many personally. This doesn't mean they are political equals, or remotely qualified to aid in running the white house.

[KarlXII]

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/republican-concerns-about-palin-grow/192226?icid=100214839x1210533521x1200577618

Pretty interesting.

[Koga No Goshi]

Exactly Tuff.

Just because a person adheres to philosophy which one might consider to be ideal or superior, it doesn't mean that they are someone who can handle something like being VP. There's lots of 'conservatives' out there; heck, I know many personally. This doesn't mean they are political equals, or remotely qualified to aid in running the white house.

This is another instance where the practice of keeping tight rank in the GOP has backfired. In this case we see, yet again (and this should not be an eye-opener to anyone who wasn't unconscious throughout 8 years of Bush) loyalty to lockstep and ideology being elevated over qualification, intelligence or ability. She was helped into her governorship and then picked for this VP slot because she had the "right" views on all the "right" issues for the GOP and its voting base. (Those issues primarily being pro-oil/corporation, deregulation and hardcore anti-choice.) Not because she was the smartest, best qualified or most knowledgeable potential pick.

I feel bad for the Republicans at this point, but I also think that winding up with "this being the best they can run" is also in strong part a bed they themselves have made. And I also think (and I've been saying this in not so many words for awhile now) that Republican voters need to do soul searching in terms of the sort of "litmus" they have in their heads of what a GOP candidate must meet, and making everything else expendable so long as that litmus is met. In this case I'm talking specifically about the hardliner Bible thumper social agendas and pro-rich on taxes/regulations issues. You wind up with a lot of well connected, talking points-following corporate Stepford Wives leading your party to appeal to the religious right and the "base" (rich) with a lot of normal middle class Joes in the middle vehemently defending voting for this strange alliance for reasons which, mostly, have no direct benefit on them whatsoever. (Middle/working class people voting for tax cuts for the rich, which they then use to outsource your job... or believing somehow that if women have abortions, or gay people get married, that is going to directly hurt you in your life more than losing your job, or losing your retirement, or going bankrupt fighting with an insurance company over your medical bills.) And even when it comes to people who actually have some semblance of an intellectual defense for Republican tax platforms it's often again ideology trumping pragmatism in terms of arguing for things like the free market or trickle down, neither of which have proved to be the utopian state they have been touted. I think a lot of it also (and this is pure conjecture) is that a lot of Republican voters have delusions they will be rich themselves one day, or that hard work is directly correlated with income and thus taxing the rich is counterproductive. Which all I can say to that is that I think it suggests an extremely naive worldview, given that you are very hard put to find a Republican Senator or Presidential candidate in our lifetimes who hasn't been rich by virtue of birth and family lineage or big corporate connections for generations.

I kind of meandered off there into my own thoughts. What were we talking about? Yes, Palin. She's totally unqualified but she is ADORED by the religious right because, as I said, she has the "right" views which override all other rational considerations. And it's fairly obvious she was politically picked for exactly that reason, for that bump we saw after the Republican convention. Apparently though McCain (and I've heard multiple, and conflicting stories on how Palin was selected, ranging from McCain did it on impulse, to McCain was against it and wanted someone else) ultimately has to be held responsible as a decisionmaker in this instance. Either he very shortsightedly made a pure political pick to energize the base thinking they could put off or deal with her shortcomings later, or he did pick her on an impulse not knowing how much baggage and how ill-equipped she was. Frankly, neither scenario bodes well for McCain with the most important decision he's made as a potential next President. And both situations go against the "maverick" characterization many benevolently bestow upon McCain, saying that he's the type to just do what he thinks is right in a situation, regardless of whether that means going against his own party or advice or what have you. If he just thought Palin was the right pick and ignored advice he was a fool, and if he didn't think she was the best pick but thought she was the best choice to politically energize the base, then he's not much of a maverick.

I have to say though, again, that I do not think this should be a nervous shock to anyone who has been paying attention. Even how Palin and her husband have snubbed the subpoena in Alaska, issued from a PRIMARILY REPUBLICAN legislature, under the guise that it's "Democratic partisan sabotage." This has been the status quo of the GOP prioritizing loyalty and talking point litmus over intelligence, law, qualification or effectiveness. If Palin is a wake-up call to any of you about that, it's not an issue of "how could they do this?" as much as "how could we have gone along with this for so long?"

[KukriKhan]

So, just guessing here, a Christmas card from McCain-Palin to you, would be wasted postage? :laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

So, just guessing here, a Christmas card from McCain-Palin to you, would be wasted postage? :laugh4:

I'd have to have a holy man come out and bless my mailbox.

[Lemur]

A more in-depth examination (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/on_strategy_and_tactics.php) of the strategy v. tactics thing that I noted in the Debate thread.


The least self-aware moment for John McCain in last night's debate came at the half-way point, when he said, "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy." [...]

There has been no greater contrast between the Obama and McCain campaigns than the tactical-vs-strategic difference, with McCain demonstrating the primacy of short-term tactics and Obama sticking to a more coherent long-term strategy. And McCain's dismissive comment suggests that he still does not realize this.

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton copping much the same attitude, right up to the end. And a bit past the end as well.

[Koga No Goshi]

A more in-depth examination (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/on_strategy_and_tactics.php) of the strategy v. tactics thing that I noted in the Debate thread.


The least self-aware moment for John McCain in last night's debate came at the half-way point, when he said, "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy." [...]

There has been no greater contrast between the Obama and McCain campaigns than the tactical-vs-strategic difference, with McCain demonstrating the primacy of short-term tactics and Obama sticking to a more coherent long-term strategy. And McCain's dismissive comment suggests that he still does not realize this.

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton copping much the same attitude, right up to the end. And a bit past the end as well.

You are quite correct, Lemur, and touting The Surge (tm) as the "plan to win in Iraq" shouldn't pass a 3rd grader's smell test. But I also find it interesting how most discussions of how "wildly successful" the surge has been tends to quietly ignore the fact that it wasn't working at all until we started bribing Sunni militias. The moment we stop.......

[GeneralHankerchief]

So, what did everybody think of the Saturday Night Live debate last night? As someone who has a long history with this particular skit (Bush/Gore I was the first SNL skit I'd ever seen and what I credit for getting me interested in politics), I was a bit disappointed. Obama, aside from one series of comments that escapes me (tax cuts for Chicago buddies and another funny bit later on) seemed to play straight man/Alex Trebek to Darrell Hammond's John McCain/Sean Connery.

All in all, pretty funny, but not as memorable as "Lock box" or "It's hard work" (Bush/Gore I and Bush/Kerry I, respectively).

I was glad to see Chris Parnell return as Jim Lehrer though. :yes:

[Koga No Goshi]

I spit my drink out, seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb-in0vEN5E&feature=related

[KukriKhan]

It was easier to watch than the actual event. I particularly liked the proposal "Drop us both into Waziristan, and the first one to find bin Laden wins." :idea2:

[OverKnight]

There was less to mock in the debate this time; no loud sighs or garbled words. Also Hammond's Gore and Will Farrel's Bush (Strategery!) were much better parodies than Hammond's McCain or Armisen's Obama.

Still Hammond does a good job as usual, he reprised Clinton as well, though his Ah-nuld isn't great.

Somehow I feel that the VP debate will provide more fertile ground for satire. :laugh4:

A sad commentary on SNL's current state is that the three best performers were the host, Farris, and Parnell and Fey, alums whose imitations were spot on.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"I propose that we suspend our campaigns and have a pie eating contest..."

I laughed at that ~D

[KukriKhan]

So, the next big event is Thursday's VP sweepstakes debate in St. Louis.

Q: In your opinion, has her opposition so derided, mocked, and disparaged Gov. Palin, and therefore lowered expectations of her performance, that all she has to do is suit up, show up, and not drool, to "win" with undecided voters?

-edit-
L.A.Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-m-5.html) thinks maybe so.

[Lemur]

Hard to say. When do low expectations cross the line into a fully formed vision of idiocy? And what does it mean when your supporters start quoting Stalin approvingly (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQ0MmU5ZmIyNjhkMTY1NjY3ZjZkMjk5ZGY5MmFjNTE=)?


All Governor Palin should insist on, after the desperate editing of her words by Gibson, is that every interview be live. And, if they're all disasters, they'll wind up like Biden's gaffes or Clinton's adulteries. As Stalin remarked in another context, one is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

[CountArach]

I'm reminded of The West Wing when they are lowering expectations about Leo's debating skills.

Biden will wipe the floor with her - I'm just worried he will look mean for doing it.

[KukriKhan]

I guess that's what I'm getting at: a "win" for Sen Biden could backfire into a net electoral loss.

OTOH, probably not a big enough loss to affect the state-by-state electoral college vote.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/kmov_election_092808_truthsquad.bec69e89.html?npc

Truth Squads? Why would he need State prosecutors to do this job? It does reek of intimidation.

Truth squads are fine, but when you have Sheriffs, county prosecutors and others in positions of authority threatening prosecution for "any comments that may be in breach of State ethics laws". That's all well and good, but c'mon - can anyone defend this? What is "misleading"? Obama himself is misleading when he says he is against Gay marriage, but he wants a repeal of the defense of marriage act that would make any marriages performed in any state able to be carried to other states.

Libel and Slander laws are important, but there has to be egregious breaches to qualify. You can't just have people in political power running around prosecuting anyone who they think is misleading others in their political opinions.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm reminded of The West Wing when they are lowering expectations about Leo's debating skills.

Biden will wipe the floor with her - I'm just worried he will look mean for doing it.

I don't think he'll attack her harshly--all he has to do sound intelligent and the contrast will win the debate.

I don't think the expectations game is all that relevant.

[Koga No Goshi]

Let's not forget Biden himself has a tendency to run off and say things that can be badly misinterpreted. Anyone remember his comment about how Obama was "articulate and CLEAN"? I would not put it past him to gaffe, but I think regardless of the performance, the right will have no real problems spinning something to try to damage control the numbers. If he performs perfectly and mops the floor with Palin, it'll be that he's so mean and sexist.

[Strike For The South]

Biden is really the only one I like in this whole cluster. He puts his foot in his mouth, he knows he puts his foot in his mouth, You know he has people telling him to stop putting his foot in his mouth and yet he still does it.....A Texan can admire that kind of stubbornness.

[drone]

In a surprise twist, Palin will come out and completely destroy Biden. Wit, humor, and leet speaking skills, all in one package will leave Biden stuttering and cursing in a career threatening meltdown.

Michael Palin, that is, he would absolutely pwn Biden. ~D I don't think I will be very impressed with Sarah. It may be too late to dump her, the time for setting the names on the ballot may be past.

[Koga No Goshi]

In a surprise twist, Palin will come out and completely destroy Biden. Wit, humor, and leet speaking skills, all in one package will leave Biden stuttering and cursing in a career threatening meltdown.

Michael Palin, that is, he would absolutely pwn Biden. ~D I don't think I will be very impressed with Sarah. It may be too late to dump her, the time for setting the names on the ballot may be past.

I heard this morning that the white house's in-house team for speeches and public speaking is working with Palin one on one to prep her. But that's pretty bad if the team that works to improve Bush's public speaking has been hotzoned in to help improve Palin ey?

[Gregoshi]

Biden has his work cut out for him. He can't be mean or condesending. And above all, he can't leer or drool at her.:laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

Biden has his work cut out for him. He can't be mean or condesending. And above all, he can't leer or drool at her.:laugh4:

Did anyone else see him cackling when he watched the footage of her interview with Couric?

[drone]

Biden has his work cut out for him. He can't be mean or condesending. And above all, he can't leer or drool at her.:laugh4:

Her best tactic might be to wear a low-cut blouse. :yes:

[Spino]

Her best tactic might be to wear a low-cut blouse. :yes:

You know something about Joe that we don't? High blood pressure? Weak heart? We know the old man is pushing 70 but do tell...

[Koga No Goshi]

You know something about Joe that we don't? High blood pressure? Weak heart? We know the old man is pushing 70 but do tell...

Just that Dems have a proclivity for screwing women, and Reps have a proclivity for screwing everyone. :)

[drone]

I just think it would be high comedy to have an internationally televised VP debate where one candidate parrots the party line regardless of the question, while the other one leers, drools, and stammers through the debate because he is too busy staring at his opponent's cleavage. Probably the best laughs we will get for the next 4 years.

[Lemur]

Where do they find these people (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/104/story/220041.html)?


Mayor 'just curious' if Obama is antichrist

FORT MILL, S.C. -- Fort Mill Mayor Danny Funderburk says he was “just curious” when he forwarded a chain e-mail suggesting Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is the biblical antichrist. “I was just curious if there was any validity to it,” Funderburk said in a telephone interview. “I was trying to get documentation if there was any scripture to back it up.”

Funderburk apparently sent the e-mail from his business account at Gastonia Sheet Metal where he works as a business agent.

The e-mail, which has circulated in the last six months since Obama secured the Democratic nomination, claims the biblical book of Revelation says the antichrist will be in his 40s and of Muslim ancestry.

There is no such scripture. And Obama is not a Muslim. But that hasn’t stopped the e-mail.

-edit-

Meanwhile, she may not be talking to the press, but she's willing to take your questions. Now you can actually interview Sarah Palin for yourself (http://interviewpalin.com/)! Give it a try!

[Koga No Goshi]

Where do they find these people (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/104/story/220041.html)?


Mayor 'just curious' if Obama is antichrist

FORT MILL, S.C. -- Fort Mill Mayor Danny Funderburk says he was “just curious” when he forwarded a chain e-mail suggesting Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is the biblical antichrist. “I was just curious if there was any validity to it,” Funderburk said in a telephone interview. “I was trying to get documentation if there was any scripture to back it up.”

Funderburk apparently sent the e-mail from his business account at Gastonia Sheet Metal where he works as a business agent.

The e-mail, which has circulated in the last six months since Obama secured the Democratic nomination, claims the biblical book of Revelation says the antichrist will be in his 40s and of Muslim ancestry.

There is no such scripture. And Obama is not a Muslim. But that hasn’t stopped the e-mail.

-edit-

Meanwhile, she may not be talking to the press, but she's willing to take your questions. Now you can actually interview Sarah Palin for yourself (http://interviewpalin.com/)! Give it a try!

One political party wholeheartedly, without apology, panders to people exactly like this, and tells them that this sort of worldview is completely legitimate and shouldn't be mocked off the political stage. And we wonder why America is dumb. :clown:

[woad&fangs]

One political party wholeheartedly, without apology, panders to people exactly like this, and tells them that this sort of worldview is completely legitimate and shouldn't be mocked off the political stage. And we wonder why America is dumb. :clown:

Get off your high horse. America is dumb because the liberals control the schools.


~;p

[Koga No Goshi]

Get off your high horse. America is dumb because the liberals control the schools.


~;p

Evolution drops your IQ 35 points. True story.

[Big_John]

Evolution drops your IQ 35 points. True story.

survival of the dimmest.

[Big_John]

btw, watching fox news right now is a comedy gold mine. the desk "reporter" actually asked some other reporter if obama wanted the bill to fail and worked secretly to have the 95 dems vote it down.

....


hahahahahaah

[Alexanderofmacedon]

SFTS, I must agree, from what I've seen from Biden, he's not so bad. That's not saying he's good....

In general I'm totally fed up with the election completely, the American registration system (R or D), and one specific thing: the candidates view on Russia. In fact when it comes time for me to write articles for my school newspaper about world affairs, I (as the editor) will leave the huge articles about the election for someone else, while I do more WORLD affairs. I'll continue this until the election is over too....

[Uesugi Kenshin]

SFTS, I must agree, from what I've seen from Biden, he's not so bad. That's not saying he's good....

In general I'm totally fed up with the election completely, the American registration system (R or D), and one specific thing: the candidates view on Russia. In fact when it comes time for me to write articles for my school newspaper about world affairs, I (as the editor) will leave the huge articles about the election for someone else, while I do more WORLD affairs. I'll continue this until the election is over too....

It's not the American registration system by the way. Registration is done state by state, in Vermont and some other states you don't have to register with a party, you just vote in a primary, or you can register with a third party as well. For example progressives, libertarians, marijuana party and so on.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

It's not the American registration system by the way. Registration is done state by state, in Vermont and some other states you don't have to register with a party, you just vote in a primary, or you can register with a third party as well. For example progressives, libertarians, marijuana party and so on.

Oh, yes. I should have remembered this. :wall:

[KukriKhan]

One thing is clear: us "dumb" americans, at least the millions willing to go through the effort of writing, emailing or telephoning, no longer trust the word of our President.

I know most of us here havn't for a long time, and his approval ratings have reflected that as well. But the 9:1 NO! vote from Ma and Pa America on the Bailout Package, after GW went on national TV to personally stump for it using fear-mongering, a tactic employed successfully over the past 7 years, no longer works. Even if the bailout is absolutely necessary, and not doing it will cause harm to every american: we don't believe him. "If his lips is movin', he's lyin' ".

I think we've seen the 2008 limits of what america will tolerate, in terms of the Imperial Presidency.

Guilt by association is next, IMO. If McCain has any hopes of achieving the White House in his lifetime, he has to personally come up with "The Plan that Saves The World", ignore or diss GW, and sell the plan directly to the people, chiding his fellow lawmakers to join in.

Anything less than that: Obama wins. And McCain should just retire to Arizona right now, and watch the game on TV like the rest of us, so he doesn't waste time, effort and cash.

My :2cents:

[Gregoshi]

But the 9:1 NO! vote from Ma and Pa America on the Bailout Package, after GW went on national TV to personally stump for it using fear-mongering, a tactic employed successfully over the past 7 years, no longer works. Even if the bailout is absolutely necessary, and not doing it will cause harm to every american: we don't believe him. "If his lips is movin', he's lyin' ".

The modern day Boy Who Cried Wolf! :yes:

[CrossLOPER]

One thing is clear: us "dumb" americans, at least the millions willing to go through the effort of writing, emailing or telephoning, no longer trust the word of our President.

I know most of us here havn't for a long time, and his approval ratings have reflected that as well. But the 9:1 NO! vote from Ma and Pa America on the Bailout Package, after GW went on national TV to personally stump for it using fear-mongering, a tactic employed successfully over the past 7 years, no longer works. Even if the bailout is absolutely necessary, and not doing it will cause harm to every american: we don't believe him. "If his lips is movin', he's lyin' ".

I think we've seen the 2008 limits of what america will tolerate, in terms of the Imperial Presidency.

Guilt by association is next, IMO. If McCain has any hopes of achieving the White House in his lifetime, he has to personally come up with "The Plan that Saves The World", ignore or diss GW, and sell the plan directly to the people, chiding his fellow lawmakers to join in.

Anything less than that: Obama wins. And McCain should just retire to Arizona right now, and watch the game on TV like the rest of us, so he doesn't waste time, effort and cash.

My :2cents:
Inconsistency is a sign of weakness! :furious:

[Gregoshi]

Inconsistency is a sign of weakness! :furious:
Not all the time... ~D

[Marshal Murat]

Children sing for Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA)

Awww, isn't that just sweet.

[Gregoshi]

I find that video a bit disturbing.

Edit: Eh, Marshal's video, that is. PJ, that's a really cheap shot.:no:

[Koga No Goshi]

Don't make us bring out the scenes of George Bush at "Jesus Camp."

[CrossLOPER]

PJ, that's a really cheap shot.
That was clearly a compliment. :yes:

[CountArach]

That was clearly a compliment. :yes:
Yep, I was going to say that as well. I had no idea that PJ was supporting Obama.

[Gregoshi]

That was clearly a compliment. :yes:
Ooops, my bad. :shame:

[PanzerJaeger]

That was clearly a compliment. :yes:

Great minds think alike... :shakehands:

[CountArach]

BREAKING NEWS!

Palin doesn't just read the newspapers, she reads ALL the papers! Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y).

Man, these Couric interviews just keep on giving...

[PanzerJaeger]

BREAKING NEWS!

Palin doesn't just read the newspapers, she reads ALL the papers! Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep9excb6k6Y).

Man, these Couric interviews just keep on giving...

Was that some sort of rickroll situation?

[CountArach]

Was that some sort of rickroll situation?
LMAO... omg... I swear I copy/pasted the real video (I was linking that to someone else earlier). Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y) is the real video...

[TevashSzat]

Was that some sort of rickroll situation?

I think maybe he didn't get the copy right or something and posted the wrong link

[Tribesman]

Palin doesn't just read the newspapers, she reads ALL the papers!
So she gets all the info up in Alaska and keeps up to date with events in Washington ....yet she could only name one case that Scotus dealt with and that was from 35 years ago .
I ain't sure about that old lipstick on a pig line , but thick as ******* seems to fit the candidate well .

[Big_John]

LMAO... omg... I swear I copy/pasted the real video (I was linking that to someone else earlier). Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y) is the real video...
that's a stupid question to ask her, though. 'specifically what newspapers or magazines did you read to inform your world view'? who cares. yeah, ok, she couldn't answer it, but she could just as easily have lied and said "the economist and teen beat". i guess her not being fast enough on her feet to even do that says something, but all-in-all, a pointless question.

[Lemur]

I don't understand why it's a pointless question. You learn something about a person from what they read. And if you suspect that Palin is another incurious, anti-intellectual politician, it's a very legitimate question. Does she feed herself anything that broadens or challenges her worldview, or is she in the echo chamber?

[Big_John]

I don't understand why it's a pointless question. You learn something about a person from what they read. And if you suspect that Palin is another incurious, anti-intellectual politician, it's a very legitimate question. Does she feed herself anything that broadens or challenges her worldview, or is she in the echo chamber?maybe she just reads books. :shrug:

it's obvious she's a moron and an anti-intellectual. but the question illustrated nothing except that she's too slow with her lies. i don't care what magazines she reads. it's her ideas and beliefs that are repugnant. exactly how she arrived at them is of no consequence to her viability as a candidate, in my eyes. she could have rattled off a list of every major political journal, and i would think her no less anti-intellectual and dangerous.

[Lemur]

Looks like the Palin selection is beginning to create a real drag (http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead) on McCain's polling numbers. About time.


Opinions about Sarah Palin have become increasingly negative, with a majority of the public (51%) now saying that the Alaska governor is not qualified to become president if necessary; just 37% say she is qualified to serve as president. That represents a reversal of opinion since early September, shortly after the GOP convention. At that time, 52% said Palin was qualified to step in as president, if necessary. [...]

There is a clear correlation between views of Palin’s qualifications and support for McCain, which may be hurting the GOP candidate. Fewer people see her as qualified to become president, and the balance of opinion toward Palin has grown more negative since early September. Unfavorable views of the Alaska governor have increased among most demographic and political groups, with GOP voters a notable exception. Currently, a narrow majority of independent voters (54%) express a favorable view of Palin, while 37% are unfavorable. In early September, positive impressions of Palin among independents outnumbered negative opinions by greater than two-to-one (60% vs. 27%).

[Strike For The South]

I dont understand. Everyone was swooning over this gal a months back or so. Well better late than never I suppose. Well I guess her being picked anyway would constitute never...oh well

[Lemur]

Here's some more hard polling data for my main poll-smoker, CA. Enjoy (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1218). Includes a handy breakdown of several swing states (FL, OH and PA).

[gaelic cowboy]

I am interested in the race factor on the election how likely is a black or non white going to be able to overcome voter apathy about them. I mean I keep reading stuff about how the polls this time may have a larger margin for error due to not so much overt racisim but an unconscious reaction to Obama.

If this is true even a ten point in polls may not be enough to get the votes.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I am interested in the race factor on the election how likely is a black or non white going to be able to overcome voter apathy about them. I mean I keep reading stuff about how the polls this time may have a larger margin for error due to not so much overt racisim but an unconscious reaction to Obama.

If this is true even a ten point in polls may not be enough to get the votes.

It isn't true; it's been proven false.

[gaelic cowboy]

It isn't true; it's been proven false.

So your saying its definately not going to have a factor on the election.

Well thats good to know, still I dunno something just nags me everytime i see one of those polls maybe it says more about me.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"It was so Wasilla." Sarah Palin, Wasilla mayor, after officiating at a wedding at the local Wal-Mart store.

:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm so depressed. If the debate with Palin tomorrow goes along the lines of these past interviews, I may be forced not to vote this year. I've never been more disappointed with a candidate in my life. I've watched her Alaskan debates - Impressed as hell. I've listened to her on tv shows as the governor - impressed as hell. I've seen her ratings, her values, heard her life stories and professional experiences, listened to her talk about energy and I was impressed as hell.

What the hell happened?

It is as if she has never paid any attention to National level politics at any point in her life. I assumed that she was a quick study. Wrong. I had assumed that she had some understanding of the national level issues that we currently have and what we may have in the future. Wrong.

I can't beleive that someone could be a governor of a State and be totally ignorant of anything occuring outside of that state. Is she kidding? Her interviews don't jive with anything I had seen about her before she got the nod.

I like the woman alot - I'd ask her to marry me and I think she does a great job as the governor of Alaska. I like her family and that she understand the abortion issue from both an emotional and technical point of view.

But I can't vote for an old guy that I only kind of like, backed up by a woman who can't seem to get it to be the leaders of the free world.

I can't defend them anymore. McCain understands security and immigration and little else. Palin understands Alaska, energy, abortion and little else. I won't vote for Obama because he doesn't get abortion and he seems too slick - but I'm starting to feel more comfortable with the idea of him in the White House.

I wan't Mitt Romney/Bobby Jindal!
I wan't Paul Ryan or ANYBODY ELSE!



Anyway - if she does well in this debate I may come back around, but as of now I think I'll watch a movie on Nov 4th. I can't vote for someone in whom I have no confidence to lead.

[Gregoshi]

"It was so Wasilla." Sarah Palin, Wasilla mayor, after officiating at a wedding at the local Wal-Mart store. :laugh4:

That is irrelevant to the election and this thread. Come on Sasaki, there is plenty of ammo out there with which to blast Palin without resorting to cheap shots (or am I "misunderstanding" intent again). The more I see stuff like this, the more I hope Palin slam-dunks Biden tomorrow night...yeah, I know what you're thinking, but I did say "hope". :shrug:

I'd like to see Palin just be herself tomorrow night rather than try to pull off some kind of puppetry her "handlers" are probably trying to ram down her throat. Don't pretend to be a domestic or foreign policy wiz based on a 4 week crash course. At least we'd see the real person. Not to be pessimistic, but fail (if you are going to) on your own terms, not someone else's.

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't understand why it's a pointless question. You learn something about a person from what they read. And if you suspect that Palin is another incurious, anti-intellectual politician, it's a very legitimate question. Does she feed herself anything that broadens or challenges her worldview, or is she in the echo chamber?

It is NOT a pointless question after 8 years of a President who bragged he didn't read the newspapers.

[Koga No Goshi]

I dont understand. Everyone was swooning over this gal a months back or so. Well better late than never I suppose. Well I guess her being picked anyway would constitute never...oh well

I don't get it either. Although we need to wait and see what things look like on Friday; the people making rational choices will probably either not change their opinion or will have a more negative opinion after the debates. But the debates and more exposure to her in little 90-second snippets might very well "re-energize" that emotional reaction that middle America seems to have to her. (Middle America not to be confused with centrists and independents, Middle America meaning like, Nebraska.)


It is as if she has never paid any attention to National level politics at any point in her life.

This is exactly the case, Tuff. She was hand picked to get exactly the emotional immediate attraction reaction out of the base that apparently worked on you too in the beginning. And it was hoped, in the cynical strategic thinking Republican leadership has, that its base is so stupid it either wouldn't wake up at all or wouldn't wake up quick enough to make a negative poll reaction before the election. Based on past experience it could be expected that an incompetent leadership figure would not experience any serious backlash from the GOP itself for about um... 8 years. Look at Andrew Sullivan, a professional conservative (though at this point, not Republican anymore) blogger... on Real Time he said that he did extensive research trying to find ANY statement from Palin about foreign policy during her whole political career before becoming McCain's VP pick. He could find -absolutely nothing.-


I am interested in the race factor on the election how likely is a black or non white going to be able to overcome voter apathy about them. I mean I keep reading stuff about how the polls this time may have a larger margin for error due to not so much overt racisim but an unconscious reaction to Obama.

Maybe. But a larger number of new and previously unregistered voters than past trends will be present, too. And a lot of those people aren't reflected in polls either because they're younger, use cellphones and don't have landlines, or a variety of other reasons. Republican new voter signups have been flat. The Democratic new voter signups have been on the order of millions.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That is irrelevant to the election and this thread. Come on Sasaki, there is plenty of ammo out there with which to blast Palin without resorting to cheap shots (or am I "misunderstanding" intent again). The more I see stuff like this, the more I hope Palin slam-dunks Biden tomorrow night...yeah, I know what you're thinking, but I did say "hope". :shrug:

I'd like to see Palin just be herself tomorrow night rather than try to pull off some kind of puppetry her "handlers" are probably trying to ram down her throat. Don't pretend to be a domestic or foreign policy wiz based on a 4 week crash course. At least we'd see the real person. Not to be pessimistic, but fail (if you are going to) on your own terms, not someone else's.

I don't agree with the "poor palin" sentiment. She shouldn't have accepted the nomination. You shouldn't agree to be VP if you aren't qualified to be president.

The humor comes from the fact that her time in wasilla was touted as executive experience--the contrast with the walmart wedding is choice :laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

That is irrelevant to the election and this thread. Come on Sasaki, there is plenty of ammo out there with which to blast Palin without resorting to cheap shots (or am I "misunderstanding" intent again). The more I see stuff like this, the more I hope Palin slam-dunks Biden tomorrow night...yeah, I know what you're thinking, but I did say "hope". :shrug:

I'd like to see Palin just be herself tomorrow night rather than try to pull off some kind of puppetry her "handlers" are probably trying to ram down her throat. Don't pretend to be a domestic or foreign policy wiz based on a 4 week crash course. At least we'd see the real person. Not to be pessimistic, but fail (if you are going to) on your own terms, not someone else's.

Example of the thinking involved with the people who think perceived arrogance is worse than putting someone totally incompetent into the White House.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't get it either. Although we need to wait and see what things look like on Friday; the people making rational choices will probably either not change their opinion or will have a more negative opinion after the debates. But the debates and more exposure to her in little 90-second snippets might very well "re-energize" that emotional reaction that middle America seems to have to her. (Middle America not to be confused with centrists and independents, Middle America meaning like, Nebraska.)



This is exactly the case, Tuff. She was hand picked to get exactly the emotional immediate attraction reaction out of the base that apparently worked on you too in the beginning. And it was hoped, in the cynical strategic thinking Republican leadership has, that its base is so stupid it either wouldn't wake up at all or wouldn't wake up quick enough to make a negative poll reaction before the election. Based on past experience it could be expected that an incompetent leadership figure would not experience any serious backlash from the GOP itself for about um... 8 years. Look at Andrew Sullivan, a professional conservative (though at this point, not Republican anymore) blogger... on Real Time he said that he did extensive research trying to find ANY statement from Palin about foreign policy during her whole political career before becoming McCain's VP pick. He could find -absolutely nothing.-\

Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative. I know that he calls himself a conservative, but he is a Homosexual, HIV infected Englishmen who is pro gay marriage, and for the legalization of cannabis. He reminds me of Ernst Rohm and guys in the S.A. from my point of view he is tally insane and rarely makes a solid argument about anything that he isn't emotionally fueled by.

Maybe a Tory - he is no American conservative. What is he trying to conserve? Because he was for the war in Iraq and wants to overturn Roe v Wade he is a conservative? Nonsense. A ton of conservatives would argue that the war in Iraq was not the conservative thing to do, and overturning Roe can be supported by anyone who understands the case or the role of the Supreme court from an objective angle - irrespective of what their opinions on abortion might be.

make up your own mind about sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#Palin_pregnancy_rumor)

Maybe he is right of center on a libertarian scale, but that isn't saying much.

[Koga No Goshi]

Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative. I know that he calls himself a conservative, but he is a Homosexual, HIV infected Englishmen who is pro-abortion. He reminds me of the Ernst Rohm. totally insane and rarely makes a good arguement about anything.

Maybe a Torrie - he is no conservative. What is he trying to conserve?

Um yes well, he was a crusader for Bush in 2000, and his views overall certainly do not make him a screaming liberal even if he fails your litmus. Nevertheless, he blogs, he does a lot of research, and he couldn't find anything. And who the heck cares if he's HIV+? How is that relevant to anything? "Oh, I give that guy no credence, he's got fibromyalgia.."

Nice admission, though, that homosexual is almost a disqualification to be "conservative", unless you're very rich. We all sorta KNOW that, but your reaction was kinda surprising to go totally off point and just attack someone for being gay and HIV+.

Getting back on point, she has no foreign policy experience. And I'm shocked at your shock that the GOP would pick someone incompetent and go for style over substance.

[Gregoshi]

The humor comes from the fact that her time in wasilla was touted as executive experience--the contrast with the walmart wedding is choice :laugh4:
Yes, and the President of the United States hosts Easter egg hunts, etc. Does that make the presidency trivial?

I do agree that she probably shouldn't have accepted the nomination, but taken the interest as a spring board to get involved in national/international politics for a future election. Then she'd have much more time to be prepared for the run.


Example of the thinking involved with the people who think perceived arrogance is worse than putting someone totally incompetent into the White House.
I didn't say I wanted her to be in the White House. The petty mocking makes me want Palin to trounce Biden in the debate. Period. The same deal holds for me with all the petty crap floating out there about Obama (he'll put domes & minarets on the White House, etc). It is an annoyance that turns me off from politics. It will not, however, affect my decision in the voting booth.

[Fragony]

Anyways, the most important question hasn't been raised, would you do Palin?

I would :yes:

The :daisy: or the copyright-maffia as a vice president, hard one

[ICantSpellDawg]

Um yes well, he was a crusader for Bush in 2000, and his views overall certainly do not make him a screaming liberal even if he fails your litmus. Nevertheless, he blogs, he does a lot of research, and he couldn't find anything. And who the heck cares if he's HIV+? How is that relevant to anything? "Oh, I give that guy no credence, he's got fibromyalgia.."

Nice admission, though, that homosexual is almost a disqualification to be "conservative", unless you're very rich. We all sorta KNOW that, but your reaction was kinda surprising to go totally off point and just attack someone for being gay and HIV+.

Getting back on point, she has no foreign policy experience. And I'm shocked at your shock that the GOP would pick someone incompetent and go for style over substance.

I can bring it up if someone else is screaming that he is some arch-conservative. The guy is a nut - I certainly don't want to be associated with him as I can't think of much that we have in common. I have more in common with a guy like Biden than I do with Sullivan and I don't know how many people would say I'm not a conservative. Somehow your classification (or his for that matter) doesn't jive.

[Don Corleone]

I know McCain and Palin are stewed regardless, and frankly, I'm not certain turning the reins over to the Lefties for a while wouldn't be so horrible.

I'm a small c conservative (much more in line with UK Liberal Conservative than American Republicans), and I voted Bush because foolishly, I thought he might actually do what he said he would in 1999, and shrink the size of government. Somebody forgot to tell him that tax cuts aren't for buying votes, they're for 'starving the beast'. In 2004, Kerry had so many new spending programs identified, my head was swooning. I thought Bush would tone it down in the next 4 years, but frankly, I'm not certain if Kerry would have spent more in the past 4 years (even forgetting the war).

So, my choices are continue voting for a party that talks about reducing the size of government, then doubles it, at the expense of a ridiculous defecit. Or a party that actually embraces tax-tax-tax-spend-spend-spend policies. At least the 2nd group will be a little more intellectually honest. I just don't know anymore. :dizzy2:

In any case, I know you're all going to jump all over me for being a knuckle-dragging, 'just-doesn't-get-it', racist, homophobic, creationist, lock-step w/ George Bush, born-again, nativist, dumb, gun toting, moronic conservative for pointing this out, but does anybody else find it odd that the debate moderator tomorrow night has a book on Obama's rise to power, due to be published on inauguration day? Can anybody say conflict of interest. Sorry, i know raising this point makes me a misgonynistic, hateful bigot, but I just can't help myself sometimes.

[Koga No Goshi]

I can bring it up if someone else is screaming that he is some arch-conservative. The guy is a nut - I certainly don't want to be associated with him as I can't think of much that we have in common. I have more in common with a guy like Biden than I do with Sullivan and I don't know how many people would say I'm not a conservative. Somehow your classification (or his for that matter) doesn't jive.

Well, I didn't ask you to have anything in common with him. I said he was a blogger and couldn't find any single statement about foreign policy from Palin except for one that had already been printed by someone else in recent news. Nothing. That was the point, not a diatribe about whose views he fits. You could find other bloggers who've said the same thing and I just picked him because he's a well known name with a well known site and isn't Maureen Douwd or some entrenched progressive.

And, don't be a drama queen. I said he was conservative, but no longer Republican. Which to many would call into question how conservative he is. I even added that qualification, I wasn't "screaming he was an arch-conservative." Do chill pill taketh.

[Koga No Goshi]

I know McCain and Palin are stewed regardless, and frankly, I'm not certain turning the reins over to the Lefties for a while wouldn't be so horrible.

I'm a small c conservative (much more in line with German Christian Democrats than American Republicans), and I voted Bush because foolishly, I thought he might actually do what he said he would in 1999, and shrink the size of government. Somebody forgot to tell him that tax cuts aren't for buying votes, they're for 'starving the beast'. In 2004, Kerry had so many new spending programs identified, my head was swooning. I thought Bush would tone it down in the next 4 years, but frankly, I'm not certain if Kerry would have spent more in the past 4 years (even forgetting the war).

So, my choices are continue voting for a party that talks about reducing the size of government, then doubles it, at the expense of a ridiculous defecit. Or a party that actually embraces tax-tax-tax-spend-spend-spend policies. At least the 2nd group will be a little more intellectually honest. I just don't know anymore. :dizzy2:

What shocks me is how long Republicans have voted for spoken values and been given evidence that their political leadership performs differently in action (spending, debt, gov't power and influence expansion into all sorts of areas it shouldn't be) and don't change the way they vote. I'm not surprised to hear you say this, I'm surprised you're such a small minority.


In any case, I know you're all going to jump all over me for being a knuckle-dragging, 'just-doesn't-get-it', racist, homophobic, creationist, lock-step w/ George Bush, born-again, nativist, dumb, gun toting, moronic conservative for pointing this out, but does anybody else find it odd that the debate moderator tomorrow night has a book on Obama's rise to power, due to be published on inauguration day? Can anybody say conflict of interest. Sorry, i know raising this point makes me a misgonynistic, hateful bigot, but I just can't help myself sometimes.

No, you're not a racist knuckle dragger. The truth is we have absolutely no clue whatsoever what their selection process is, exactly. I do know that the election debates committee or whatever the heck runs these things is bipartisan and so while yes this sounds like a conflict of interests, since he won't be adjudicating anything and will just be directing the questions I'm not sure it's a big deal. I certainly don't think the moderator will or should have any major role during the debate as far as endorsing one idea or one candidate over the other, and I have not seen evidence that this happens much in all the debates I have watched. I frequently don't know the political party of the moderator and that's GOOD. All I will say is that given that neither party seems to have as much influence and control over the debates as they would like to (for instance McCain trying to change the date) I don't believe there's any conspiracy to hedge the debate for one candidate. I think Obama has the leg up for reasons totally unrelated to bias or friendly moderators.

[Don Corleone]

What shocks me is how long Republicans have voted for spoken values and been given evidence that their political leadership performs differently in action (spending, debt, gov't power and influence expansion into all sorts of areas it shouldn't be) and don't change the way they vote. I'm not surprised to hear you say this, I'm surprised you're such a small minority.



No, you're not a racist knuckle dragger. The truth is we have absolutely no clue whatsoever what their selection process is, exactly. I do know that the election debates committee or whatever the heck runs these things is bipartisan and so while yes this sounds like a conflict of interests, since he won't be adjudicating anything and will just be directing the questions I'm not sure it's a big deal. I certainly don't think the moderator will or should have any major role during the debate as far as endorsing one idea or one candidate over the other, and I have not seen evidence that this happens much in all the debates I have watched. I frequently don't know the political party of the moderator and that's GOOD. All I will say is that given that neither party seems to have as much influence and control over the debates as they would like to (for instance McCain trying to change the date) I don't believe there's any conspiracy to hedge the debate for one candidate. I think Obama has the leg up for reasons totally unrelated to bias or friendly moderators.


It's a she, it's Gwen Ifill, a reporter/commentator on PBS. She's actually quite bright and normally, I'd give her a nod as objective, but I'm sorry, if you have a book deal based on the outcome, you HAVE to be pulling for the ultimate source of loyalty... $$$$.

[Don Corleone]

What shocks me is how long Republicans have voted for spoken values and been given evidence that their political leadership performs differently in action (spending, debt, gov't power and influence expansion into all sorts of areas it shouldn't be) and don't change the way they vote. I'm not surprised to hear you say this, I'm surprised you're such a small minority.
That's probably because I'm not a 'Republican' in the sense of I don't care 1 whit for the party itself, I register for them and vote for them because I find their candidates more palatable (mainly because I foolishly take them at their word). I think the real buggery in our political system is the 2-party system. I'm a big proponent of introducing a parlimentarian system with at least 4 strong parties. Coalitions, despite their ills, are better than the alternative.

And I'd argue that in fact, we have 1 party, not two. You wait and see, my friend. 4 years from now, after a full Democratic term in the White House and both houses of Congress, how disappointed and dumbstruck you are by how far your heroes have fallen in your eyes. And I can almost guarantee, with cynicism I can no longer resist, Obama's 2012 relection theme will also be "Change and Hope". Bill Clinton's mantra was "Change and Hope". Remember, the Man from Hope?


No, you're not a racist knuckle dragger. The truth is we have absolutely no clue whatsoever what their selection process is, exactly. I do know that the election debates committee or whatever the heck runs these things is bipartisan and so while yes this sounds like a conflict of interests, since he won't be adjudicating anything and will just be directing the questions I'm not sure it's a big deal. I certainly don't think the moderator will or should have any major role during the debate as far as endorsing one idea or one candidate over the other, and I have not seen evidence that this happens much in all the debates I have watched. I frequently don't know the political party of the moderator and that's GOOD. All I will say is that given that neither party seems to have as much influence and control over the debates as they would like to (for instance McCain trying to change the date) I don't believe there's any conspiracy to hedge the debate for one candidate. I think Obama has the leg up for reasons totally unrelated to bias or friendly moderators.


It's a she and a black she at that. It's Gwen Ifill, a reporter/commentator on PBS. She's actually quite bright and normally, I'd give her a nod as objective, but I'm sorry, if you have a book deal based on the outcome, you can't be fair and objective. I believe people can put ideologies aside. I don't think they can forget their wallets.

[Koga No Goshi]

It's a she, it's Gwen Ifill, a reporter/commentator on PBS. She's actually quite bright and normally, I'd give her a nod as objective, but I'm sorry, if you have a book deal based on the outcome, you HAVE to be pulling for the ultimate source of loyalty... $$$$.


I agree, it doesn't seem like the best possible choice. But, it's not the DNC choosing the moderator so.... I dunno what we can say about it really.

[Lemur]

Just to lighten things up (http://www.break.com/index/redneck-woman-rails-on-obama.html) a little ...

Link Caution: the linked video contains material Not Suitable For Work

-edit-

Hmm, when I listened to it all I could hear was one barely audible f-bomb muttered by the guy with no teeth. Maybe I'm missing something ...

[seireikhaan]

:laugh4:


Yikes...

[Don Corleone]

I believe she was on the Platform Authorship Committee for the GOP prior to the convention.

Meanwhile, this obviously partisan Republican just can't get his mind out of the 50's and can't help himself from referring to Obama as 'Boy' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umCo4qUJiOQ&feature=related).

[Lemur]

Meanwhile, this obviously partisan Republican just can't get his mind out of the 50's and can't help himself from referring to Obama as 'Boy' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umCo4qUJiOQ&feature=related).
I'm all for a larf at the expense of the elderly, but this case is a stretch. Carter's full sentence goes more or less: "this black boy who grew up with a single mother and started with ..." etc. He's clearly referring to the time when Obama was, in fact, a boy.

But to bring it back to the silly level, here's one of my favorite Obama supporters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuKqWEYzhEA).

[KukriKhan]

That is irrelevant to the election and this thread. Come on Sasaki, there is plenty of ammo out there with which to blast Palin without resorting to cheap shots (or am I "misunderstanding" intent again). The more I see stuff like this, the more I hope Palin slam-dunks Biden tomorrow night...yeah, I know what you're thinking, but I did say "hope". :shrug:

I'd like to see Palin just be herself tomorrow night rather than try to pull off some kind of puppetry her "handlers" are probably trying to ram down her throat. Don't pretend to be a domestic or foreign policy wiz based on a 4 week crash course. At least we'd see the real person. Not to be pessimistic, but fail (if you are going to) on your own terms, not someone else's.

Yeah. I hope that on Thursday night we see something like this:

G. Ifill: "Governor Palin, what is your stand on the price of widgets in Mongolia?"

Palin: "Ahhh... ummm...", fingering down her list of talking points "Nukes?" "No", "Stock Market?" "No", "NAFTA?" "No" ...

Biden: :snickers behind fist:

Palin: "Umm, yanno Gwen?..." (throws talking points paper to the floor and does a 'Bulworth') "I don't know what my stand is on the price of widgets in Mongolia. I haven't studied the issue. But I DO know what I believe in: freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, free markets, and a government free of corruption, cronyism, vested interests, conflicts-of-interests, and personal gain over the good of its citizens."

"If I get the honor of being your Vice President, I won't take a dime of pay for it, and I won't accept the neat retirement package that comes with it. And whatever jobs President McCain gives me to do as Vice President, I will assemble the best and brightest minds I can find to help me be on top of the subject, just like I did in Alaska, and I'll actively seek contrary opinions to make sure I see all sides of the situation in question, and then I'll apply my own best judgment and values and come up with the decision that seems best for America... and best for the Mongolian widget-makers, too." (Big smile).

"Over to you, Joe."
-------------------------------
If I see even 10% of that non-answer, she's my girl.

[Ser Clegane]

But to bring it back to the silly level, here's one of my favorite Obama supporters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuKqWEYzhEA).

Cool - campaign in a nutshell :beam:

[KukriKhan]

Just to lighten things up (http://www.break.com/index/redneck-woman-rails-on-obama.html) a little ...

Lemur's Disease (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2026455&postcount=15) from the "hillbilly" thread.

Caution: the quoted link contains material Not Suitable For Work

[Lemur]

There's a reason it's named after me ...

[drone]

Yeah. I hope that on Thursday night we see something like this:

G. Ifill: "Governor Palin, what is your stand on the price of widgets in Mongolia?"

Palin: "Ahhh... ummm...", fingering down her list of talking points "Nukes?" "No", "Stock Market?" "No", "NAFTA?" "No" ...

Biden: :snickers behind fist:

Palin: "Umm, yanno Gwen?..." (throws talking points paper to the floor and does a 'Bulworth') "I don't know what my stand is on the price of widgets in Mongolia. I haven't studied the issue. But I DO know what I believe in: freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, free markets, and a government free of corruption, cronyism, vested interests, conflicts-of-interests, and personal gain over the good of its citizens."

"If I get the honor of being your Vice President, I won't take a dime of pay for it, and I won't accept the neat retirement package that comes with it. And whatever jobs President McCain gives me to do as Vice President, I will assemble the best and brightest minds I can find to help me be on top of the subject, just like I did in Alaska, and I'll actively seek contrary opinions to make sure I see all sides of the situation in question, and then I'll apply my own best judgment and values and come up with the decision that seems best for America... and best for the Mongolian widget-makers, too." (Big smile).

"Over to you, Joe."
-------------------------------
If I see even 10% of that non-answer, she's my girl.

The smartest person isn't the one that knows it all, the smartest person is the one that knows he/she doesn't know it all. :yes:

[Strike For The South]

Just to lighten things up (http://www.break.com/index/redneck-woman-rails-on-obama.html) a little ...

Link Caution: the linked video contains material Not Suitable For Work

-edit-

Hmm, when I listened to it all I could hear was one barely audible f-bomb muttered by the guy with no teeth. Maybe I'm missing something ...

How'd you get my home videos?

[Lemur]

An old one but a true one, drone. I think Socrates was the first to articulate it, claiming that he was the only wise man in Athens because he was the only one who knew how ignorant he really was.

More amusing videos: Sarah Palin goes to town on the flute (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0OZ9W2K_z0).

[Don Corleone]

I see it going more like this:

SP: So, when I was governor of Alaahskah, and I could see Rushhya right out my window, and I had my hockey moms backin me up, I stood up and told them that I was here to reform their attitude. And I dictated an energy policy to to them that to this day, they follow, when dealing with Alaahskah. I'm not certain I know why they cut of natural gas to Poland, the Ukraine and other Eastern European states. Is Poland still a country? Is the Ukraine?

JB: Nice hooters, toots.

[Lemur]

I gotta say, between Palin's general ignorance and Biden's gaffe powers, Thursday's debate may be some serious must-see TV.

[Strike For The South]

I see it going more like this:

SP: So, when I was governor of Alaahskah, and I could see Rushhya right out my window, and I had my hockey moms backin me up, I stood up and told them that I was here to reform their attitude. And I dictated an energy policy to to them that to this day, they follow, when dealing with Alaahskah. I'm not certain I know why they cut of natural gas to Poland, the Ukraine and other Eastern European states. Is Poland still a country? Is the Ukraine?

JB: Nice hooters, toots.

See this is why I like Biden. He says what were all thinking

[Ronin]

Yeah. I hope that on Thursday night we see something like this:

G. Ifill: "Governor Palin, what is your stand on the price of widgets in Mongolia?"

Palin: "Ahhh... ummm...", fingering down her list of talking points "Nukes?" "No", "Stock Market?" "No", "NAFTA?" "No" ...

Biden: :snickers behind fist:

Palin: "Umm, yanno Gwen?..." (throws talking points paper to the floor and does a 'Bulworth') "I don't know what my stand is on the price of widgets in Mongolia. I haven't studied the issue. But I DO know what I believe in: freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, free markets, and a government free of corruption, cronyism, vested interests, conflicts-of-interests, and personal gain over the good of its citizens."

"If I get the honor of being your Vice President, I won't take a dime of pay for it, and I won't accept the neat retirement package that comes with it. And whatever jobs President McCain gives me to do as Vice President, I will assemble the best and brightest minds I can find to help me be on top of the subject, just like I did in Alaska, and I'll actively seek contrary opinions to make sure I see all sides of the situation in question, and then I'll apply my own best judgment and values and come up with the decision that seems best for America... and best for the Mongolian widget-makers, too." (Big smile).

"Over to you, Joe."
-------------------------------
If I see even 10% of that non-answer, she's my girl.

So you want her to ignore all questions she doesn´t know **** about and just rattle off a bunch pre-prepared talking points that really don´t mean anything.....and really let´s face it....nobody in their right mind would reject the retirement package......so why lie so blatantly? :laugh4:

is she gonna do this for every question?...that might get a bit tiresome.... :juggle2:

Bullworth didn´t run from the questions....he spoke his opinion that no on else e had the balls to give to those questions ....so your suggestion doesn´t really compare.

[Koga No Goshi]

See this is why I like Biden. He says what were all thinking

The Republicans are clocking mad overtime hours training Palin to sing and dance anyway, couldn't they just rig some sort of costume malfunction?

[Strike For The South]

The Republicans are clocking mad overtime hours training Palin to sing and dance anyway, couldn't they just rig some sort of costume malfunction?

hehehehehheheheehhe

[Lemur]

Don't forget that the McCain campaign wanted (and got) the most limited possible debate format. If Palin is not cornered with follow-up questions and the kind of robust interaction that shows you whether or not somebody is bluffing, she might do just fine. If she can spit out glib generalities and smile, that may be enough to slide by.

[Don Corleone]

The Republicans are clocking mad overtime hours training Palin to sing and dance anyway, couldn't they just rig some sort of costume malfunction?

Forget Joe Biden, I think Kogo is the one with the stones to say what we're all thinking (God, I hope Prole isn't out there lurking....)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Guys, we're missing the real issues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbEEyTIVKMI) here.

That's the Green Party Presidential Candidate, by the way.

CR

[Big_John]

Guys, we're missing the real issues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbEEyTIVKMI) here.

That's the Green Party Presidential Candidate, by the way.

CR

i blame the increasing cost of healthcare for cynthia not being able to afford her meds.

[Koga No Goshi]

Nader is the 50+ equivalent of a child taking a temper tantrum when told he has to choose, EITHER the Crunch bar OR the lifesavers.

Not that the guy isn't smart, and doesn't say a lot of true things. He does. But his pigheaded refusal to do anything but roll out a carpet for himself once every four years, and not try to get his party elected to lower offices first and build up a serious coalition, and create a real third party, underlines the lack of dedication he really has to ending the two party system. I have yet to see him do anything to convince me that it isn't all about Nader.

[Spino]

Guys, we're missing the real issues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbEEyTIVKMI) here.

That's the Green Party Presidential Candidate, by the way.

CR

Wow ~:shock:

That's great! Reminds me of the 'gun train' conspiracy I caught wind of in the 90s. Kooky black militants believed that the reason behind all the black on black related gun deaths in the inner cities was because the CIA would fill up freight trains with stolen firearms and send them into the cities in the middle of the night. Turncoat blacks were then employed to spread the word to disenfranchised black youths who then helped themselves to the freebies and preyed upon their own community. No, I'm not making this up.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow ~:shock:

That's great! Reminds me of the 'gun train' conspiracy I caught wind of in the 90s. Kooky black militants believed that the reason behind all the black on black related gun deaths in the inner cities was because the CIA would fill up freight trains with stolen firearms and send them into the cities in the middle of the night. Turncoat blacks were then employed to spread the word to disenfranchised black youths who then helped themselves to the freebies and preyed upon their own community. No, I'm not making this up.

Can you prove that it didn't happen?

I just watched a video of Cynthia questioning Rumsfeld and the DOD. She is insane - she flips between like 10 points that have nothing to do with anything.

[CountArach]

I am interested in the race factor on the election how likely is a black or non white going to be able to overcome voter apathy about them. I mean I keep reading stuff about how the polls this time may have a larger margin for error due to not so much overt racisim but an unconscious reaction to Obama.

If this is true even a ten point in polls may not be enough to get the votes.
Ahha! My skills are at call again!

What you are referring to is the Bradley Effect where people who are polled will lie to pollsters about voting for a black man. This is because of a 1982 Gubernatorial race where all the polls showed Bradley (A black man) was going to win in a landslide, but on election day it was incredibly tight. People put this down to being secretly racist - which indeed was probably true at the time. However, since then a lot of good work has been done on this effect and whether or not it still exists.

Recently there was a Yahoo! poll which showed that Obama being black could cost him about 6% of the vote - which is an incredibly amount. However, there were several problems with it. Namely - they sampled all adults and not just voters (As Education increases the likelihood of being racist decreases and the likelihood of voting increases) and it does not determine how many people will vote for Obama because he is black.

This year there is no evidence (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html) of a Bradley effect. Obama consistently outperformed his polls on election day during the Primaries (Whether that is because there are fewer racists and more minorities in the Democratic party is hard to tell and entirely plausible in this case). There has been a lot of work done (http://people.iq.harvard.edu/~dhopkins/wilder13.pdf) on whether the Bradley effect still exists - conclusion: it only existed through the early 1990s and does not any more.

Take, for example, the 2006 Tennessee Senate election (http://www.pollster.com/polls/tn/06-tn-sen.php), which is regarded as the epitome of racially-charged elections. As the polling graph shows the expected result on election day was 46-50 against the Black Democrat. On election day he won. As can be seen, the polling had misjudged the race, in the wrong direction.

So I hope that answers your question.

[Don Corleone]

Guys, we're missing the real issues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbEEyTIVKMI) here.

That's the Green Party Presidential Candidate, by the way.

CR

Dude, if you're waiting for Cynthia McKinney to have a warddrobe malfunction.... seek help... immediately. :no:

[Tribesman]

Palins answers have been leaked .
http://interviewpalin.com/r2

[CountArach]

Palins answers have been leaked .
http://interviewpalin.com/r2
:laugh4:

[Ronin]

McCain makes the Freudian slip of the century?????

Did he just say he wants to be a dictator or am I crazy???? (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/10/wait-minute.html)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Dude, if you're waiting for Cynthia McKinney to have a warddrobe malfunction.... seek help... immediately. :no:

WTF? Where did you get that from?


McCain makes the Freudian slip of the century?????

It's a joke, delivered stone dry.

CR

[Don Corleone]

WTF? Where did you get that from?

CR

It was a joke. We were all joking about Sarah Palin having a wardrobe malfunction, and you posted that YouTube clip of the fruitbat. Was an apparently lame attempt at humor. :oops:

[m52nickerson]

Just to lighten things up (http://www.break.com/index/redneck-woman-rails-on-obama.html) a little ...

Link Caution: the linked video contains material Not Suitable For Work

-edit-

Hmm, when I listened to it all I could hear was one barely audible f-bomb muttered by the guy with no teeth. Maybe I'm missing something ...
People like that make my heart hurt.

[Lemur]

Things are looking up for the antichrist/crypto-muslim/Marxist/empty suit: Latest battleground polls (http://thepage.time.com/2008/10/01/more-data-shows-obama-battleground-strength/).

FLORIDA: Obama 51, McCain 47
MINNESOTA: Obama 54, McCain 43
MISSOURI: Obama 49, McCain 48
NEVADA: Obama 51, McCain 47
VIRGINIA: Obama 53, McCain 44

Dates conducted: Sept. 28-30. Error margin: Ranges from 3.5 to 4 points.

[CountArach]

Lots of other state polling today, while Lemur brings the topic up. As he posted earlier, Quinnipiac shows Obama with a widening lead in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Quinnipiac is one of the best pollsters in the business so it is worth paying attention to them. Suffolk University (http://www.suffolk.edu/research/31119.html) has Obama at 46-42 in Florida. Rasmussen (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rasmussen_ms_tn_tx_930.php) has the races in Mississippi and Texas inside single digits and a very tight Senate race in Mississippi - the Democrats need to win there to get to 60.

Oh and those sexists (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/opinion/polls/main4491938.shtml):

Women's perception of Palin has become increasingly negative. On Sept. 8th, Palin had a 47 percent favorable rating among women and a 19 percent unfavorable; now her favorable rating among the group is down to 30 percent, while her unfavorable has risen to 34 percent.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The smartest person isn't the one that knows it all, the smartest person is the one that knows he/she doesn't know it all. :yes:

Hasn't she made it abundantly evident that she had no clue she didn't know it all? :dizzy2:

[Big_John]

new palin interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bWXedryo0


edit: not a rickroll, just what it must feel like to be palin during an interview.

[Big_John]

a less esoteric video.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461

[Koga No Goshi]

Things are looking up for the antichrist/crypto-muslim/Marxist/empty suit: Latest battleground polls (http://thepage.time.com/2008/10/01/more-data-shows-obama-battleground-strength/).

FLORIDA: Obama 51, McCain 47
MINNESOTA: Obama 54, McCain 43
MISSOURI: Obama 49, McCain 48
NEVADA: Obama 51, McCain 47
VIRGINIA: Obama 53, McCain 44

Dates conducted: Sept. 28-30. Error margin: Ranges from 3.5 to 4 points.

The hell? Florida is a possible swing state again? I had no idea, from all the info I've seen since the start of campaign season. I thought the voter purges and systematic slimming of legitimately registered Dems took care of that.

[CountArach]

The hell? Florida is a possible swing state again? I had no idea, from all the info I've seen since the start of campaign season. I thought the voter purges and systematic slimming of legitimately registered Dems took care of that.
Florida is most certainly a swing state and has moved a few points in Obama's direction, putting him slightly ahead in Pollster.com's graph (http://www.pollster.com/polls/fl/08-fl-pres-ge-mvo.php).

[Koga No Goshi]

Florida is most certainly a swing state and has moved a few points in Obama's direction, putting him slightly ahead in Pollster.com's graph (http://www.pollster.com/polls/fl/08-fl-pres-ge-mvo.php).

Well spank my rear end and call me Katherine Harris.

[CountArach]

Well spank my rear end and call me Katherine Harris.
Katherine Harris.

I would rather skip the spanking though.

[Koga No Goshi]

Katherine Harris.

I would rather skip the spanking though.

But that's the fun part. :embarassed:

[Lemur]

A little something to munch on before tonight's debate: Palin's Greatest Hits (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E).


The hell? Florida is a possible swing state again? I had no idea, from all the info I've seen since the start of campaign season. I thought the voter purges and systematic slimming of legitimately registered Dems took care of that.
Heck, that ain't confined (http://www.alternet.org/democracy/92695/?page=entire) to Florida. Ohio appears to be the most priolific voter purger this year, with estimates of 600,000 people being sliced off the rolls. Seems the GOP's last gasp is to try to swing the election through purges and voter caging. Not to mention whatever shennanigans they can pull off with the touchscreen voting machines manufactured (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm) by their cronies (http://www.bradblog.com/DieboldContributions.htm).

Kinda makes old-fashioned, big-city machine corruption seem quaint and homey, doesn't it?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The person in charge of elections in Ohio a democrat...last I saw they were mailing absentee ballot applications to everyone.

[Don Corleone]

One little note of realism I'd like to inject into the 2008 election. Something's been bothering me about the bailout, but it's grown and it really now is a more appropriate concern to raise here.

Has anybody else noticed that the National Debt has slowly climbed up over 10-TRILLION (you read that right) dollars? Has anybody noticed that policies advocated by both Obama (increased taxes, increased spending) and McCain (decreased taxes, decreased spending) will grow the debt? Neither is talking about shrinking the deficit, let alone paying down the debt.

I think this is going to be my political focus from here on out. Not Republican, not Democrat... Concord Coalition advocate. The sad part is, even the Cato Institute and National Review refer to the Concord Coalition as "largely irrelvant". Guess nobody cares that we're stealing from our children.

[Xiahou]

The person in charge of elections in Ohio a democrat...last I saw they were mailing absentee ballot applications to everyone.IIRC, they're allowing you to get a register and get a ballot on the same day. Some might see that as a recipe for fraud. But, nah, no one would try to make fraudulent (http://www.epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=171) registrations. :sweatdrop:


Not to mention whatever shennanigans they can pull off with the touchscreen voting machines manufactured by their cronies.Has there ever been an informed or credible allegation of touch screen voter tampering? ~:handball:

[Gregoshi]

Yeah, but in Ohio, all you need to register to vote is the last four digits of "your" social security number. ~;) Ohio Registration form (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/publications/election/VRform.pdf). Even when applying in person, you don't have to provide ID according to the application - just the last four digits of "your" social security number. Amazing.

[Gregoshi]

Has there ever been an informed or credible allegation of touch screen voter tampering? ~:handball:
Maybe not, but experience with computers and electronics over the past decades screams warnings in my head. IIRC, my issue is that there is no paper trail with these machines. There are no hanging chads to debate about.

This may be an issue better handled in another thread.

[Spino]

One little note of realism I'd like to inject into the 2008 election. Something's been bothering me about the bailout, but it's grown and it really now is a more appropriate concern to raise here.

Has anybody else noticed that the National Debt has slowly climbed up over 10-TRILLION (you read that right) dollars? Has anybody noticed that policies advocated by both Obama (increased taxes, increased spending) and McCain (decreased taxes, decreased spending) will grow the debt? Neither is talking about shrinking the deficit, let alone paying down the debt.

I think this is going to be my political focus from here on out. Not Republican, not Democrat... Concord Coalition advocate. The sad part is, even the Cato Institute and National Review refer to the Concord Coalition as "largely irrelvant". Guess nobody cares that we're stealing from our children.

That estimate does not take into account our obligations to fund Social Security & Medicare...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt


On 1 October 2008, the total U.S. federal debt passed the $10 trillion mark, for the first time[2], with about $32,895 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] Adding unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar obligations, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household.[4] In 2007, the public debt was 36.9 percent of GDP [5], with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[6] The CIA ranked the total percentage as 26th in the world.[7]

~:shock:

There's no end in sight. It's an endless cycle of stupidity. Now watch, should Obama get elected this Fall the Dems will embark on a tax & spend campaign to rival that which took place during Bush's administration (the $300 billion Farm bill & these pork laden bailout bills are just the beginning). Corporate taxes will go up which will lead to more people finding themselves unemployed which in turn will increase the burden on unemployment benefits and welfare. The fallout from the existing financial crisis (which many believe is just getting started) will force the banks that managed to survive to exhibit ultra-conservative lending practices thus preventing the private sector from kick starting the economy back on the right track. It is entirely possible that within two years the Republicans may find themselves back into the majority in the Senate in 2010 and, should Obama get elected this Fall, he will find himself a one term, much disliked President making his exit in 2012. Obama will be replaced by another Republican of the same generation who, with the help of a Republican dominated Congress, will perpetuate the cycle. Clearly you can see I have zero faith that the ship will right itself, I am inclined to think that it simply is incapable of doing so anymore.

The truly amazing part is that our financial woes are completely of our own design. No natural disaster, great war or crippling reparations have foisted this situation upon us. In the alarmingly short span of a single generation we've gone from a nation of conservative spenders & savers to a nation of debtors & credit junkies who refuse to stop shooting up.

[Don Corleone]

Put a fork in him, (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/02/mccain-obama-lead-growing-because-%e2%80%9clife-isn%e2%80%99t-fair%e2%80%9d/) he's done. Americans can tolerate a lot, but whining about how "life's just not fair" is not a winning strategy. Not exactly certain what McCain thought he was going to do with this statement, but I can't see it doing anything to pull him out of his recent tailspin. He better start praying that Palin hits a homerun. Given that Katie was actually being uncharacteristically easy on her, I don't see that happening.

By the way, does anybody actually think that Katie reads the NY Times or Mother Jones News or any of the other places she gets her talking points from? I mean, she's not running for office, but I don't think reading the WSJ every day qualifies me for anything but a nap.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Put a fork in him, (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/02/mccain-obama-lead-growing-because-%e2%80%9clife-isn%e2%80%99t-fair%e2%80%9d/) he's done. Americans can tolerate a lot, but whining about how "life's just not fair" is not a winning strategy. Not exactly certain what McCain thought he was going to do with this statement, but I can't see it doing anything to pull him out of his recent tailspin. He better start praying that Palin hits a homerun. Given that Katie was actually being uncharacteristically easy on her, I don't see that helping.

:shocked2: McCain actually said that? Wow.



By the way, does anybody actually think that Katie reads the NY Times or Mother Jones News or any of the other places she gets her talking points from? I mean, she's not running for office, but I don't think reading the WSJ every day qualifies me for anything but a nap.

Well, at least you can quote their names. :bounce:

[Strike For The South]

Put a fork in him, (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/02/mccain-obama-lead-growing-because-%e2%80%9clife-isn%e2%80%99t-fair%e2%80%9d/) he's done. Americans can tolerate a lot, but whining about how "life's just not fair" is not a winning strategy. Not exactly certain what McCain thought he was going to do with this statement, but I can't see it doing anything to pull him out of his recent tailspin. He better start praying that Palin hits a homerun. Given that Katie was actually being uncharacteristically easy on her, I don't see that happening.

By the way, does anybody actually think that Katie reads the NY Times or Mother Jones News or any of the other places she gets her talking points from? I mean, she's not running for office, but I don't think reading the WSJ every day qualifies me for anything but a nap.

Those are some odd remarks coming from someone like McCain. I mean its not like it matters. The govmerment is already starting Obamas job by buying our banks.We are becoming like every-other liberal democracy out there. We spent our first 230 years trying to run from Europe and now we are sprinting back to her. Disgusting.


Odds for tonight


Biden Calls Palin a

Dollface 50-1
little lady 40-1
Girl 25-1
Honey 15-1
Sweetheart 4-1

Biden makes another gaffe trying to bring in conserative voters

3-1

Palin makes a joke about

The Bush doctrine 6-1
Being a "Redneck" 5-1
Hockey moms and pitbulls 15-1

The current economy comes up +/- 50 times

Times Palin mentions her daughters pregnancy +/- 1 time

Times Strike cuts his wrists because of the woman's horrid accent +/-Allot

Times its mentioned that the moderator is blantanly biased +/- 1 time

Palin wins 500-1

Biden wins 5-1

We lose Even

[Lemur]

Has there ever been an informed or credible allegation of touch screen voter tampering? ~:handball:
Caught on video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ), no less.

[gaelic cowboy]

What time in US is the debate tonight I heard Biden and Palin were up tonight.

It will prob be streamed on interweb I imagine.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Caught on video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ), no less.

Nice. So much whining about alleged vote tampering by machines from democrats, and not a damned peep on groups like ACORN, who's contractors made up thousands of fake names and registered them (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003808207_votefraud27m.html) (at times, while smoking pot, which could lead to interesting fake names).

ACORN (http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html), for those wondering.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

IIRC, they're allowing you to get a register and get a ballot on the same day. Some might see that as a recipe for fraud. But, nah, no one would try to make fraudulent (http://www.epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=171) registrations. :sweatdrop:

Has there ever been an informed or credible allegation of touch screen voter tampering? ~:handball:

Hehe, Republican faux concern over election fraud, when in Presidential elections it has overwhelmingly benefitted them, not Dems.


Nice. So much whining about alleged vote tampering by machines from democrats, and not a damned peep on groups like ACORN, who's contractors made up thousands of fake names and registered them (at times, while smoking pot, which could lead to interesting fake names).

ACORN, for those wondering.


Ah yes. So many elections have swung our way because of institutionalized voter fraud. Isn't that guy who used to run elections in Ohio in Federal prison now? Hmm. Wasn't he a Rep?

[Koga No Goshi]

Now watch, should Obama get elected this Fall the Dems will embark on a tax & spend campaign to rival that which took place during Bush's administration (the $300 billion Farm bill & these pork laden bailout bills are just the beginning).

You guys have been saying this about any and every Dem for decades. And yet the tax and inflate the deficit spending Democratic boogeyman has failed to materialize. Somehow the boogeyman you describe has always shown up with an R after his name, and cut taxes, while increasing spending, since Reagan.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Koga:

Voter fraud has, historically, benefited the Democrat party far more than the GOP. Most of the great political "machines" in the larger cities were all Democrat groups. Admittedly, the Democrat party was quite different in those days.

Since 1960, however, there are few credible and confirmed reports of any significant degree of voter fraud by either party. Election mis-cues are mostly bad management/planning -- and both parties have screwed things up off and on.

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga:

Voter fraud has, historically, benefited the Democrat party far more than the GOP. Most of the great political "machines" in the larger cities were all Democrat groups. Admittedly, the Democrat party was quite different in those days.

Since 1960, however, there are few credible and confirmed reports of any significant degree of voter fraud by either party. Election mis-cues are mostly bad management/planning -- and both parties have screwed things up off and on.

Thick wool blinders there, friend. The voter purges have been huge, there have been indictments.. I don't know how that qualifies as "few credible and confirmed reports of any significant degree of voter fraud." And, strangely, it only happens in swing states at a noticeable level. Odd. Coincidence.

[Tribesman]

You guys have been saying this about any and every Dem for decades. And yet the tax and inflate the deficit spending Democratic boogeyman has failed to materialize. Somehow the boogeyman you describe has always shown up with an R after his name, and cut taxes, while increasing spending, since Reagan.

Well you gotta understand this , it works on many levels .........
I like a bunch of mules but it would be worse if the other mules got in .
My idiots might be incompetant but the other idiots might be incompetant too .
I am right but you are wrong even when you are correct
I may be wrong but not as wrong as you
I might be wrong but that is only because my choice wasn't really my choice nd my views ar not really my views.........

Once you get them few basics under you belt you should have no trouble understanding the "conseratives" on this forum:2thumbsup:

[Koga No Goshi]

Well you gotta understand this , it works on many levels .........
I like a bunch of mules but it would be worse if the other mules got in .
My idiots might be incompetant but the other idiots might be incompetant too .
I am right but you are wrong even when you are correct
I may be wrong but not as wrong as you
I might be wrong but that is only because my choice wasn't really my choice nd my views ar not really my views.........

Once you get them few basics under you belt you should have no trouble understanding the "conseratives" on this forum:2thumbsup:

The formula for conservatives anywhere in America (correction, GOP/Republicans/neocon policy supporters, true conservatives are Dem at this point) is Groupthink + Projection. Anything they do, they imagine we do worse, and insist it loudly on airwaves and forums until it becomes de facto fact.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The formula for conservatives anywhere in America (correction, GOP/Republicans/neocon policy supporters, true conservatives are Dem at this point) is Groupthink + Projection. Anything they do, they imagine we do worse, and insist it loudly on airwaves and forums until it becomes de facto fact.Why, I tend to agree. :2thumbsup:

In the mind of the conservatives, still the Democrats are the Big Government party. Yet America's Big Government party has been the Republicans for three decades now. Decrease taxes, increase expenditure, pass the bill on to the next generation and après moi, le déluge.
Conservatism in America is a big plasma television on credit, four SUV's for America's millionaires, and the calm assurance of outstanding moral quality by oppossing gays and abortion. Family values? That is Republican newspeak for mortgaging your children to the Chinese and Arabs.

[Don Corleone]

First, Koga... How about a link to Dick Cheney stealing ballot boxes across Ohio and Pennsylvania. If it's 1/10th as common as you claim, you should be able to find a story about it someplace besides the DailyKos.

But then again, if you're letting Tribesman lead you by the nose, by all means, follow his example. Cast dispersions on other people's sources until you're blue in the face, but never, ever, not once cite one of your own. Yep, that's true credibility.

Louis, you wound me to the core. Sadly you are correct. There are no fiscal conservatives in the race, and frankly, there were scant few in the primaries either. The one thing, other than gales of laughter, Ron Paul offered the race was talk about balanced budgets and debt repayment. Sadly, even this is gone now too.

I think I'm going to vote in the election and refuse to pick a presidential candidate.

[Koga No Goshi]

First, Koga... How about a link to Dick Cheney stealing ballot boxes across Ohio and Pennsylvania. If it's 1/10th as common as you claim, you should be able to find a story about it someplace besides the DailyKos.

But then again, if you're letting Tribesman lead you by the nose, by all means, follow his example. Cast dispersions on other people's sources until you're blue in the face, but never, ever, not once cite one of your own. Yep, that's true credibility.

Louis, you wound me to the core. Sadly you are correct. There are no fiscal conservatives in the race, and frankly, there were scant few in the primaries either. The one thing, other than gales of laughter, Ron Paul offered the race was talk about balanced budgets and debt repayment. Sadly, even this is gone now too.

I think I'm going to vote in the election and refuse to pick a presidential candidate.

Did I even mention Dick Cheney?

I'm not letting anyone lead me around by the nose, there are a zillion books on election fraud, many of them even written by ex-Republican operatives. Anyone who wasn't in a partisan coma throughout 2000 and 2004 knew it was happening.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/exitpolls.html

http://www.eriposte.com/election04/2004_results_1.htm

http://robola.wordpress.com/2006/04/06/3-indicted-for-ohio-election-fraud/

There's a ton more out there.

[Don Corleone]

Did I even mention Dick Cheney?

I'm not letting anyone lead me around by the nose, there are a zillion books on election fraud, many of them even written by ex-Republican operatives. Anyone who wasn't in a partisan coma throughout 2000 and 2004 knew it was happening.

You said it was widespread and organized GOP ballot stealing and voter turnaway programs. Put your money where your mouth is. I injected Dick Cheney because isn't he Darth Vader in your universe?

Instead of just saying "a zillion books..." how about you actually offer some verifiable testimony to it?

[Koga No Goshi]

You said it was widespread and organized GOP ballot stealing and voter turnaway programs. Put your money where your mouth is. I injected Dick Cheney because isn't he Darth Vader in your universe?

Instead of just saying "a zillion books..." how about you actually offer some verifiable testimony to it?

Well my mom's whole family is from Ohio, and in their Democratic voting district they stood in line until past 11pm because of "broken machines and not enough paper ballots", besides the wealth of online research and books, what the heck are you asking for? In some districts more Bush votes were tabulated than there were even registered voters in the district. This is well known funny business.

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/with_hava_kathe.html

yet another.

The fact that these all occurred in states with, at the time, Republican control of state government, were important swing states, and all the shifts went from Dem leads to Bush wins, should be highly suspicious to someone not just engaging in partisan damage control and denial.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Ohio-Documentary-Election/dp/1595580697/ref=pd_rhf_f_t_cs_3

One example:
Total number of votes received by Bush in Gahanna, Ohio, Ward 1B: 4,258
• Total number of ballots cast in Gahanna, Ohio, Ward 1B: 638

[Don Corleone]

Well my mom's whole family is from Ohio, and in their Democratic voting district they stood in line until past 11pm because of "broken machines and not enough paper ballots", besides the wealth of online research and books, what the heck are you asking for? In some districts more Bush votes were tabulated than there were even registered voters in the district. This is well known funny business.

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/with_hava_kathe.html

yet another.

The fact that these all occurred in states with, at the time, Republican control of state government, were important swing states, and all the shifts went from Dem leads to Bush wins, should be highly suspicious to someone not just engaging in partisan damage control and denial.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Ohio-Documentary-Election/dp/1595580697/ref=pd_rhf_f_t_cs_3

One example:
Total number of votes received by Bush in Gahanna, Ohio, Ward 1B: 4,258
• Total number of ballots cast in Gahanna, Ohio, Ward 1B: 638

Your first source actually makes the DailyKos look balanced and well-reasoned by comparison. It will cite Al Jazeera as a news source, as well as Al Babawa, the World Socialist the Center for American Progress and The Nation (the self-described Flagship of the Left), yet cannot bring itself to cite award winning periodicals such as the Wall Street Journal.

Your second source is a book by a candidate from the Green Party (Fatrakis) and the head of Greenpeace (Wasserman). Nope, no bias there....

Just as I suspected, no objective, verifiable evidence at all.

Seriously, find something from the Atlantic or the Washington Post... lefty rags that I actually have some faith in.

Edit: I apologize, this is probably a little aggressive on my response for somebody with a fairly recent return. It's something of a Backroom expecation that when you levy a claim against a public figure, you'll supply some objective links to provide evidence. The sources you cite are pretty Leftist, but if it makes you feel any better, FoxNews typically isn't accepted either. Neither is National Review, and if I were to take issue, it would be with that. National Review does have a slant, all publications do, but it's a quality periodical, as is the Atlantic, which has a left slant, but is also a quality journal.

The website you cited, and the links it provides on its page, are nothing of the sort. Sorry.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah yes. So many elections have swung our way because of institutionalized voter fraud. Isn't that guy who used to run elections in Ohio in Federal prison now? Hmm. Wasn't he a Rep?

Strawman. Voter fraud in Washington state isn't institutionalized, it's a number of separate people gaming the system to help, mainly, democrats.

CR

[Don Corleone]

Koga,

Sorry, just noticed your new links in your earlier post. Did you just add them?

Sorry, Oilempire.us and Rolling Stone don't qualify as objective. You also cite a couple of foreign papers. I can't speak to their reputations, as I don't know them, but I would believe that a domestic paper would have better information on this story, no?

I'll make it easy on you. I'll allow the Chicago Sun, the NY Times and the L.A. Times. Can you show me where one of these left leaning (and more partisan) papers claims Bush and the GOP stole votes in Ohio? How about USA Today? All of these papers were backing Kerry heavily. Surely, if the GOP stole votes in 2004, they'd raise the issue...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Palin seems to be doing pretty good in the debate. Only been watching for 10-15 minutes.

CR

[Don Corleone]

I think she seems nervous, but coherent. She's focusing on energy a little too much, but a little rope-a-dope ain't a bad thing if that's all you've got.

Now where she is winning strongly is she's got Joe a little steamed. When she threw the phrase "redistribution of wealth" at him, I thought he was going to come unglued. He's calmed down, but it's always the first slip that let's the genie out of the bottle. My prediction, before the debate is over, Biden's going to tell her to "Shut up", or otherwise be dismissive and overly antagonistic.

[CrossLOPER]

https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/palin_lol5.jpg

[Marshal Murat]

Watching the debate, it's pretty much a 2nd presidential debate, just by proxy. It's frustrating that I don't hear what THEY think, only what "John" or "Barack" thinks about something. I appreciate the concern you have, but what are you going to do as Vice-President to help these issues. I just can't stand it.

The beginning was rocky (soccer fields? Palin winks? Joey the gas station attendant?) but I think that the night will go well.

If it doesn't, McCain can call Ifill out on being a pseudo-commy Obama plant.

[Don Corleone]

I think Palin's showing she's not the dummy she came off in the Couric interviews, but she's not exactly Cato the Younger of statesman either. Joe is... well, he's being Joe. I think he may have played his hand a little... I think his repeated and vehement claim that John McCain cut funding to the troops to the tune of 1.5 billion is going to come back to bite him.

The Iran issue is never going to settle. Obama and Biden don't seem to mind letting Iran get nuclear arms, McCain and Palin want to start a 3rd front. Surely there's got to be a 3rd option.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Teehee Biden said Bush's a lot.

And he keeps referring to himself in the third person.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think Palin's showing she's not the dummy she came off in the Couric interviews, but she's not exactly Cato the Younger of statesman either. Joe is... well, he's being Joe. I think he may have played his hand a little... I think his repeated and vehement claim that John McCain cut funding to the troops to the tune of 1.5 billion is going to come back to bite him.

The Iran issue is never going to settle. Obama and Biden don't seem to mind letting Iran get nuclear arms, McCain and Palin want to start a 3rd front. Surely there's got to be a 3rd option.

I'm impressed and take back my concerns gained from the past two interviews.
I especially liked when Biden kept saying "George Bushes" in that weird squirrelly accents. I kept thinking of an army of tiny "Bushes".

Biden seems tired and kind of crazy tonight.

[Lemur]

Sorry, Oilempire.us and Rolling Stone don't qualify as objective.
What's with Rolling Stone suddenly being on the "dismiss with prejudice" list? They're a serious place for journalism, you unread idjits. Where did the reporting for Generation Kill originate? Oh, yeah, with a Rolling Stone embed. Where did P.J. O'Rourke do the majority of his publishing for the last twenty years? Oh, yeah, Rolling Stone.

They don't do a ton of political reporting, but when they do it's at high standards. Just because you don't like hippies doesn't give you the right to dismiss a place with a long history of serious journalism. And while we're at it, Playboy does some serious reporting as well. Enjoy these fine magazine while they're around. By the time I'm an old(er) man, it's all gonna be blogs and news agglomerators.

-edit-

Question: Is the veep debate worth watching? Gimme your verdict when it's done. I have it on Tivo, but I don't have a ton of time to waste.

[Proletariat]

Palin's doing fine. Everyone knew she would be a little subpar here, and the fact that she hasn't embarrassed herself after all the hype going into this Biden 'slaughtering' is prolly a net win.

One thing that's certainly evident, the Democrat's have the wrong guy as the vp. This should be Biden's ticket.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Question: Is the veep debate worth watching? Gimme your verdict when it's done. I have it on Tivo, but I don't have a ton of time to waste.

Hmm. No blowouts or important lines. Palin's doing fine, really, so none of the predicted slaughter. Heck, she's had a couple humorous lines.

I think the biggest impact will be Palin doing fine and undoing a lot of damage from interviews.

CR

[CountArach]

I think Biden has won (So far... I have to go to work soon), but Palin exceeded expectations and didn't make any serious gaffes. Biden also didn't come off as condescending.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think it was a real tie. I have been profoundly impressed by Palin so far in this debate. After the past few weeks I was soo afraid.

Lemur it is absolutely worth watching. Better than the Obama/McCain debate.

[Don Corleone]

Is it just me, or did Palin strike a nerve with Biden when she talked about the role of VP as being quasi-legislative? He got upset and started talking about Dick Cheney being the most dangerous VP in history. I'm not arguing with him that Cheney's interpretation of the role of VP, from a Constitutional position is dead wrong. But Joe seemed to be talking about Vlad Dracul there for a moment... I was waiting for a nervous twitch to break out.

[seireikhaan]

Biden won the debate. Palin did about as I expected. I figured there was no way the McCain camp would let her not be prepared for the debate. I've been in debate: Biden brought up far more examples; Palin was far more rhetorical based.

[Koga No Goshi]

Your first source actually makes the DailyKos look balanced and well-reasoned by comparison. It will cite Al Jazeera as a news source, as well as Al Babawa, the World Socialist the Center for American Progress and The Nation (the self-described Flagship of the Left), yet cannot bring itself to cite award winning periodicals such as the Wall Street Journal.

Your second source is a book by a candidate from the Green Party (Fatrakis) and the head of Greenpeace (Wasserman). Nope, no bias there....

Just as I suspected, no objective, verifiable evidence at all.

Seriously, find something from the Atlantic or the Washington Post... lefty rags that I actually have some faith in.

Edit: I apologize, this is probably a little aggressive on my response for somebody with a fairly recent return. It's something of a Backroom expecation that when you levy a claim against a public figure, you'll supply some objective links to provide evidence. The sources you cite are pretty Leftist, but if it makes you feel any better, FoxNews typically isn't accepted either. Neither is National Review, and if I were to take issue, it would be with that. National Review does have a slant, all publications do, but it's a quality periodical, as is the Atlantic, which has a left slant, but is also a quality journal.

The website you cited, and the links it provides on its page, are nothing of the sort. Sorry.

Do you believe there are hard vote counts or not? You believe numbers are subjective too? I realize everything else is in a Republican worldview. But if there is some grand conspiracy by the left to simply make up numerical inconsistencies in the election and numbers of ballots thrown out, I'm yet to see any evidence of THAT assertion.

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga,

Sorry, just noticed your new links in your earlier post. Did you just add them?

Sorry, Oilempire.us and Rolling Stone don't qualify as objective. You also cite a couple of foreign papers. I can't speak to their reputations, as I don't know them, but I would believe that a domestic paper would have better information on this story, no?

I'll make it easy on you. I'll allow the Chicago Sun, the NY Times and the L.A. Times. Can you show me where one of these left leaning (and more partisan) papers claims Bush and the GOP stole votes in Ohio? How about USA Today? All of these papers were backing Kerry heavily. Surely, if the GOP stole votes in 2004, they'd raise the issue...

I'm not here to jump through hoops. The New York Times had many articles on exactly this topic but I figured you'd dismiss that also as a "left wing rag." Do your own research; it is clear to me that your mind is made up on the issue, on no basis except self-serving partisan skepticism over something that swung the elections in your party's favor in 2000 and 2004. So this seems to be a waste of time, me running around finding links.

[Don Corleone]

Do you believe there are hard vote counts or not? You believe numbers are subjective too? I realize everything else is in a Republican worldview. But if there is some grand conspiracy by the left to simply make up numerical inconsistencies in the election and numbers of ballots thrown out, I'm yet to see any evidence of THAT assertion.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I haven't made any assertions one way or the other. You're the one that levelled the accusation that the GOP has been widely fixing elections for the past few years, in an organized fashion. I asked you for some proof of that assertion. You offered some sources, granted, but nothing even close to mainstream. Wouldn't the NY Times, that has had an axe to grind with Bush since before the 2000 election, publish any story, even of marginal credibility, if it could find one?

If Obama wins next month, and I think that's more than likely at this point, I'm not going to run around crying "vote-fixing".

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I haven't made any assertions one way or the other. You're the one that levelled the accusation that the GOP has been widely fixing elections for the past few years, in an organized fashion. I asked you for some proof of that assertion. You offered some sources, granted, but nothing even close to mainstream. Wouldn't the NY Times, that has had an axe to grind with Bush since before the 2000 election, publish any story, even of marginal credibility, if it could find one?

Sooner or later, you are going to have to accept that Bush won in 2000 and 2004 without all the hinjinx you want to chalk it up to.

No, I responded to the assertion that voting fraud benefits Democrats more than Republicans, of which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in our lifetimes that this has been true on a level which has measurably helped the Dems win elections they shouldn't have.

And, amazing. You say you have no stance, and then "Sooner or later, you are going to have to accept that Bush won in 2000 and 2004 without all the hinjinx you want to chalk it up to." Yeah, it doesn't sound like your mind was made up in advance of any evidence.

There is no point in discussion if you are dishonest about your stances and the irrelevance of evidence. Anyone can sit here and dismiss facts, figures and numbers. But if that's all you're here to do then there is no point in continuing discussion with anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[Don Corleone]

Like I said in another thread, Koga, I thought you could discuss things rationally with people you might disagree with. I guess I was wrong. I'll make it a note not to bother you in the future and not respond to your posts.

[Koga No Goshi]

Like I said in another thread, Koga, I thought you could discuss things rationally with people you might disagree with. I guess I was wrong. I'll make it a note not to bother you in the future and not respond to your posts.

Please do. You are an ideologue and you make the pretense of wanting to look at evidence, which you then just dismiss out of hand if it doesn't agree with what you already believe in advance. So yes, I quite agree, there is no further point.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sounds like a mini-meltdown (http://www.wegoted.com/) in the McCain campaign:


Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."



Wishful thinking, Leemster?:laugh4:

Palin did great. CNN seems to think she won. :2thumbsup:

Oh and Biden apparently lied quite a bit... nothing new really... :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Please do. You are an ideologue and you make the pretense of wanting to look at evidence, which you then just dismiss out of hand if it doesn't agree with what you already believe in advance. So yes, I quite agree, there is no further point.

Yea you are right - Don is a crazy ideologue who votes across the board with Bush, Cheney and the rest of the conservative masterminds.

Thank you, opinionated Berkley grad that is objective in all things, I can finally see now that you are the rational one and that Don is a mindless minion of the New American Century.

Cover it up all you'd like, Don (if that is your real name) We'll find evidence that you blew up the twin towers for the U.S. government and mossad. You days in the slimey conservative shadows are numbered.:clown:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wishful thinking, Leemster?:laugh4:

Palin did great. CNN seems to think she won. :2thumbsup:

Oh and Biden apparently lied quite a bit... nothing new really... :shrug:

CNN and Fox believe that she won. I am impressed.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yea you are right - Don is a crazy ideologue who votes across the board with Bush, Cheney and the rest of the conservative masterminds.

Thank you, opinionated Berkley grad that is objective in all things, I can finally see now that you are the rational one and that Don is a mindless minion of the New American Century.

Cover it up all you'd like, Don (if that is your real name) We'll find evidence that you blew up the twin towers for the U.S. government and mossad. You days in the slimey conservative shadows are numbered.:clown:

Continue basing your views on ideology, ignoring evidence, continue voting the same way, and continue believing that the reasons things don't change is just because "this time, it was managed badly. But the basic ideology is still correct." That mentality underlines most of the conservatives around the boards here. But don't demand people go around getting evidence if you're just going to start squealing about left wing bias here, left wing bias there, left wing bias everywhere and then discredit all available information. It's dishonest and it's wasting other poster's time. If you believe what you believe because you believe it and no facts or figures are going to budge that view be up front and honest and say so as a courtesy to people.

[PanzerJaeger]

Continue basing your views on ideology, ignoring evidence, continue voting the same way, and continue believing that the reasons things don't change is just because "this time, it was managed badly. But the basic ideology is still correct." That mentality underlines most of the conservatives around the boards here.

Do you realize how hypocritical you sound? Every time you say "conservative", it could be replaced with "liberal" without much mention.

[seireikhaan]

Wishful thinking, Leemster?:laugh4:

Palin did great. CNN seems to think she won. :2thumbsup:

Oh and Biden apparently lied quite a bit... nothing new really... :shrug:
Now who's lying? Panzer, I was watching CNN- there was ONE person out of their staff of 8 who stated that Palin scored better than Biden on the debate.

[Don Corleone]

Yea you are right - Don is a crazy ideologue who votes across the board with Bush, Cheney and the rest of the conservative masterminds.

Thank you, opinionated Berkley grad that is objective in all things, I can finally see now that you are the rational one and that Don is a mindless minion of the New American Century.

Cover it up all you'd like, Don (if that is your real name) We'll find evidence that you blew up the twin towers for the U.S. government and mossad. You days in the slimey conservative shadows are numbered.:clown: :whip::whip::whip::whip: SILENCE THRALL!!! One more word about my allegiances to the Illuminati Octosquid overlords, and I'll send Dick Cheney to come take you in your sleep!. :whip::whip::whip:

[PanzerJaeger]

Now who's lying? Panzer, I was watching CNN- there was ONE person out of their staff of 8 who stated that Palin scored better than Biden on the debate.

You are. They led off discussing her "winning" the debate and the panel broadly agreed.

[seireikhaan]

You are. They led off discussing her "winning" the debate and the panel broadly agreed.
This is going to be a "nu uh" moment, I see. I saw nothing where they said she "won" the "debate". They generally agreed that she accomplished what she needed to do, which was reassure conservatives. That's not the same as "winning" the "debate".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think the pundits will blather on about how "a loss is a win" for palin given her interviews, yada yada. But Biden was the clear winner in the debate. Palin was unrehearsed on many issues and either fell back on her base reply of "maverick change reform" or talked about energy even when it wasn't relevant. Her lack of knowledge won't sway too many voters though (they've already been swayed by the interviews). I don't think anyone who thought she wasn't qualified to be president will have their minds changed by this debate. Biden gave an excellent performance.

I think you have to factor in what was said about McCain and Obama though. People will still decide more on them than the vp's. Biden attacked McCain throughout. He hit him on the economy, on iraq, on not being a maverick, on taxes, and on energy. Palin hardly mentioned obama in comparison. She tried to stick him with "voted against the troops" (which didn't work for McCain) and then tried it again even after Biden had dismissed it. I can't recall anything else she tried to attack obama with. Most of her gotcha statements were about biden disagreeing with obama--so her answer on the question about the differences between her and mccain was amusing. The rest of the time she hit the same tone she hit in her speech at the rnc.

I think the polls will show that biden won the debate, I don't know how much of an effect it will have. Probably not much, I think most of McCain's dive in the polls has been because of the economy.

I'm sure factcheck will have a seizure talking about how much of a percentage so and so was off on the number they gave and whether McCain voted against it or didn't vote blah blah.

[Koga No Goshi]

Palin "won" only because the bar was so incredibly low that she managed to jump over it by not completely choking up, not having an answer, or saying something incredibly and obviously incorrect that everyone could spot right away. Which is the expectation set by all her earlier interviews. As far as actually winning on the points, nope. She dodged several questions and never answered them, went back to talking about Alaska, being a hockey mom and energy (the things all the pundits predicted she would, since that resonated at the height of her popularity at her speech at the RNC) and other than that basically tried to sell everyone on the idea that McCain is for all exactly the same things and changes that Obama is for. Except Obama will raise your taxes. (You being = people making 250,000 or more, but that part always gets glossed over.) Not a word about how they would balance the budget especially in light of McCain's proposed 300 billion in tax cuts for the rich, just sort of a vague comment she made about "cutting spending." ANd she didn't answer the question about what they would cut from McCain's platform given the economic crisis. Obama and Biden while still vague on occasion at least admitted that they would have to make changes when the budget comes in and they see what the revenues and deficit look like in January.

So the message I'm still getting from the McCain camp is, "Trust us, have faith in us, believe in us, don't look at the voting record, don't look at how we supported Bush and right-wing ideological policies, we're really for change and reform, regulation, alternative energy and change change change. Except in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the surge, tax cuts for the rich. But we will change Washington."

[seireikhaan]

Palin "won" only because the bar was so incredibly low that she managed to jump over it by not completely choking up, not having an answer, or saying something incredibly and obviously incorrect that everyone could spot right away.
NO. Debate isn't about what you expected to happen prior to it. Its about what happened DURING the debate. If that was supposed to be a debate, Biden won. IF, being the key word. As it is, there is nothing to grade; it was a bunch of stump speeches, some of which didn't even correspond to the question queried before hand.

[Koga No Goshi]

NO. Debate isn't about what you expected to happen prior to it. Its about what happened DURING the debate. If that was supposed to be a debate, Biden won. IF, being the key word. As it is, there is nothing to grade; it was a bunch of stump speeches, some of which didn't even correspond to the question queried before hand.

That's why I put it in parenthesis. "Won" meaning 'previously very worried conservatives have been reassured because she wasn't as bad as previous interviews." She didn't win in a point vs. point sense, or real debate sense.

[Lemur]

I think any talk tonight about who "won" in some broad, absolute sense is just silly. You can say who won for you, but until there's polling data the rest is just hot air. Remember that these cable channels have 24 hours they have to fill somehow. Idiots sitting around a table discussing who "won" a debate is a cheap way to kill an hour.

Look at the first McCain/Obama debate. I was completely convinced it was a draw, but the polling over the next few days showed me what an idiot I am.

[Koga No Goshi]

I think any talk tonight about who "won" in some broad, absolute sense is just silly. You can say who won for you, but until there's polling data the rest is just hot air. Remember that these cable channels have 24 hours they have to fill somehow. Idiots sitting around a table discussing who "won" a debate is a cheap way to kill an hour.

Look at the first McCain/Obama debate. I was completely convinced it was a draw, but the polling over the next few days showed me what an idiot I am.

I think everyone's mean high school rhetoric teacher with the liquor hidden under the desk would make a call about who won, but that's not how we apparently judge these things.

[Gregoshi]

...but the polling over the next few days showed me what an idiot I am.
Lemur, there was a national poll conducted on whether or not you are an idiot? This polling mania has gone too far... :laugh4: Sorry, I couldn't resist. ~:pat:

Seriously these daily polls are getting quite annoying. Then throw the endless analysis of the pundiots on top and it become mind numbing. Guess I'm not a poll smoker.

[Koga No Goshi]

Lemur, there was a national poll conducted on whether or not you are an idiot? This polling mania has gone too far... :laugh4: Sorry, I couldn't resist. ~:pat:

Seriously these daily polls are getting quite annoying. Then throw the endless analysis of the pundiots on top and it become mind numbing. Guess I'm not a poll smoker.

Seriously, is anyone else annoyed with those "FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES: DEM AND REP/ MEN AND WOMEN" bar graphs along the bottom? We didn't have those last election did we? They annoyed me, badly. VERY distracting.

[Lemur]

Ignore the focus groups, and ignore the instant polls. They're meaningless. Wait at least 24 hours before poll smoking, and do it with a large sample base.

[Koga No Goshi]

Ignore the focus groups, and ignore the instant polls. They're meaningless. Wait at least 24 hours before poll smoking, and do it with a large sample base.

I TRIED to ignore them, but visually, when theyt ake up the bottom fourth of the screen and are always moving, they're very distracting.

[Koga No Goshi]

Okay, since the question of "what would it take to get you NOT to think so and so won" came up, I have a serious question.

I have TuffStuff specifically in mind, but anyone currently or formerly identified as Republican, please feel free to answer. The question is in earnest, so as little sneering sarcasm towards "the left and Obama worshippers" would be appreciated.

How come you're voting McCain (if you are)?

I honestly... sincere here, not being a jerk.... have no idea why, at all, beyond "because you're Republican."

[GeneralHankerchief]

How come you're voting McCain (if you are)?

First of all, let me preface this by saying my vote is up in the air between McCain and Barr.

If I DO decide to vote McCain, it will be for the following reasons:

1. I think he has a legitimate chance of winning. If it looks like Obama will pull away and the media's calling it for him ahead of time, I'd rather make a statement with my vote and go Barr.

2. I have confidence that he will restore fiscal conservatism and discipline to Washington. Admittedly, my faith has been shaken recently with McCain's "yes" vote to that pork-barrelled monstrosity called a bailout.

3. I'm scared Obama will do an even worse job than McCain. Basically, if my fear factor the day I cast my vote is high, I'm going McCain. If my disgust factor is high that day, then it's Barr.

[PanzerJaeger]

How come you're voting McCain (if you are)?

Easy enough. His views are more in sync with my own, and his vision for America makes more sense.

[Koga No Goshi]

Easy enough. His views are more in sync with my own, and his vision for America makes more sense.

Could you be a little more specific? (Fargo impersonation). Especially on the last part. I mean, we seem to do a lot of "this is my opinion, period" around here. I'm more interested in the details of why you think it makes more sense... instead of just "I think it makes more sense." If you'd be inclined to share, anyway. No pressure obviously.

[PanzerJaeger]

Could you be a little more specific? (Fargo impersonation). Especially on the last part. I mean, we seem to do a lot of "this is my opinion, period" around here. I'm more interested in the details of why you think it makes more sense... instead of just "I think it makes more sense." If you'd be inclined to share, anyway. No pressure obviously.


Well, you could really just go down the platform issue by issue. I line up with it on in most aspects. I support a small, less intrusive government, low taxes, a strong national defense, and moderately traditionalist society.

Now, I don't think Bush has been even a third as bad as he's currently being made out to be, but I actually believe McCain would be the better president for a few reasons. He's proven to actually be capable of fiscal responsibility, he's willing to compromise, he's not tethered by the evangelist movement, and he's just more professional.

John McCain actually has some claim to the titles of "reformer" and "maverick". I think he would focus on what used to be core conservative values - reform, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and a strong defense. He also would not waste our time beating up gays and focusing on other divisive social issues that should really be left up to the states.

[CountArach]

Lemur, there was a national poll conducted on whether or not you are an idiot? This polling mania has gone too far... :laugh4: Sorry, I couldn't resist. ~:pat:

Seriously these daily polls are getting quite annoying. Then throw the endless analysis of the pundiots on top and it become mind numbing. Guess I'm not a poll smoker.
:angry:

[Koga No Goshi]

Well, you could really just go down the platform issue by issue. I line up with it on in most aspects. I support a small, less intrusive government, low taxes, a strong national defense, and moderately traditionalist society.

Now, I don't think Bush has been even a third as bad as he's currently being made out to be, but I actually believe McCain would be the better president for a few reasons. He's proven to actually be capable of fiscal responsibility, he's willing to compromise, he's not tethered by the evangelist movement, and he's just more professional.

John McCain actually has some claim to the titles of "reformer" and "maverick". I think he would focus on what used to be core conservative values - reform, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and a strong defense. He also would not waste our time beating up gays and focusing on other divisive social issues that should really be left up to the states.

With the 2nd paragraph, you think Bush has been exaggerated? I mean, do you agree that he vastly expanded government, made it more intrusive (patriot act, etc.)? I'm curious what you meant that he's not as bad as he's made out to be. By the standards of a small government, fiscal responsibility conservative, he's ... well, the worst President in U.S. history isn't he? His government is bigger than FDR or Reagan's. Just on the standard of big government and fiscal responsibility alone, let alone ideology about foreign policy or social issues, wouldn't he have to rank as one of the worst, if not the worst, president by your value system?

I can see the whole "theory" of a fiscally responsible Republican/McCain Presidency. The problem though is that he wants to give huge tax cuts to the rich, and unfortunately, despite what the ideology preaches, 8 years of that didn't create massive job creation or a wealth influx to the middle class under Bush. I have my own "ideas" about the contradiction between Republican fiscal responsibility in philosophy and then the way they do tax cuts and such, but I'm interested to hear your view first about how you reconcile proposed huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, after a bailout (presumably), and with an enormous 10 trillion dollar deficit looming. The only thing he's promised to cut is pork, which works out to something like 20 billion a year, which doesn't cover his 300 billion in tax cuts. Is there some card up his sleeve that makes you think he'll end up being a good fiscal conservative in terms of deficit and budget?

[Ironside]

Hmm. No blowouts or important lines. Palin's doing fine, really, so none of the predicted slaughter. Heck, she's had a couple humorous lines.

I think the biggest impact will be Palin doing fine and undoing a lot of damage from interviews.

CR

More of a general question not directed to you directly. While I guess it's not the easiest one to answer without digging through old material, how did Palin compare to Bush?
Because if I understand the old debates correctly, a well reversed Bush supported by his quite good speechwriters and speechtrainers did quite well.

And as a slight follow up, do you expect her to improve or will she constantly need that support to not make a fool out of herself?

[Tribesman]

Palins performance in the debate :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[drone]

I have TuffStuff specifically in mind, but anyone currently or formerly identified as Republican, please feel free to answer. The question is in earnest, so as little sneering sarcasm towards "the left and Obama worshippers" would be appreciated.

How come you're voting McCain (if you are)?

I'm probably voting McCain, but not because I really want to. Congress will be heavily slanted to the Democrats after this election, and the last thing I want to see is two branches of government controlled by the same party. Especially if the executive thinks it has a "mandate". Congress needs to take a whacking stick to the presidential powers, and it's unlikely to happen if it's Obama. I would have preferred Dr. No, and I'm sure several conservatives are wishing they had that option now, but that time is passed.


I was a little disappointed with the debate. Palin didn't melt down, but didn't shine either. Biden was competent and polished. But it was definitely a proxy debate. Biden has a lot of knowledge about McCain's work (being in the Senate with him for so long), so it was pretty easy for him to attack his record. Obama doesn't really have a record, and Palin (nor anyone else, really) didn't have that luxury.

[ICantSpellDawg]

To be honest, I am voting for McCain because I want conservative Supreme court justices. I don't want the Supreme court to do with Gay marriage and other nonsense in the way that they dealt with Roe v Wade. If individuals want a resolution to things that are clearly not in the constitution, take them to the legislature and stop strong arming the American people. I believe that this is where we can hold down the fort. Overturn Roe, secure the court from anti-democratic activism and force issues to be resolved in a responsible manner.

On the foreign policy side - Obama and McCain are almost comically identical in their views. I believe that McCain knows what he is talking about and that Obama is a socially minded domestic politician. He talks a good pre-fab game, but McCain is the real thing here. With the addition of Biden I am not so worried about that ticket, but I still support McCain for his intellectual honesty about the decision to go support the war in Iraq based on the intelligence understood at the time. Their differences are largelly semantic and target the more polarized segments of their respected constituencies.

I do believe that McCain is a middle-road politician. Again Obama is all hot air here whether you like him or not. He is effective at de-legitimizing opposing concerns by agreeing with them and then dismantling them, but it is parlor tricks. He has done nothing to bridge real divides when it doesn't serve him personally. I truelly believe that McCain will be seen on the other side of the isle as often as he sides with the GOP.

And then there is spending. McCain has said for so long that he wants to cut, cut, cut. I want to see this happen. I don't view Tax Cuts as spending, Obama does. I view limiting the scope of government as necessary to avoid bankruptcy. I think the government must serve as a regulator and organizer for the programs that are necessary, but the major rise in spending and taxes over the years is scary.

I like McCain's health care plan because it won't cost anywhere near as much. There are still a number of kinks to be worked out, but I (as someone who has a liver disease, adrenal insufficiency, ulcerative colitis, etc) pay under 5000 in premiums over the year. With a government system of organizing risk groups across state lines and allowing me to keep my health care whether I was at my job or not - I think we can make the plans better. We need transparency in the cost of services and incentives to reduce the cost of our own coverage. Health care is out of control and we can't give it to the black tar of governemnt - that will swallow the cost and make the underlying problem - out of control cost - even more covered up and untouchable.

Those are some of my reasons. Not all mind you, but my major priority is to ensure that people don't run to the judicial system and claim rights that don't exist without convincing the american people first. This is my major purview. I believe that neither candidate can claim real economic authority (that's why I supported Romney for pres - because it is irresponsible to elect a president that doesn't get it) and that both say largely the same thing in a different way on foreign policy - with the tie breaker to the guy who has walked the walk.

Does that do it for you?

[drone]

Palin already active in international affairs, attempting regime change in a terrorist state! (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1002/p04s01-wosc.html)

Flirting with Palin earns Pakistani president a fatwa

With some overly friendly comments to Gov. Sarah Palin at the United Nations, Asif Ali Zardari has succeeded in uniting one of Pakistan's hard-line mosques and its feminists after a few weeks in office.

A radical Muslim prayer leader said the president shamed the nation for "indecent gestures, filthy remarks, and repeated praise of a non-Muslim lady wearing a short skirt."

Feminists charged that once again a male Pakistani leader has embarrassed the country with sexist remarks. And across the board, the Pakistani press has shown disapproval.

What did President Zardari do to draw such scorn? It might have been the "gorgeous" compliment he gave Ms. Palin when the two met at the UN last week during her meet-and-greet with foreign leaders ahead of Thursday's vice presidential debate with opponent Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee.

But the comments from Zardari didn't end there. He went on to tell Palin: "Now I know why the whole of America is crazy about you."
~D

[Gregoshi]

:angry:

Sorry CA. My carelessly worded comments were not directed at you. :bow:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate

This might have been my favorite moment from the debate... :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

This might have been my favorite moment from the debate... :laugh4:

My favorite part was when Biden said "George Bushes" like a tiny munchkin about 12 times. I wonder when we will see that clip

[Spino]

I think any talk tonight about who "won" in some broad, absolute sense is just silly. You can say who won for you, but until there's polling data the rest is just hot air. Remember that these cable channels have 24 hours they have to fill somehow. Idiots sitting around a table discussing who "won" a debate is a cheap way to kill an hour.

Look at the first McCain/Obama debate. I was completely convinced it was a draw, but the polling over the next few days showed me what an idiot I am.

Yes, but to use the plebeian vernacular... who do you think was 'more better'? :inquisitive:


Ignore the focus groups, and ignore the instant polls. They're meaningless. Wait at least 24 hours before poll smoking, and do it with a large sample base.

I love it when you talk dirty... ~:flirt: :kiss:

[Lemur]

I love it when you talk dirty... ~:flirt: :kiss:
I know you do. That's why I talk about needing a big, thick sample base for my polls.

Speaking of which, initial numbers. Nothing to hang your hat on, but a preview (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299) of the reaction;


CNN/Opinion Research Biden 51 Palin 36
CBS Biden 46 Palin 21
Fox Biden 61 Palin 39

In the CBS poll, of the uncommitted voters, 18% now say they will vote Obama/Biden, 10% now say McCain/Palin.

Post-debate reaction seemed to agree that Governor Palin gave a good account of herself in being able to deliver prepared answers, though often not responsive to the question at hand.

Biden was able to draw on extensive experience from his long experience as a Senator.

I was surprised that Palin's charm did not work better than the poll results showed. But she likely was weighed down by Saturday Night Live parodies and interviews earlier in the week with CBS's Couric.

[Gregoshi]

Post-debate reaction seemed to agree that Governor Palin gave a good account of herself in being able to deliver prepared answers, though often not responsive to the question at hand.

1) As if the three other "experienced" candidates weren't delivering prepared answers (but for different reasons)

2) As if the three other candidates were responsive to the question at hand.

[Lemur]

What would I do without the National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=)? Their editor, Rich Lowry, had a doozy:


I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.

I want to see the fully animated version of that.

[Don Corleone]

What would I do without the National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=)? Their editor, Rich Lowry, had a doozy:


I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.

I want to see the fully animated version of that.


Right, and when Chris Matthews talked about that tingling feeling running up his leg, that was pure objective journalism. :laugh4:

I'm sorry Lemur, I would have thought that winning would be enough for you. Can't stand to see the other side with even a glimmer of hope, huh? Gotta leave those last few desparate strands of optimism a smoldering ruin, eh?

This is one thing I don't understand about the Democrats right now. If there's one thing that, and only one thing, that could slow down the runaway train, it'd be overconfidence and arrogance. And yet.... no magnaminity. No "he ran a good race, he's just not the right guy for right now". Nope. Just more and more "And if you're not on board with the DNC, you're a loser!"

Sorry, it's actually kinda amusing to watch. :beam:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right, and when Chris Matthews talked about that tingling feeling running up his leg, that was pure objective journalism. :laugh4:

I'm sorry Lemur, I would have thought that winning would be enough for you. Can't stand to see the other side with even a glimmer of hope, huh? Gotta leave those last few desparate strands of optimism a smoldering ruin, eh?

This is one thing I don't understand about the Democrats right now. If there's one thing that, and only one thing, that could slow down the runaway train, it'd be overconfidence and arrogance. And yet.... no magnaminity. No "he ran a good race, he's just not the right guy for right now". Nope. Just more and more "And if you're not on board with the DNC, you're a loser!"

Sorry, it's actually kinda amusing to watch. :beam:

hehehe.

btw:
Frank accused by fake journalism site for real conflict of interest.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

[Lemur]

Right, and when Chris Matthews talked about that tingling feeling running up his leg, that was pure objective journalism. :laugh4:
Actually, that's what it reminded me of, only better. Chris Mathews wishes he envisioned stars bouncing around living rooms. Sorry I didn't make the comparison myself.


Frank accused by fake journalism site for real conflict of interest.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html
With early intervention and the right medication, Lemur's Disease (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2028959&postcount=19) is treatable. Here's Rep. Frank trying to defend himself while Bill O'Reilly's head explodes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU). Kind of hypnotic.

[woad&fangs]

Random thought for the day.

If the economy had collapsed back in January instead of now, Ron Paul would be elected president in a landslide.:jester:

[Gregoshi]

Here's Rep. Frank trying to defend himself while Bill O'Reilly's head explodes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU). Kind of hypnotic.
For a "no spin zone", O'Reilly's head sure is. :laugh4:

[Big_John]

I was surprised that Palin's charm did not work better than the poll results showed. But she likely was weighed down by Saturday Night Live parodies and interviews earlier in the week with CBS's Couric.i think it was more that her 'charm' was so ham-handed, her 'folksiness' so exaggerated and deliberate. she smiles a lot, but lacks any semblance of gravitas, which is less endearing in these troubled times.

[Spino]

Random thought for the day.

If the economy had collapsed back in January instead of now, Ron Paul would be elected president in a landslide.:jester:

I've seriously entertained the idea of dabbling in hallucinogenic drugs just so I can induce a state of consciousness that places me in that reality.

[PanzerJaeger]

With early intervention and the right medication, Lemur's Disease (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2028959&postcount=19) is treatable. Here's Rep. Frank trying to defend himself while Bill O'Reilly's head explodes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU). Kind of hypnotic.

Finally someone is calling Frank on his part in all this... and in the most entertaining way imaginable! Ratings Gold I'm sure! :yes:

[KarlXII]

Pretty touching, Biden speaks to son's unit before they head off to Iraq.

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/biden-speaks-to-sons-unit-bound-for-iraq/199724?icid=100214839x1210626007x1200643404


"Dad, keep it short. We're in formation."

:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is mildly related to the election. McCain's Health Care plan borrows heavily from more ambitious congressional plans like Ryan's (and the Republican budget committee's) "Roadmap for America's Future".

An interesting description of how job related tax breaks for health care are actually detrimental can be found on pdf pages 19,20 and 21 (5,6 and 7 of the report). A few points were made that I hadn't thought about, but I do recognize that ownership and personal responsibility should be top priority in any workable plan - as opposed to opaque employer or government plans.
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/entitlement/roadmap_detailed_entirereport.pdf

Paul Ryan is a smart guy. I hope he wins re-election this year.

[Lemur]

Paul Ryan is a smart guy. I hope he wins re-election this year.
He's my congresscritter, just so you know.

[drone]

Here's Rep. Frank trying to defend himself while Bill O'Reilly's head explodes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU). Kind of hypnotic.

Sounds like O'Reilly had lots of Fannie Mae stock. ~D

[Crazed Rabbit]

He's my congresscritter, just so you know.

What do you think of him?

CR

[Lemur]

I'll tell you the truth, I haven't had any call to deal with him thus far. My county is extremely Republican, so it's a very safe seat unless he faces a primary contestant, which doesn't seem likely.

Amusing side note: One of my neighbors has both a McCain and an Obama lawn sign. Talk about a house divided ...