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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Assuming that Kukri will close the primaries thread and begin anew with a unified thread on the General elections in the Fall, I will jump in and start such a unified thread with the following analysis.


The goal of the post is to establish the analytical basis for the following prognosticative statement:

Barack Hussein Obama will be elected President of the United States


As most Backroomers are aware, the USA apportions the 538 votes in the electoral college – the votes that actually elect a President – among the 50 states and District of Columbia based upon representation in Congress with each state receiving a number of electors equal to its total representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thus each state has a minimum of three electors. In 49 of these locales, ALL of a state’s electors are required to vote for the candidate receiving a plurality of votes in that state. The other two – Maine and Nebraska – assign electors by Congressional district with the electors representing the states senators going to the candidate receiving the plurality of votes in that state. These are the only states wherein – barring a “faithless elector” – a split in electoral vote may occur. A candidate receiving a majority of these electoral votes (270) is elected to the Presidency.

Based on Presidential results since the end of the Reagan era, informed by the issues/themes discovered in the nomination process, we can make a fair estimate of the likely electoral vote totals that will result from this fall’s general election.

By Region:

New England [65] (CT-7, ME-4, MA-12, NH-4, NY-31, RI-4, VT-3): McCain = 4; Obama = 61.

A Dem stronghold for decades, only New Hampshire might vote for John McCain – they like his maverick style there and he’s received lots of crossover votes in both primaries he’s campaigned in there. The rest will vote for Obama, though his margin in Maine may be closer than Kerry’s in 2004.

Mid Atlantic [65] (DE –3, DC-3, MD-10, NJ-15, PA-21, VA-13): McCain = 21; Obama = 44.

This area, except for Virginia, has usually been a Dem stronghold. VA has changed a lot in recent years with the northern part of the state growing and growing more liberal politically. Moreover, some of the religious right voters – Pat Roberts has his HQ here – may not be dedicated enough to McCain to actually go to the polls. On the other hand, Obama’s weaker showing among “Reagan Democrats” might lose him Erie and Pittsburgh and prevent him from repeating Kerry’s win in PA – and could even give McCain an outside hope in NJ. My assessment is that Obama takes VA narrowly relying on his VEEP nominee Mark Warner, holds NJ, but loses a close one to McCain in PA.

South [142] (NC-15, SC-8, GA-15, FL-27, KY-8, TN-11, AL-9, MS-6, AR-6, LA-9, TX-34): McCain = 133; Obama = 15.

The South has been THE stronghold for the GOP for most of the last 4 decades. McCain will not command the numbers Bush did in the South – he’s too liberal for this region’s social-Republicanism and Borders first crowd – but enough will back him to avoid a Dem president to secure most of these states for McCain. Obama will bring more Black voters to the polls than anyone has ever seen and 97% of them will vote Obama, but it won’t be enough except in Louisiana and Mississippi. McCain will tap either Florida’s governor or a southern conservative as the VEEP nominee for the GOP and that will keep him in play. McCain will not win resoundingly in many of these states, but he’ll be first past the post. Obama, who is weaker among Hispanics than McCain and will lose some Jewish votes over the Wright scandal and Cuban votes by not being anti-Castro enough, will lose the crucial swing state of Florida.

West and SouthWest [105] (AK-3, AZ-10, CA-55, HI-4, OR-7, NM-5, NV-5, UT-5, WA-11):
McCain = 18; Obama = 32; ? = 55, with a very slight edge to Obama for them.

While much of the West Coast is a Dem lock with Obama at the top of the ticket (WA, OR, NV, HI), McCain can rest easy about Alaska and Utah and will probably not be threatened too much in his home state of Arizona – even though AZ has been a swing state in recent years. New Mexico is very much in play this year and – despite what many pundits may think – I think that California may be in play as well. McCain, as a liberal Republican with better support among Hispanics than Obama, may be able to repeat Ford’s narrow win over Carter in California. New Mexico will probably go Dem again this year – Bush wasn’t their preference in 2004 so much as they thought even less of Kerry. Obama takes that one in a squeaker.

The Plains [43] (CO-9, ID-4, KS-6, MT-3, NE-4+1, ND-3, OK-7, SD-3, WY-3): McCain = 42; Obama = 1.

Obama is strong in Iowa, and I think this will give him the edge in Omaha so that he picks up one vote in NE. I think he misses narrowly in Colorado and McCain runs the table for the rest – not as decisively as a true conservative would have, but Obama country it is not. Looks good on a map for John McCain, but Illinois and Michigan counter it neatly enough in the Electoral College.

Middle America [112] (IA-7, IL-21, IN-11, MI-17, MN-10, MO-11, OH-20, WV-5, WI-10): McCain = 47; Obama = 65

Lots of swing states out here and this will be THE electoral battleground. Indiana will remain a GOP stronghold, holding their noses and pulling the lever for McCain. Illinois, of course, can’t produce enough down state votes to counter the Chicago acclamation of Obama, so he wins this readily and takes Iowa, where McCain has never spent much of his effort. I predict that McCain holds WV, OH, and MO by siphoning off blue collar democrats. McCain will waste money in Michigan, where he’s always had fun in the primaries, but the GOP is fooling itself to think of it as a swing state. MN and WI are borderline, but Obama’s charm will win out in both. Obama will not do as well in this region as he – or Oprah – hope.

Thus far, I make it: McCain = 265 & Obama 218 and Obama in a narrow lead for the other 55, so.

If McCain can upset in Cali or New Mexico, this would change.


What say you?

[Marshal Murat]

Fair assessment overall;
but the Vice-Presidential Candidates will be key.
It's an open secret that both Presidential Candidates might, well, kick the bucket. McCain's too old, and Obama's too Kennedy. So the Vice-Presidential candidates will definitely receive some serious scrutiny.

With that in mind, Obama has to choose between Clinton and Warner. Clinton has alot of the 'blue-collar' voters, working class, the "core" of the Dem party. That choice would seem logical, heal the 'wounds' in the party as it were. She might even draw the Hispanic vote from McCain. However, that ticket would definitely drive some serious wedges into families of the South, and maybe West. It would be one of the most liberal tickets, and the idea of it sends shivers up my spine.
Warner, on the other hand, has military experience, and a Dem, he would be able to deliver the state of Virginia more successfully than Clinton. His stances, while liberal, are more Southern friendly. He backs up Obama with actual combat experience, countering McCain's 'Nam. He can appeal to the 'working class' Irish-Scots of the South more effectively than Obama or Clinton could. He could make deeper inroads in the South than Carter, the better candidate probably.

McCain could choose Crist, but that would be cementing a state he probably already has. His best choice would probably be Romney. The Republicans are less split about McCain and Romney. Obama will be the greater evil than McCain's lesser liberalism. They will unite, and Romney can give McCain a fighters chance in the New England North, and maybe Michigan. McCain's VP should be more conservative, but I don't think a Southerner would cut it.

Statewise:
California - I think they're going for Obama on this one. McCain has the liberal 'cred' and attract Hispanic vote. But his continued war advocacy will probably drive the bleeding hearts of San Francisco into Obamas camp.

Virginia - McCain probably. With sooo much federal works and military bases, McCain has a strong chance, and unless Warner goes for Obama, then McCain can probably clinch this state.

Miss. and LA - I think McCain will probably overpower the Obama camp here. Despite the high probability of African-American turnout, Mississippi and Louisiana are still conservative. The Dems they elect, are conservative, and McCain's policies are liberal and conservative mix to appeal to Southerners.

New Mexico - McCain, he's got the Hispanic voters (or some of them), and the rest will probably sway his way more than Obama.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Excellent analysis, Seamus. My thoughts:

PA is not going for McCain. It was called a battleground state in 2004 and Kerry won easily. The voters there were more likely to vote GOP then than they are now, and Obama is a stronger candidate for Kerry. IMHO, the pundits should move PA out of the swing state category until the Republicans there do something worthy. And Specter winning another election doesn't count.

So if we put PA (21) into the Obama category, then he doesn't really have to worry about New Mexico. Cali. will also be safer than what you think, I believe.

Veep is also another factor. If McCain picks Crist he'll take Florida but do worse in the Bible Belt states. If he picks Romney then he might steal Michigan and solidify NH, but Florida will then be up for grabs. On the Democratic side, Hillary would help Obama immensely, but will she take it? Obama could pick Warner solely on Virginia but I doubt he needs it - it's been trending Democratic recently.

About a week ago, Bob Novak did a mock election (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26723) and had McCain winning 270-268. I figure if a guy (and a website) that conservative has it that close, Obama's got to like his chances.

[Marshal Murat]

I don't think Florida is so much a swing state. The most interested in Obama are college students and upper-class Dems.

McCain has northern Florida, the Cubans (against Castro), old people (he just has to keep them alive), and most of the white vote.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

My prediction: They tie 268-268, and nancy pelosi becomes president.

[Crazed Rabbit]

On the issues:

Gun Control. Oh yes, that happy issue.
While Religious voters will be apathetic about McCain, gun owners will see a clear choice.

Obama is, I think, the most anti-gun candidate I know of in the history of the USA.

McCain is more pro-gun than George Bush, who said he'd sign the new assault weapons ban into law if it was renewed back in '04.

Obama put in writing that he wanted to ban handguns and have severe restrictions on gun rights - the NRA is going to pound him for that and so many other things. Growing up being a liberal in Chicago politics won't endear you to gun owners.

A single issue, but one that gun-rights groups can trumpet very loudly - especially considering the dem majority in Congress. There are four million members of the NRA, and tens of millions of gun owners.

So we have a candidate more pro-gun than any president save Reagan, and one more anti-gun than any since ... I couldn't say. If this issue is played right it could help McCain in close states with high gun ownership. It might push NH solidly to McCain.

On the state by state, I might give LA to McCain - conservatism is having a resurgence there (though conservatism and McCain are not one and the same). It'd be fun to have CA in play - with Arnold helping out McCain it certainly could be a battleground state.

CR

[drone]

Virginia is not going to Obama. We may be shifting towards the Democrats, but only moderates need apply. McCain's military service will go far here, and Obama's liberal voting history will ultimately kill his chances in this state.

Unfortunately, I also think that the Bradley effect is a very real thing, and is going to rear it's head in November. A lot of states that would probably go Democrat are going to go McCain. Add to this the fact that the DNC will be involved, I'm sure they will screw up big-time between now and election day. I'm predicting a medium level landslide for McCain. The Dems will gain more seats in Congress though, so it won't be too bad. Deadlock for the win, and with leaders that will actually work with each other.

While I like the idea of this thread, it might be premature, the old one was up to the conventions. I'm sure Hillary is going thrash around for a little bit longer. ~D

[Marshal Murat]

Clinton reminds me of my first time fishing...

She's still got spirit, but after swinging her around and then thrashing her against the ground, she'll slowly stop jerking in five hours.

[CountArach]

I pretty much agree with all of the states you put down, but I would change Louisiana and North Carolina around. That's about it though. Also I don't think there is any way that California is going to be a swing state. McCain simply won't be able to afford to advertise there, especially not against the fund-raising machine that is Barack. So my prediction for Electoral Votes (Very early, I know...) is:

Obama with 279 EVs and a large win in the popular vote (Considering that even in the south he is going to lose by a lot less than Democrats traditionally have).

[seireikhaan]

My view on the alleged 'battleground states', as the pundits like to call them.

Pennsylvania- I don't think this'll be as close as people think, I believe Obama will, with 5 months of campaigning with what I'm assuming will be a unified party, will beat McCain fairly comfortably.

Virginia- Probably will depend on veeps. If Obama picks either the senator or governor, he's got a good shot. Otherwise, I think it'll narrowly go to McCain.

North Carolina- I think Obama will win this state by a small margin, thanks to mobilizing the large collegiate populations in the state, as well as the relatively high African American population.

Florida- I think this'll probably go to McCain, unless some sort of miracle happens. He's going to have very strong support from the Cuban population for his fopo experience and stances towards the Castros, as well as the other Florida natives who sympathize with them. I don't think he even needs Frist to win it.

New Mexico- I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to say this goes Obama. He's stronger than Kerry was in '04, when the state narrowly went red. Additionally, I'm willing to bet the state might very well have some buyer's remorse after putting Bush in, even if McCain is very much NOT Bush.

Colorado- I'm gonna put this in the Obama category, by a very slim margin. Frankly, I think it could go either way, but I think Obama will barely pull it out. Can't put it to anything more than a gut instinct, though.

California(mostly in response to Seamus)- I think this'll stay blue. There are simply too many bleeding hearts out there, as well as the considerable appeal Obama' s "rock star-esque" appeal will have to the southern California crowd. It might be closer than last time, but still relatively large margin. McCain's appeal will certainly be more effective than Bush ever could be, but I just don't see it being enough to overcome what has become an almost built in advantage for the dems.

Oregon- I've heart this one mentioned before, but I'm going to call this for Obama. West coast liberalism, combined with the general feeling of being fed up with Republicans, I think will land it in the democratic camp.

Iowa- My home state went for Bush last time, but I'm going to call it for Obama. People in Iowa quite like him for the most part.

Wisconsin- I'm going to say this will go for Obama. Its got similar makeup to Iowa, but with larger urban and collegiate centers, so I think they'll break for him.

Michigan- I'm going to say that Michigan will go for McCain, narrowly. I think the gaffe with the vote count will cost Obama just enough to cost him this state. Of course, if McCain picks Romney for his running mate, this should make delevering Michigan a bit easier.

New Hampshire- Rather curiously, this state really seems to like McCain, and he likely owes his entire nomination to the New Hampshire-ites. I think he'll campaign long and hard here, pressing his bi-partisanship, and win a moderate victory over Obama.

Ohio- This will be really close, but I think Obama will win in Ohio. The state as a whole, I think has been hit hard enough economically during the last 8 years that they're not going to be quite ready to hand the reigns over to another Republican, even, as I stated earlier, if McCain isn't Bush by any stretch of the imagination. Obama will need to get some help, however, from Hillary and John Edwards on the stump to convince some of the lower income folks to turn out for him, though. I think it'll happen, however.

Missouri- This will be really, really close, I believe. The state's a bit of a crossroads, with some large urban centers that will likely turn out for Obama, and some of the smaller areas as well, for the same reason that Iowan's, Wisconsinites, and Minnisotans have. However, it also has some of the more traditional 'southern conservatism' which is far more likely to turn out for McCain. I'm going to call this a really, really close McCain victory right now.


The way my map turns out, I've got an Obama victory over McCain, 287-251.

However, there are a few wild cards that might end up playing a big role, hypothetically:

1) Reverend Jeremiah Wright has multiple tirades over the course of the next couple months, and the conservative 527 groups hammer and hammer away at the issue, dissolving people's trust in Obama.

2) Social conservatives decide to thumb their nose at McCain's more liberal agenda, and stay home away from the polls on a massive, state by state basis, particularly in the South, paving the way for potential Obama victories in states like Mississipi and Loiusiana.

3) Obama's grassroots campaign and fundraising efforts continue their meteroric pace, far outshooting McCain, who's having a relatively hard time raising funds and support for his campaign. If McCain doesn't do something to energize his party, he might just get spent do death by Obama.

4) The Democratic party fails to reconcile differences raised during the extraoardinarily long primary season. Obama fails to bring in Reagan democrats, who break for the moderate leaning McCain. Obama ends up getting trounced, unable mobilize what is a traditional base in many states for the Democratic party.


And here's (http://www.270towin.com/) a fun little sight to play around with the states a bit to see what different scenarios might end up as.

[KukriKhan]

While I like the idea of this thread, it might be premature, the old one was up to the conventions. I'm sure Hillary is going thrash around for a little bit longer.

We'll run them concurrently for now. "The older one" we'll keep alive until one or the other Dem concedes. Although the TV pundit-class has declared the contest "over" as of yesterday, as of 0600 PDT today, I haven't heard a concession speech. This contest could still go until the August convention, and courts might get involved, since there's money as well as future jobs, at stake.

[CountArach]

We'll run them concurrently for now. "The older one" we'll keep alive until one or the other Dem concedes. Although the TV pundit-class has declared the contest "over" as of yesterday, as of 0600 PDT today, I haven't heard a concession speech. This contest could still go until the August convention, and courts might get involved, since there's money as well as future jobs, at stake.
Or not!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will endorse Senator Barack Obama on Saturday, bringing a close to her 17-month campaign for the White House, aides said. Her decision came after Democrats urged her Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around Mr. Obama.

Yay!!!! :2thumbsup:

[DemonArchangel]

My prediction: They tie 268-268, and nancy pelosi becomes president.

NO! NO! THAT CAN'T BE!!!!

[KukriKhan]

Or not!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05dems.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin



Yay!!!! :2thumbsup:

If that happens (some other sources predict a Friday concession; still others predict a 'fight to the finish'), we'll figure out whether and how to consolidate our backroom US election coverage, so that we don't have 5 new topics popping up daily, essentially about the same thing (the Nov 08 US election).

Also note that Ron Paul has also never issued a concession statement afaik, so technically, the Repub nomination is also up for grabs, despite the media annointing.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

NO! NO! THAT CAN'T BE!!!!

Our election system is strange :book:

[woad&fangs]

I don't know why but I found this video to be hilarious.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/24974371#24974371

[Seamus Fermanagh]

NO! NO! THAT CAN'T BE!!!!

It cannot -- as Sasaki-san is aware.


The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Emphasis added.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Right, but there can also be a tie in the house since there are 50 states, at which point the voting would go to the senate to select the vice-president (who would become president). The senate can also tie (current vp can't vote), at which point the speaker of the house becomes president.

[FactionHeir]

So is this why Hillary wants to be the VP candidate? :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Fox News and Michelle Malkin attack Obama and make a complete and utter mess of it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWVGmyyhx8g) Very amusing. It's going to be interesting watching various partisan organs attempting old-style smears against both McCain and Obama. I don't think any of them are going to get the kind of traction they would have gotten four years ago.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Eh, the guy raggin' on Fox was annoying. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP attack squad managed to screw up the simple task of showing people Obama's just a reheated version of old liberals (unemployment caused by those dastardly foreigners, etc.). Have you seen the old Jimmy Carter commercial about hope and change?

I want to know where Obama gets off blaming anyone but Congress for the vast increase in gas prices since they took over Congress, though. Sounds like that could backfire.

I wonder how effective the dem's "McCain is Bush part 3" will be.

CR

[Lemur]

I think the "McCain = Bush" meme will be as unsuccessful as the "Obama = Most Librul Evar" meme will be. Both Obama and McCain are self-evidently decent men, and the usual Rove/Atwater tactics are in trouble.

Meanwhile, file this one under dude, please calm down (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=55D13D94-3048-5C12-00E851454E822F1E):


Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama’s victory overwhelmed him.

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”

[FactionHeir]

I think the "McCain = Bush" meme will be as unsuccessful as the "Obama = Most Librul Evar" meme will be. Both Obama and McCain are self-evidently decent men, and the usual Rove/Atwater tactics are in trouble.


Not according to this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/06/06/psychology.fear/index.html)

[Lemur]

Well, we'll see, FactionHeir. I'm inclined to believe that a combination of factors will minimize the B.S. in this election cycle. As I said, both Obama and McCain are self-evidently reasonable, non-extremist men. Neither is an ideologue. Painting either man as an extremist is going to be a labor of hate.

Not that people won't try. The attacks against Obama have been much more hysterical and unhinged than the attacks on McCain so far, but hey, the election is young. Here are some great examples:

"I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist," - Tom DeLay (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/hewitt-award--1.html)

"U2's 'Beautiful Day' is playing at the Barack Obama rally. No Americans write music Obama likes?" - Greg Pollowitz (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDNlNThiMjMzOTdhNGQ0MjlmNmIzYjE4YmM4ZTM1NjA=)

"Did the Obama rally begin with the Soviet National Anthem?" - Hugh Hewitt (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/f67b448f-a956-4406-8aba-a870c567a019)

"Your best friends stink. You are surrounded by scum. We don't know anybody good in your life." - Dennis Prager (http://dennisprager.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3&ContentGuid=3d39bea3-ef83-4529-849e-1e06e90b9b79)

[King Jan III Sobieski]

I think Chuck Baldwin will go all the way!!! :yes::beam::yes:

[CountArach]

I think Chuck Baldwin will go all the way!!! :yes::beam::yes:
No way! Cynthia McKinney has it in the bag!

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think the "McCain = Bush" meme will be as unsuccessful as the "Obama = Most Librul Evar" meme will be. Both Obama and McCain are self-evidently decent men, and the usual Rove/Atwater tactics are in trouble.

Meanwhile, file this one under dude, please calm down (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=55D13D94-3048-5C12-00E851454E822F1E):


Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama’s victory overwhelmed him.

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”

Makes you wonder how his dad raised him.

I think smears trying to make Obama seem sleazy or even... *gasp*... Clintonesque won't go far, but the GOP might have some luck convincing people he's just another politician, not the Messiah.

I was reading about a possible choice of the gov of Alaska, a staunch, effective, conservative woman, as McCain's VP. Wouldn't go far in the way of helping win close states, though.

CR

[PBI]

Why is anybody listening to what Tom DeLay has to say? Isn't he a crook?

But mind you, over here we have Lord Levy sticking his oar in at every opportunity. Some people have no shame.

[FactionHeir]

Obama "winning" his Illinois seat was pretty underhanded and old style politics you could say.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The republicans in a California primary choose principled conservatism over the pork lovers that have overtaken the Congressional GOP:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279230864753271.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries


House Republicans clearly suffer from a form of split personality. Last month, Minority Leader John Boehner unveiled a series of reform proposals he dubbed "Change You Deserve." But a few days later, over half of his GOP caucus voted for a farm bill full of pork-barrel projects.

Pragmatic Republicans who voted for the farm bill defend themselves privately by claiming GOP voters send mixed signals, saying they want smaller government while also pressing for federal largesse. But is that still the case following the egregious spending excesses of the Bush years, and the victory of John McCain, an antipork candidate, in presidential primaries?

This week, a GOP primary for an open House seat in California featured a major clash between pragmatic and principled conservatism. The clear winner in the Sacramento-area district was state Sen. Tom McClintock, a politician popular with grassroots voters for his principled campaign for governor in the 2003 recall election won by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Maybe the GOP will get the ******* clue that people want conservatism, dangit, not pork.

Also, the RCP electoral college map:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

CR

[Xiahou]

Obama "winning" his Illinois seat was pretty underhanded and old style politics you could say.You mean him getting all his competition thrown off the ballot via technicalities and legal maneuvering(including, iirc, the incumbent)? You might say it was downright dirty- but the "new" reinvented Obama is above all that. :juggle2:

It's astonishing to me how little most people know of the man, yet they project all of these qualities that they want to see onto him....

[FactionHeir]

You mean him getting all his competition thrown off the ballot via technicalities and legal maneuvering(including, iirc, the incumbent)? You might say it was downright dirty- but the "new" reinvented Obama is above all that. :juggle2:

It's astonishing to me how little most people know of the man, yet they project all of these qualities that they want to see onto him....

Yup, exactly that. And then him calling Clinton unethical and what not when she said he shouldn't get any Michigan delegates because according to Party Rules, uncommitted delegates cannot/must not be assgined to a candidate (besides he getting some Clinton delegates stacked upon him in addition.)

IMO he could have been more graceful and asked his supporters (those uncommitted RBC mainly were behind him, just didn't want to declare openly) to just give Clinton those delegates as he would still have been way ahead.

A bit of a double standard there.

[Lemur]

Just for clarity's sake, you are talking about his run for the Illinois Senate, not the U.S. Senate, correct?

In far more damaging news, the video of Michelle Obama talking about "whitey" has finally surfaced. Behold. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZi6U811hxE)

Background here (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126883.html).

-edit-

Yet another version of the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJhVP7qjfGQ&feature=related)

[discovery1]

Very insightful Lemur, my thanks.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gah.

Anyways, a more light-hearted video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BtJG0BonMQ

CR

[Lemur]

Okay, I'll admit it, I just read the first hit piece on John McCain that struck a nerve. It's all about him dumping his first wife.

I think divorce is about the worst thing you can put kids through, and in anything less than extreme circumstances (wife has gone insane and can't be medicated, chronic infidelity, etc.) it's just selfish and evil. So reading the details about Johnny Mac dumping his crippled wife makes my skin crawl.

Anyway, here's the article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html).


She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?

[FactionHeir]

While it certainly is not nice, you could understand in this particular circumstance that having just survived so many horrors or war and being caged and tortured for years, living and having to care for her for the rest of your life is a rather bleak prospect.
I mean he would be reminded of what he went through over there forever this way and he probably needed to divorce for the sake of keeping sanity, and him fantasizing about her and then when seeing her again but as the complete opposite of what was in his memory must be heartbreaking.

He agreed to and is still paying her medical bills for the rest of her life though, so that does say something about his character and morals.

That certainly is only one outlook and you can definitely make a sound counterargument to what I wrote that is equally valid.

[Kralizec]

If this is the first time you've ever heard of it, I wouldn't take the Daily Mail's word on it.

If it's true (and doesn't omit any, ahh..., details) then it's disgusting.

[discovery1]

DevDave posted that a while ago Lemur, although I guess posting repeats is your thing.

I will probably ignore that bit of info about him though. Helps that Obama wants to cut the funding that would eventually feed me.

He pays for her medical bills? Kind gesture.

[Lemur]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble to dip into coherence for a moment, Disco, what exactly are you referring to by "the funding that would eventually feed me"?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Military spending, perhaps.

Anyways, I don't think the daily mail is a good source. It's slightly better than the link DevDave posted, which was to some inane blog.

I know the dems have their greedy eyes set on the industry that's paid for my childhood and education.

CR

[discovery1]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble to dip into coherence for a moment, Disco, what exactly are you referring to by "the funding that would eventually feed me"?

CR is close. Obama has said he will cut the funding of NASA's Constellation program, which basically means gut NASA. Was awhile ago though.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php

Edit: Ha, and the Lockheed Martin lobbyist worked the Clinton campaign so hard.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Of course. The one place where a Democrat actually wants to cut spending is the one place where I want it to stay. :laugh4:

[Lemur]

I'm a little confused, Disco. The article you link to does not seem to have any info about either Obama or McCain wanting to cut the space program. There's a bit about Obama wanting to delay the Moon-to-Mars program, but nothing about getting rid of it. And as a commenter notes below the article:


It's worth noting that the $100 billion is supposed to come from NASA's existing budget levels plus inflation increases. I.e., the bulk of it will be "freed up" as the ISS is completed (or declared complete) and Shuttle operations end.

I don't get the impression that space exploration is a big issue for either candidate right now. Please feel free to post a more authoritative article, or to explain to me why I'm mis-reading this one.

[KukriKhan]

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?


This Orgah thinks that divorce in america is ugly. Always. Been there, done that, got the bloddy t-shirt, as have more than half the US population.

Ugly because it ignores the good things about the dissolved relationship in favor of the not-so-hot things, by definition.

In this Orgah's opinion, it's irrelevant (and more impotantly: unknowable) personal data. We can not (and should not, IMO) know what factors played a role in this couple's alienation. Her loyalty, his suffering, her accident, his subsequent loyalty...


Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

It does, if he 'walked away' and she 'loved him deeply'.

We can't know either, because it's personal. Can Ron Paul, or Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama stand the same scrutiny?

[discovery1]

I'm a little confused, Disco. The article you link to does not seem to have any info about either Obama or McCain wanting to cut the space program. There's a bit about Obama wanting to delay the Moon-to-Mars program, but nothing about getting rid of it. And as a commenter notes below the article:


It's worth noting that the $100 billion is supposed to come from NASA's existing budget levels plus inflation increases. I.e., the bulk of it will be "freed up" as the ISS is completed (or declared complete) and Shuttle operations end.

I don't get the impression that space exploration is a big issue for either candidate right now. Please feel free to post a more authoritative article, or to explain to me why I'm mis-reading this one.


Oh, I'm pretty sure that that delaying it five years means that no one will care enough to reinstate funding when the time comes, hence killing the program. And I know about funds coming from the canceled space shuttle, that's why flights for it are being ended. As far as I know Obama's cuts include that.

You are right of course, no one cares about space.

And low, Obama's space policy:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

Comments coming, maybe. I'll read it anyway.

Edit:

So he wants to built half of it, Ares I and Orion. They are supposed to be the replacements for carrying people into space. I find this rather disappointing since I view providing proper heavy lift vehicle as more important.

Talks about earth monitoring for civil and military reasons. Funding Ares I and Orion is probably not the best idea if you want to do this since a heavily lifter would support it better.

Increased R&D which is good.

Keep weapons out of space. Probably already failed on that one, if the rumors of hunter killer satellites are true.

And improve education, although I view that as not directly space policy.

In any case I can look forward to the outrage in the not unlikely event that China gets to the moon before we return.

Edit two: And he wants to keep sending unmanned missions. Again supporting the Ares V would be the better choice.

[Lemur]

Good piece in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11496904) that echoes many of the Lemur's thoughts.

America at its best

Jun 5th 2008

The primaries have left the United States with a decent choice; now it needs a proper debate about policies

IT IS hard to believe after all the thrills and spills, but the real presidential race is only now beginning. In any other country, the incredible circus that has marked the past year could not have occurred. The business of choosing the main contenders for the top job would have been done behind closed doors, or with a limited franchise and a few weeks of campaigning. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by contrast, have spent well over a year in the most testing and public circumstances imaginable—and that was just to get to the final five months.

The Republicans settled on their candidate more quickly, but theirs was still a marathon by anyone else's standards. And the end of it was surely the right result. In John McCain, the Republicans chose a man whose political courage has led him constantly to attempt to forge bipartisan deals and to speak out against the Bush administration when it went wrong. Conservatives may hate him, but even they can see that he offers the party its only realistic hope in November.

he Democratic race has been longer and nastier; but on June 3rd it too produced probably the right result (see article). Over the past 16 months, the organisational skills and the characters of the two contenders have been revealed. Mrs Clinton, surprisingly in the light of all her claimed experience, was shown up for running a less professional and nimble campaign than her untested rival. She has also displayed what some voters have perceived as a mean streak and others (not enough, though) saw as gritty determination. And she could never allay confusion about the future role of her husband.

Mr Obama has demonstrated charisma, coolness under fire and an impressive understanding of the transforming power of technology in modern politics. Beating the mighty Clinton machine is an astonishing achievement. Even greater though, is his achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee of either political party. For a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation and unequal voting rights, this is a moment to celebrate. America's history of reinventing and perfecting itself has acquired another page.

But will he play in Pennsylvania?

But that does not make Mr Obama the new messiah. The former law teacher has had obvious problems convincing America's middle-class voters that he understands their concerns. He has also displayed a worrying, somewhat Clintonian slipperiness on difficult issues, both trivial (whether he would wear a flag-pin) and significant (whether he would talk to rogue states). His victory, it must be noted, has been wafer-thin: in terms of delegates, a couple of hundred out of 4,500; in votes, only a few tens of thousands out of 35m. In the end, the Democrats have, very narrowly, opted for the candidate who has put together a novel coalition of blacks, young people and liberal professional sorts, rather than the candidate of their more traditional blue-collar base. How this coalition fares against the Bushless Republicans remains to be seen.

For what America's voters, and the world's fascinated spectators, have not had so far is much of a policy debate. Yes, there were bone-aching arguments between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton as to whose plan for health care would work best. And yes, Mr Obama refused to endorse Mrs Clinton's bad plan for a gas-tax holiday. But on the whole, it has been a policy-light contest for the simple reason that there was very little to choose between the two Democrats either on domestic or on foreign policy. Small wonder, then, that the Democratic race focused on character more than content.

All that has now changed. With his victory speech in Minneapolis on June 3rd, Mr Obama took the fight to Mr McCain. Though there are a fair number of things on which Mr Obama and Mr McCain, admirably, agree (a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, the immediate closure of Guantánamo and a more multilateral approach to diplomacy, to name just three), there is a lot more that they disagree over.

Blood, treasure and votes

The choice will be starkest over Iraq. Mr McCain backed the war in the first place, and he proposes to stay the course there no matter how long it takes. Mr Obama opposed the “dumb” war from the start and has pledged to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months, though he has lately wriggled a little on this commitment. Although most Americans now think the war was a mistake, polls suggest that Mr McCain's determination to see it through may stand him in better stead with voters than Mr Obama's determination to pull out whatever the consequences, especially since the tide of war seems at last to have shifted firmly in America's favour. In general, Mr McCain will offer a much more robust approach to security issues than Mr Obama—and that may help him.

That said, the war is clearly receding as a political issue, just as concerns about recession are growing. America no longer has a Hummer economy (General Motors is considering selling off the gas guzzler). And there are clear choices about how to fix it. Mr McCain offers orthodox supply-side solutions, stressing deregulation, free trade, competitiveness and the use of market mechanisms to cure the problems in everything from health care to education to pensions. The trouble for him is that America is already a pretty deregulated place, and many voters feel that globalisation has brought them much less than was promised (and bankers a lot more). Mr Obama offers a very different vision: more spending on education and training, an expensive expansion of health care to (almost) all Americans and better benefits for the unemployed. His problem will be convincing sceptics that his sums add up, though it may well be that voters, battered by falling house prices and rising oil prices prefer not to worry too much about that.

Both candidates have their flaws and their admirable points; the doughty but sometimes cranky old warrior makes a fine contrast with the inspirational but sometimes vaporous young visionary. Voters now have those five months to study them before making up their minds (and The Economist will be doing the same). But, on the face of it, this is the most impressive choice America has had for a very long time.

[drone]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/10/sot.mccain.veto.beer.cnn
Ok, that settles it, Obama gets my vote! Freudian slip or not, we can't take that chance! ~D

[Lemur]

When a man threatens to veto every beer, you gotta watch your step. However, don't go jumping into Obama's arms too quickly. Are you aware that he's ravishing virgins? It's true, I read it at Townhall.com (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MaryGrabar/2008/06/09/obama%E2%80%99s_presidency_victory_in_the_culture_wars?page=full&comments=true):


An Obama presidency would signal the final salvo by the Left in the culture wars. Obama’s advance troops have already taken over our college campuses, have bound and gagged our conservative professors, have ravished our virgins, have pillaged our stores of wisdom, and have ensconced themselves in the thrones of power in deans’, presidents’ and department heads’ offices.

I'll say this for the state of the campaign in June: the far-right's attacks on Obama have a much more hysterical sound to them than the far-left's attacks on McCain. Really, how can you compare "McSame" with "ravishing virgins"? Just for comedy value, the latter is far, far superior.

Oooh, another one, this is a goody: You know the little fist-bump Obama does with his wife? The gesture anyone under 40 understands to be slightly more enthusiastic than a handshake? Fox News wants to know if it's "a terrorist fist-jab (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3plZq0p9L18&feature=related)." No, really.

[drone]

That's a load of bull. There are no virgins on college campuses. ~D

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oooh, another one, this is a goody: You know the little fist-bump Obama does with his wife? The gesture anyone under 40 understands to be slightly more enthusiastic than a handshake? Fox News wants to know if it's "a terrorist fist-jab (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3plZq0p9L18&feature=related)." No, really.

That's really hilarious. How can they honestly have no clue what a dap is? Although Lemur, I wouldn't say it's a "slightly more enthusiastic gesture than a handshake".

[Devastatin Dave]

Okay, I'll admit it, I just read the first hit piece on John McCain that struck a nerve. It's all about him dumping his first wife.

I think divorce is about the worst thing you can put kids through, and in anything less than extreme circumstances (wife has gone insane and can't be medicated, chronic infidelity, etc.) it's just selfish and evil. So reading the details about Johnny Mac dumping his crippled wife makes my skin crawl.

Anyway, here's the article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html).


She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?

i brought this up in an earlier thread as to why I will NOT be voting for McCain. Again , how far has our country slipped when our nominees consist of a Marxist Black racist, and an oppertunistic ego maniac who is more of a victim of war (thanks Adrian for the perfect description) than a war "hero". He left his wife who waited for him. My wife waited for me when I was gone and I honor her for that and grown in deeper love and appreciation of her. McCain got him a hot rich girl and dumped the old cripple. He's a "maverick" of course, meaning he's about as conservative as Obama at an ACLU convention performing partial birth abortions before cocktails. The DevDave is sitting this election out. The Republicrats can go :daisy:themselves.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

DD:

I suspect that Obama is less of a Marxist/Black Power type than he is a "give me the power" type -- hardly rare among our public "servants."

Obama was (is?) an unknown on the national scene that he took the opportunity to turn that very enigmatic character into his selling point. He stood for "hope" and "change" and against the "stupidities" of the Bush administration. Effective content = nil. Profile in political courage factor = nil. Rhetorical Genius move = full marks.

Who doesn't like to be hopeful, or wouldn't like change to happen wherever we viewed something as substandard? And among the Dem primary voters/caucoids just how hard is it to sell the viewpoint that Bush43 is a flaming rectal sphincter? Obama let everyone picture him exactly as they wanted him and -- for the longest time -- didn't have to let content interfere with that exercise in projection. Over the last 6 weeks he's had to get into more nuts and bolts (following Wright and during the final duels with Clinton) and he's come off, more and more, sounding like a standard Dem politico. He's caused some Dems to become disaffected.

His biggest advantage is that US voters are traditionally reluctant to give three terms consecutively to the same party. It's happened, but only rarely and a 4th in a row is even rarer. Some degree of fatigue sets in and the voters look for a way to shake things up.


Don't stay away from the polls, Dev, even if you leave the top slot blank as you work on the rest of the balloting.

[Lemur]

I'll just add to Seamus' words of wisdom, Devastated Dave, to not forget the third-party candidates who could use the love. Also, a lot of the ballot is gonna be local and state stuff, where you might not feel so dirty and used.


... against the "stupidities" of the Bush administration.
Why the quotes? Does anyone defend Bush 43 as anything but a disaster these days? As longtime GOP strategist Ed Rollins wrote in my local paper (http://www.examiner.com/blogs-73-Yeas_and_Nays~y2008m6d9-Bush-confronted-Roves-sins-in-church):


"Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administration as a total failure," said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich's political organization.

“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable," Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. "It will take generations to recover. I don't know how long; maybe never."

"I think the legacy is that Karl Rove will be a name that'll be used for a long, long time as an example of how not to do it," said long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins.

[Redleg]

The question I have is how will Obama stand up to the political attack machine of the 527's and other's?

He doesn't strike me as an individual that will handle that concept very well given his statement concerning the political attacks on his wife, after some of her speechs were made public. Her statements will be used by the Republicians somewhat and the 527's will definitely use them in attempts to discredit Obama or incite moderates and others to vote against the radicialism that will be spun from her statements.

Unfortunately for the United States this will be another negative campaign process for president with little discussion on actual policies of the Presential candidates being carried by the media and the pundits who analysis the campains - all will focus on the negatives.

So it will take careful listening by concerned voters to sort out what the candidates actual say - and ignoring the pundits spin that information.

One of the things I will personally be listening for is plans for Iraq, economic recovery, and the upcoming issues of health care and social security/medicare. (the third rail of politics in the United States.)

Still haven't heard much concrete plans on any of the subjects except for Iraq, and some of that even changes.

[PanzerJaeger]

The primaries have left the United States with a decent choice; now it needs a proper debate about policies

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?

I see nothing but a one term senator who draws on charisma and populism instead of experience and policy, who has radical racist and terrorist ties that go back 20 years. I guess if you're black... :shame:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?

I see nothing but a one term senator who draws on charisma and populism instead of experience and policy, who has radical racist and terrorist ties that go back 20 years. I guess if you're black... :shame:

You forgot to mention that his middle name is HUSSEIN. And what about the terrorist fist jab? Has that been forgotten already?

[PanzerJaeger]

You forgot to mention that his middle name is HUSSEIN. And what about the terrorist fist jab? Has that been forgotten already?

I'm trying to be fair to him.. ~;)

[Strike For The South]

I dont like Obama he is to good at mobilizing the ignorant masses like Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini. He holds the same poloitical belifies as Clinton yet he is exalted and she is hated. The man is a liar of the highest degree and people just seem to give him a free pass. The man is the emboidment of what I hate about polotics. A slimey used car salesman who flashes a two dollar smile amd dumb people fall in love with the man. UGH

[CountArach]

The man is a liar of the highest degree
How many lies has he been caught out on recently?

Oh and breaking Godwin's law on the second page - I think that's pretty bad...

[PanzerJaeger]

How many lies has he been caught out on recently?

Oh and breaking Godwin's law on the second page - I think that's pretty bad...

NAFTA anyone? Or we could chronicle the many positions he took over his racist, anti-american spiritual mentor of 20 years.

[Lemur]

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?
Dear Panzer, if I thought you were seriously considering Obama as a candidate, I would happily discuss him. However, I get the decided impression you're more of the "terrorist fist-bump" crowd, so no, there's no basis for discussing the dude with you. I think we could more productively talk about whether or not you can tolerate McCain.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama responds to a question on how his Veep search guy has shady connections to a firm Obama has lambasted:

ABC News' Sunlen Miller today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, how he could "rail against Countrywide Financial Corp as an example of insiders and today's economy while your VP search is headed by someone who got questionable loans from Countrywide?" (This is an issue we wrote about earlier today.)

"And in addition," Miller continued, "another person on that same VP search team – Eric Holder -- has also been involved in the Marc Rich scandal."

"Well, look," Obama said, "the, the, I mean - first of all I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages, so you’re gong to have to direct -- "

"But shouldn’t you?" asked Miller.

"Well, no," Obama said. "It becomes sort of a, um, I mean, this is a game that can be played - everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships -- I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters. I mean, at some point, you know, we just asked people to do their assignments.

"Jim Johnson has a very discrete task," Obama continued, "as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They are performing that job well, it’s a volunteer, unpaid position. And they are giving me information and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate.

"So this – you know, these aren’t folks who are working for me," Obama said. "They're not people you know who I have assigned to a job in a future administration and, you know, ultimately my assumption is that, you know, this is a discreet task that they're going to performing for me over the next two months."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obamas-answer-o.html

Eloquent, that. I still think Bill Clinton was better at deflecting questions.

CR

[Proletariat]

Explain it to everyone else then, Leemy. Hearing how stupid the fringe right sounds is getting a little old. I'm curious too about what people really see in Obama, because I'm with SFTS so far.

[Lemur]

What, suddenly I'm Obama's spokesperson and defender? Not a job I want nor a job I will take, thanks very much. I will speak up and defend both McCain and Obama when I think they're being attacked unfairly, but even that is a matter of my mood and the phase of the moon.

No, I've been asked "Whut's so good about the dusky Muslim Marxist quisling traitor?" several times on this board, and I've gone in-depth twice, with absolutely nothing to reward me for my effort. No, Prole, if you're seriously curious about Obama there are ample resources online. And if you're in the mood to hear how evil he is, there are equally ample resources online.

I'm sorry you find my direct quotes of the right-wing echo chamber disturbing, but frankly, if they weren't so darn funny I wouldn't be quoting them. Comedy gold coming out of the right at the moment. I expect that will change as the attacks become more focused and less hysterical, but for the moment we have what we have.

-edit-

Here's a rigorous ranking of conservative/liberal votes (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/liberal-conservative-rankings-done.html) in the 109th and 110th Congress, giving a more realistic picture of just how Obama and McCain score. Just a little reality check after the broad trumpeting of National Review's highly suspect numbers.


Voteview uses an extremely rigorous methodology for ordering Senators from most liberal to most conservative which to my mind produces some fairly intuitive results. (Five most liberal senators thus far this year? Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehose, and Ted Kennedy).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Explain it to everyone else then, Leemy. Hearing how stupid the fringe right sounds is getting a little old. I'm curious too about what people really see in Obama, because I'm with SFTS so far.

What? That Obama has a progressive platform and promises change? You right wing guys keep jumping out and exclaiming "Hah! See! Obama is actually a liberal" when the point is that we want a liberal. Are you more impressed with McCain's "Maverick" persona?

[Xiahou]

Obama responds to a question on how his Veep search guy has shady connections to a firm Obama has lambasted:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obamas-answer-o.html

Eloquent, that. I still think Bill Clinton was better at deflecting questions.

CRI know all politicians are hypocrites, but even with that knowledge, Obama still makes me cringe. It's like his principled stand against wearing flag lapel pins that lasted just until his handlers told him wearing one would play better with the masses. When he went to speak to an Israeli American group he even went further, wearing a dual Israeli/American flag.
https://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4025/new09bqa2.th.jpg (https://img80.imageshack.us/my.php?image=new09bqa2.jpg)

Onto McCain- Does the fact that he carried on affairs and divorced his wife after returning to the US make a difference? As a character issue, it's worth keeping in mind- but it was also long enough ago that it doesn't figure in too prominently in my book. However, it's also worth mentioning that without his new young wife, McCain would've never even made it into politics as it was her family riches that allowed him to get started. Really though, there are many better reasons for me not to support him.

At this point, I know I won't be voting for Obama and I have serious doubts about voting for McCain. But, DD even if you won't be voting for McCain, vote for a third party- maybe with enough votes, one of them will gain some legitimacy. Or just maybe the GOP will get the hint.


"Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administrationNewt Gingrich as a total failure," said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich's political organization.That also applies. :beam:


“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable," Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. "It will take generations to recover. I don't know how long; maybe never."The GOP congress had itself to blame more than Bush. He could've/should've vetoed more of their pork laden bills, but they're to blame for coming up with them in the first place. :no:

[Proletariat]

Alright, forget I asked. Let's just tee off on irrelevant but entertaining blips about fistpumps and middle names. You're making a fantastic contribution to the 'commentary' half of the thread.

I hardly post back here anymore, but that doesn't mean my views are the same as they were three years ago. Right now I couldn't care less if the Republicans don't step foot in the White House for fifty years. My views are probably alot more in line with your's and Sasaki's, so you don't need to go ultra defensive over me asking why you like Obama. 'Go look up Obama' and 'what, you like McCain more?' isn't exactly what I was expecting, but thanks anyway.

[PanzerJaeger]

Dear Panzer, if I thought you were seriously considering Obama as a candidate, I would happily discuss him. However, I get the decided impression you're more of the "terrorist fist-bump" crowd, so no, there's no basis for discussing the dude with you. I think we could more productively talk about whether or not you can tolerate McCain.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

Obama is constantly lauded, but no one will step forward with specifics.



What? That Obama has a progressive platform and promises change? You right wing guys keep jumping out and exclaiming "Hah! See! Obama is actually a liberal" when the point is that we want a liberal. Are you more impressed with McCain's "Maverick" persona?

If you wanted a liberal, you had the most qualified one availble. My guess is that hope and change sound good to you, regardless of what that truly entails.

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?

[Lemur]

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?
Oh good lord, you ain't gonna let it go, are you? Okay, deep breath, let's do this again:

What's the largest operation these men (and woman) wanting to be Prez have run? That's right, their campaigns. Last check Obama's consisted of 700+ people.

So take a look at how effective they've been at managing this operation. Take a cold, hard, calculating look. If you don't see something interesting in that picture, let me know.

On the same theme, note that Obama has done something no Republican ever managed: he defeated the Clintons in a contested election. A notable feat, surely.

Look, if you're absolutely convinced that Obama is a socialist/leftist/euro-liberal who will turn the U.S.A. into a police state that takes away guns and God, then there's just no talking to you. Your'e a wacky right-wing nutjob who needs to buy more tinfoil.

If, on the other hand, you're willing to have your head infused with ideas, there's ample evidence that Obama is much more centrist than Fox News would have you believe. Example (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165):

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era. I think this perspective misreads the American people.

From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.
Also, please note the link above (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/liberal-conservative-rankings-done.html) to a more detailed and serious vote-ranking system which suggests that (shock!) Obama's voting record is not the most liberal in the known universe, a conclusion which will startle and alarm only the most entrenched partisan hacks.

I'll happily concede that his record of legislative accomplishments is not well-known, but I defy you to prove that they are nonexistent, or even trivial. Here's a breakdown of his votes in Illinois (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html). Here are some firsthand accounts (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html) of his operations as a State Senator.

Note that Obama has typically tackled serious and un-sexy issues. You know, the kinds that nobody cares about until they blow up. This suggests a serious mind. Nuclear non-proliferation has been his specialty in the U.S. Senate, and it ain't bagged him any headlines, although we're all grateful for the work.

One of the biggest bills he pushed through in IL had to do with mandatory videotaping of police interrogations. Chicago Police were dead opposed to it initially, so Obama went to them, hat in hand, asked for their concerns, worked with them until they were happy, and in the end CP supported the bill. It was a big deal in Illinois, and it's meant a huge improvement for the Police. Massive drop in defendants claiming their confessions were beaten out of them. More bad guys in jail, less police time wasted. A typically non-sexy, serious issue that gets the man no press.

Anyway, blah blah blah. Let me know if any of this turns your head even slightly, or if I'm just making noise while you reload.

-edit-

Just to be absolutely clear, the reason I quoted that piece from Kos is that Obama is defending votes for a conservative Chief Justice to the most leftist crowd on the web. He is going directly against their inclinations, and to no obvious benefit for himself. In much the same way that he has spoken out against the interests of the Teachers' Union, once again to no obvious self-benefit. This is a guy who is willing to push back against the traditional leftist base. This is a good thing.

[seireikhaan]

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?
Well, one could argue that the very fact that he was able to create a political machine capable, in the span of a year, of defeating the infamous Clinton machine as a sign that he is a capable manager and directer.:shrug:

[Devastatin Dave]

At this point, I know I won't be voting for Obama and I have serious doubts about voting for McCain. But, DD even if you won't be voting for McCain, vote for a third party- maybe with enough votes, one of them will gain some legitimacy. Or just maybe the GOP will get the hint.

:

Horse squeeze. Voting is a waste of valuable time, especially with these choices or a third party. There is no third party candidate to vote for. Bob Bahr? This guy is a loon like Ron Paul. I'm gonna go hang at the DMV a couple times a month to get use to this whole universal healthcare BS.

I will give Osama Bin Obama this: I hope he does win because were going to need someone who understands socialism and Marxism in order to run this country with all the great nanny state legislation that Old Bag San Fran Nan is creating. I always had a secret desire to suck on her fun bags, now I'll actually get to!!! Gradle to grave off the governments teet, yipeee!!! Thanks to the Democrat party (yes it is the Democat party, not the democratic party, these :daisy: are about as close to democratic ideals as Kim Jung Ill playing in the NBA as a forward.):wall:

[CountArach]

If, on the other hand, you're willing to have your head infused with ideas, there's ample evidence that Obama is much more centrist than Fox News would have you believe. Example (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165):
And if you don't want a link to DailyKos (Which I understand), then look at this non-partisan site:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html

It has taken the ratings given by various liberal groups to each senator based on their voting record and has averaged it out. Clinton is the 38th most liberal and Obama is the 42nd most liberal. McCain on the other hand is the 5th most conservative.

Now looking at the Conservative interest group ratings...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/con_senator_ratings-2007.html
McCain is the 39th most Conservative. Obama is 70th and Clinton is 78th.

[FactionHeir]

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html) even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

[CountArach]

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html) even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?
I'd much rather a lack of voting record, than the voting record that McCain has. He spoke in favour of banning waterboarding... and then voted against the resolution banning it. Just one of many examples of where he has backtracked. All politicians do it.

[Lemur]

FactionHeir, you can debate the particulars of Obama's record as you like. I was specifically responding to Panzer's petulant rhetorical flourish of, "Somebody respond to me right now or I'm going to run around declaring that nobody can articulate any reason why Obama should be President."

Not that our resident fascist would ever vote for a Democrat, much less one who has attended a black church, which makes the whole exercise reek of pointlessness. Seriously, I'm done giving our local Obama-haters the "why." This is the third time I've done it, and there is never any substantive response, and there is never any indication that they've even read what I posted. It's just this reflexive barking of "there's no substance to the guy" and then silence when someone throws some substance up. I'm sick of it, and it's both intellectually lazy and dishonest.

I also note with amusement that I am never called upon to justify why I like McCain, nor any demand to prove why he is a decent choice for CIC. No, it's just Obama, and it's the same damn line of rhetoric every time, a song without variation.

[Odin]

*yawn*

Didnt Hillary get the nomination? Ah well, I was so looking forward to the swift boat crowd making a comeback. Short of Ms Obama getting caught on tape in a "whitey" rant let me go out on the limb here and predict that Obama wins!

Not only that but dems sweep to majority in both houses!

Republicans had a good 6 years of a majority and after it there's one quote from history that seems to be spot on.

"If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again."

Ronald Reagan

Belly ache all you want about liberals, but their rise to power is a result of a mamoth conservative failure, the sink in my bathroom has a mirror, does yours? Take a long look then flush.

:toilet:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html) even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

Maybe you should have looked this up first.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoi_n_81460.html

and:

Present Votes Are an Accepted Legislative Strategy in the Illinois Senate
January 21, 2008

Obama Was Praised for Standing Up on Tough Issues-- Because His Senate Seat Was Not Vulnerable, He Used His Position To Help More Vulnerable Senators Do The Right Thing. Zorn wrote, "Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes. [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A "Duck" Doesn't Understand How the Process Works. "There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a "duck." Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this] Hull argument: "I think it's not well-based…I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works." [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Criticizing Present Votes Indicates "You Don't Have A Great Understanding Of The Process." "'Criticizing Obama on the basis of 'present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process,' said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence." [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal – to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Obama Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes That Make Good Politics. The AP reported, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [AP, 9/9/04]

Senators Would Vote Present If They Had 'Unresolved Worries.' The State Journal-Register reported, "Sen. George Shadid, the Edwards Democrat who is pushing the legislation, promised Senate Education Committee members that he wouldn't move ahead with Senate Bill 368 'unless I can get a good consensus.'…Four committee members cited unresolved worries when they voted 'present' on the measure, which passed 7-0." [State Journal-Register, 2/27/03]



Alright, forget I asked. Let's just tee off on irrelevant but entertaining blips about fistpumps and middle names. You're making a fantastic contribution to the 'commentary' half of the thread.

I hardly post back here anymore, but that doesn't mean my views are the same as they were three years ago. Right now I couldn't care less if the Republicans don't step foot in the White House for fifty years. My views are probably alot more in line with your's and Sasaki's, so you don't need to go ultra defensive over me asking why you like Obama. 'Go look up Obama' and 'what, you like McCain more?' isn't exactly what I was expecting, but thanks anyway.

When you start with "obama is an empty suit and a liar" don't complain when you get back irrelevancies. It's really the only appropriate response, besides a link to www.google.com

[Lemur]

A li'l something (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1100041) to make TuffStuff happy:


The buzz is growing around the possibility of Mitt Romney landing on the ticket with GOP presidential contender John McCain, and one of the voices backing such a move is Romney’s predecessor as Bay State governor, Paul Cellucci.

“Certainly Mitt Romney is on the short list, and he should be,” said Cellucci, who originally supported New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the presidential sweepstakes.

McCain gave his most ringing endorsement yet of Romney’s chances of being tapped as his vice presidential candidate during a fund-raiser Monday, saying, “There’s nobody who represents me better today than Mitt Romney.”

Cellucci says Romney, whose own White House hopes were dashed by McCain during the GOP primaries, is “a proven vote getter.”

“He won a lot of primaries and, let’s face it, anyone who can win in Massachusetts has got to be considered pretty good,” the former Republican governor said.

[FactionHeir]

Sasaki:
As the pieces you quoted say, he may not have been in a contested seat in his own legislature, but it is also questionable what kind of strategy his present votes really were if he was the only one or one of very few lawmakers to vote present on 36 bills.
I mean if a bill is passed unanimously and you sponsor it but end up being the lone present vote, is he trying to stand out or did he change his mind about his own legislation? Or was he influenced by some group?

One then can take this argument further and say: Well, his Illinois state senate seat was not contested, but this "present" voting "strategy" can be considered being not supportive of any one issue and therefore more difficult to attack (he can say he voted present rather than against or for a critical issue) when he then went on to vie for the US Senate seat of Illinois.

Then again, as per your citation 'Obama Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes That Make Good Politics. The AP reported, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [AP, 9/9/04]'
Why did he not vote it down if he found it unconstitutional? Was he afraid of taking a stand then? Being the lone present voter when the rest are willing to take a stand strikes me as rather odd.

[Proletariat]

When you start with "obama is an empty suit and a liar" don't complain when you get back irrelevancies. It's really the only appropriate response, besides a link to www.google.com

This is the second time you're putting words in my mouth in as many posts. Where did I say Obama was an empty-suit and a liar and when did I use 'Obama is a far left liberal!!' as a point against him?

Edit: Ah, I see maybe it was where I said I was with SFTS. That didn't mean I agreed with every word he said, it's the throng of Obama supporters that resembles a crowd at a Britney Spears concert that I can't understand.

Thanks for the two cents tho, Lemur. I'm not sold on Obama but what you said is sound. For anyone else I might have upset by asking why Obama was so great, I'd like to apologize for the vicious migraine it caused.

[drone]

So does this mean Obama votes Gah!? :gah2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My problem with Obama is, first and foremost, that he views the Federal government as THE answer for a majority of issues. This is a fairly broadly held view and is the dominant view of the Democrat party. In that, he is a fair nominee for them. As I take the "government is a necessary evil to be minimized as much as practicable" stance, I don't see eye to eye with him.

Obama has been, so far, more of a "mirror" than an empty suit. His choice to stand for hope and change and to keep the specifics to a minimum was brilliant rhetorical strategy. For quite some time, he let everyone project their hopes for the future on him without making ANY specific claims/plans about what he'd do. Worked like a charm too -- bright guy.

[Xiahou]

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html) even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?
There's also the claim that he was "handed" sponsorship of bills, that had most of the legwork done already, as resume padding. I posted a link to that effect in the other thread- it's buried in there somewhere...

Here's a rigorous ranking of conservative/liberal votes (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/liberal-conservative-rankings-done.html) in the 109th and 110th Congress, giving a more realistic picture of just how Obama and McCain score. Just a little reality check after the broad trumpeting of National Review's highly suspect numbers.


Voteview uses an extremely rigorous methodology for ordering Senators from most liberal to most conservative which to my mind produces some fairly intuitive results. (Five most liberal senators thus far this year? Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehose, and Ted Kennedy).Sorry, I just caught this- the 'most liberal' label was not from the National Review, but the National Journal- an avowedly non-partisan publication aimed at Washington insiders. Their methodology was completely transparent and even better, blind. I posted their entire methodology in the last thread, obviously you didn't read it.

"Liberal" is an inherently subjective term, but whether Obama is the most liberal, or the tenth most liberal he's still more liberal than the vast majority of even his Democrat peers. Sasaki seems to have embraced this, but you still seem to be in the denial phase. :wink:

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh good lord, you ain't gonna let it go, are you? Okay, deep breath, let's do this again:



Thats it? That is what makes you believe he would be a good president? Because he beat Hillary and he's not as liberal as he's portrayed? You don't have very high standards huh?

The only thing you mentioned that garners any sort of merit is his work with nuclear nonproliferation. Unfortunately, he just put his name next to legislation that Dick Lugar authored. Wow. Well done, Mr. Obama.



FactionHeir, you can debate the particulars of Obama's record as you like. I was specifically responding to Panzer's petulant rhetorical flourish of, "Somebody respond to me right now or I'm going to run around declaring that nobody can articulate any reason why Obama should be President."

Oh quit bitching. This thread is about discussion on the candidates and if you're going to constantly praise Mr. Obama or post positive articles that echo your own opinions, you should be able to back that up with a minimum of whinging.


Not that our resident fascist would ever vote for a Democrat, much less one who has attended a black church, which makes the whole exercise reek of pointlessness. Seriously, I'm done giving our local Obama-haters the "why." This is the third time I've done it, and there is never any substantive response, and there is never any indication that they've even read what I posted. It's just this reflexive barking of "there's no substance to the guy" and then silence when someone throws some substance up. I'm sick of it, and it's both intellectually lazy and dishonest.

This is such a cop out. The point of this forum is to state and defend your views. Its slightly scary that you're spending more time attacking me, including veiled accusations of racism, instead of defending the man you've championed for months.

Contrary to your accusations, I truly want to know what makes Obama supporters believe he is a good choice. I certainly didn't support Hillary, but I understood why she was a contender. This man isn't an empty suit, he's naked! I even visited his website, which left me even more puzzled. The man has 4 paragraphs on Iraq... I wonder how many of his ardent supporters have even visited the issues section on his website. Have you?


I also note with amusement that I am never called upon to justify why I like McCain, nor any demand to prove why he is a decent choice for CIC. No, it's just Obama, and it's the same damn line of rhetoric every time, a song without variation.

Thats because its quite easy to understand. McCain certainly wasn't my first choice, but I understand why he is the Republican candidate. Whether I agree with his positions or not, the man has a record - an actual record - you know, a way in which to judge his merits. He's the anti-Obama. Real experience and true bipartisanship, when it really matters and not just on feel-good bills.

[FactionHeir]

In other news, Obama's VP search team leader Johnson has resigned.
Question is, did he resign on his own accord or because people within his camp were starting to feel the heat and figured Obama's excuses weren't going to hold up?

[Lemur]

Thats it? That is what makes you believe he would be a good president? Because he beat Hillary and he's not as liberal as he's portrayed?
Is that the sum total of what I said, young fascist?


The only thing you mentioned that garners any sort of merit is his work with nuclear nonproliferation. Unfortunately, he just put his name next to legislation that Dick Lugar authored. Wow. Well done, Mr. Obama.
Yup, that's all he did. Boy, you sure know your stuff (http://www.cfr.org/publication/15279/candidates_and_nuclear_nonproliferation.html).


In August 2005, Obama traveled with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) to nuclear and biological weapons destruction facilities in the former Soviet Union, where they urged the destruction of conventional weapons stockpiles. With Lugar, Obama introduced the Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act, which passed as part of the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.

But I guess he's really just an empty suit riding the coattails of a hard-working white man (http://stygius.typepad.com/stygius/2005/12/lugarobama_for_.html), correct?


Obama impressed many observers with his initial effort, some tough but fair questioning of John Bolton during those controversial UN ambassadorial nomination hearings, and our sources report that Obama has encouraged serious non-proliferation experts. Says one: "From my colleagues who traveled to the FSU with him, I gather he was deeply engaged, had done his homework, asked substantive and insightful questions...Good to hear."


Its slightly scary that you're spending more time attacking me, including veiled accusations of racism, instead of defending the man you've championed for months.
I assure you, if the forum rules were different, there would be no veils, thin or otherwise. Let's just put it this way: Marxists and communists have an association with mass murder. Maybe it's not the ideology's fault, but there it is. Between Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, they just seem to wind up murdering millions of people. Can't help themselves. Fascists, on the other hand, seem to wind up hating and killing anyone of a different ethnicity than themselves. Maybe the fascist ideology is wonderful, but it just kinda tends to have this side-effect.

So when the resident self-declared fascist embarks on a one-man jihad against a candidate with a different skin color from his own, well, the implications are obvious.


He's the anti-Obama. Real experience and true bipartisanship, when it really matters and not just on feel-good bills.
So nuclear non-proliferation and police interrogation are part of the feel-good agenda? What a fascinating and colorful world you live in, kid.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is that the sum total of what I said, young fascist?

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot the police interrogation bill. Amazing stuff. ~:rolleyes:



Yup, that's all he did. Boy, you sure know your stuff (http://www.cfr.org/publication/15279/candidates_and_nuclear_nonproliferation.html).


In August 2005, Obama traveled with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) to nuclear and biological weapons destruction facilities in the former Soviet Union, where they urged the destruction of conventional weapons stockpiles. With Lugar, Obama introduced the Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act, which passed as part of the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.

This would be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. You attempted to refute my point by saying he went on a trip to Russia.. with the guy who wrote the bill! Do some research. Nuclear nonproliferation was little more than an edited version of a previous bill authored by... none other than Dick Lugar.



So when the resident self-declared fascist embarks on a one-man jihad against a candidate with a different skin color from his own, well, the implications are obvious.

I would normally label such a comment as simply inept, but your continued attacks go further than that. I've constantly defended Jews on this board, as well as blacks and even westernized arabs. You've asked me point blank if I would support any black candidates, and I responded with examples.

So I am forced to come to the conclusion that these constant and baseless attacks are more than the inept ramblings of a misinformed individual, but are in actuallity a sad attempt to divert attention from the fact that - even with the power of Google - you're able to come up with precious little in the way of qualifications that Obama has to be president.

Step back and look at how pathetic you are being. I asked a simple, polite question. My response? "You're a fascist and a racist and you wont vote for him anyway so I don't have to respond!!"


So nuclear non-proliferation and police interrogation are part of the feel-good agenda? What a fascinating and colorful world you live in, kid.

They're not? How many politicians have "Proliferating Nuclear Weapons" as a plank on their platform? :dizzy2:


Don't you see what the problem is here? I asked you a simple question about the man's qualifications and besides all the personal attacks and hysteria, all you could come up with of any substance is the fact that he was able to beat the Clinton machine and that he slapped his name on someone else's work. His record is so thin you even had to resort to citing bills he passed in the state legislature!

Most people want hope and change. What is he really going to change though? His platform is a simplistic and naive copy/paste of Hillary's and the standard DNC lines, and as evidenced by his latest Countrywide gaffe - he's certainly not anymore ethical than your standard politician.

Put him under even a modicum of scrutiny, such as in this thread, and his whole facade falls apart. Thats ok though, obviously any criticism of the man reflects deep-seed racism, right Lemur?

[Strike For The South]

How many lies has he been caught out on recently?

Oh and breaking Godwin's law on the second page - I think that's pretty bad...

Auschwitz and the way he handled his state senate campagins. He is not hope or change he is just the same suit with a darker skin tone. Oh well I guess chrisma wins people over more than experince and sound policies. The funny thing is Clinton had a much better plan for health care and Iraq. With Obamas national system 15 million Americans will still be without coverage. That sure fixes allot. :wall:

[woad&fangs]

With Obamas national system 115 million Americans will still be without coverage. That sure fixes allot. :wall:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: A quick google search shows that currently only 50 million Americans are without coverage. So either you're stating Obama's plan will cause MORE Americans to be uninsured or you are making up numbers out of your southern hemisphere.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[FactionHeir]

There is a difference between partial coverage and full coverage in a plan however.

[Strike For The South]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: A quick google search shows that currently only 50 million Americans are without coverage. So either you're stating Obama's plan will cause MORE Americans to be uninsured or you are making up numbers out of your southern hemisphere.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I meant 15 excuse my mistake. I was under the impression that these people would not be covered at all. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

[woad&fangs]

Okay, 15 million is a realistic sounding number. I'll be honest and say that I've never actually looked to hard into Obama or Hillary's healthcare plan so you might be right.

[PanzerJaeger]

Okay, 15 million is a realistic sounding number. I'll be honest and say that I've never actually looked to hard into Obama or Hillary's healthcare plan so you might be right.

You have something in common with most Obama supporters then. :2thumbsup:

[FactionHeir]

That was brilliant, honestly :laugh4:

[Adrian II]

The score on Obama substance is now 3:0 for Lemur. I tried to do the same for McCain in the other thread, and I'm not even an American but a goldarn foreigner and a Socialist. Got the same non-reaction from others. It doesn't seem to matter. Those who complain the most about the superficiality on the present campaign are the most superficial in their own views and approach.

Meh. :coffeenews:

[woad&fangs]

Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.

bolding done by me. While I like most of what I see on his site, this paragraph jumps out as naive and rather stupid. Yes, electronic records will help make it easier to coordinate care and I believe they are a good thing. However, claiming that a $50 billion investment will lower costs just doesn't seem quite right to me. I'm also curious as to how he plans on protecting electronic records in a way that he can ensure a patient's privacy.

However, I still have yet to see McCain's healthcare plan.

[Lemur]

Nuclear nonproliferation was little more than an edited version of a previous bill authored by... none other than Dick Lugar.
PJ, you asked for examples of things Obama has done. I gave some. You declared they were all irrelevant or plagiarized. Whatever, kid.


So I am forced to come to the conclusion that these constant and baseless attacks are more than the inept ramblings of a misinformed individual, but are in actuallity a sad attempt to divert attention from ...
Stop right there. There's no diversion going on. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If we were in a place that was not the Org, I'd call you exactly what I think you are.


Step back and look at how pathetic you are being. I asked a simple, polite question. My response? "You're a fascist and a racist and you wont vote for him anyway so I don't have to respond!!"
I asked whether you were listening or reloading. Your responses make the answer obvious. Explaining my positions to a person who is in a permanent partisan crouch is beyond unrewarding.


His record is so thin you even had to resort to citing bills he passed in the state legislature!
Yeah, that's just nuts! How dare anyone cite things that happened during the eight years the guys served as a State Senator! That's cheating, that is!


Thats ok though, obviously any criticism of the man reflects deep-seed racism, right Lemur?
I'll certainly consider the source, PJ.

[woad&fangs]

I looked at McCain's plan on his website. Overall I like it, but it seems a lot vaguer than Obama's plan.

[Redleg]

I looked at McCain's plan on his website. Overall I like it, but it seems a lot vaguer than Obama's plan.

The same problem was evident in the election websites of 2004. Politians will rarely put themselves in a position of black and white details this early in the electon. We might see more substance as the election date draws near.

Kind of waiting for the head to head debates. I think the more they have will benefit the American People because it will force both candidates to show their hands on what their policies and course of direction will be if they are elected. We will also be able to take their measure.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

PJ:

Lemur's been responding with a pretty clear set of facts on Obama. You're obviously free to think that Obama's policy stance is not in our collective best interest (I do), but continuing to assert his ephemerality at this juncture is poor argumentation. As Redleg correctly notes, politicos of all stripes don't like to be pinned down much -- the moment you take a stand on something you acquire opponents -- and the media's coverage of him and his fellow campaigners treatment of him did not force him to come out with very much in the way of specifics. That is NOT the same thing as having no record, stance, or accomplishments.

Now, if you'd like to take the time to do a side-by-side on experience with Clinton or McCain, you might make a better case, but just the assertion isn't enough.


Lemur: Please stop addressing the racist issue with PJ, I do not wish to see you on vacation from us here in the Backroom -- you make me think.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Auschwitz and the way he handled his state senate campagins.

Why are you accusing the man of having no substance when you haven't even done enough research to find that his statement on auschwitch was just him misspeaking: he meant Buchenwald. Your views on him have no substance.


He is not hope or change he is just the same suit with a darker skin tone. Oh well I guess chrisma wins people over more than experince and sound policies. The funny thing is Clinton had a much better plan for health care and Iraq. With Obamas national system 15 million Americans will still be without coverage. That sure fixes allot. :wall:

Clinton's plan didn't cover those 15 million. She claimed it did, but her plan just tried to make people who couldn't afford health insurance pay for it. Remember, car insurance is mandatory and huge numbers of americans don't have it. They tried mandatory in MA and lot's of people don't have health insurance. They just accept the fine. It's unenforcable. Clinton's plan is one that all talk and no substance.

His darker skin tone is irrelevant. You seem to be irrationally biased against charisma. Not everyone with charisma is a used car salesman and a liar.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The score on Obama substance is now 3:0 for Lemur. I tried to do the same for McCain in the other thread, and I'm not even an American but a goldarn foreigner and a Socialist. Got the same non-reaction from others. It doesn't seem to matter. Those who complain the most about the superficiality on the present campaign are the most superficial in their own views and approach.

Meh. :coffeenews:

Ironic, isn't it.

[FactionHeir]

Why are you accusing the man of having no substance when you haven't even done enough research to find that his statement on auschwitch was just him misspeaking: he meant Buchenwald.

Actually it also wan't his uncle but his great uncle.
A lot of them "misspeak" or claim to be "misinterpreted" though, so he's in good company with the "same old politics"

[Strike For The South]

Why are you accusing the man of having no substance when you haven't even done enough research to find that his statement on auschwitch was just him misspeaking: he meant Buchenwald. Your views on him have no substance.



Clinton's plan didn't cover those 15 million. She claimed it did, but her plan just tried to make people who couldn't afford health insurance pay for it. Remember, car insurance is mandatory and huge numbers of americans don't have it. They tried mandatory in MA and lot's of people don't have health insurance. They just accept the fine. It's unenforcable. Clinton's plan is one that all talk and no substance.

His darker skin tone is irrelevant. You seem to be irrationally biased against charisma. Not everyone with charisma is a used car salesman and a liar.


Just as long as you realize he is the same old thing. There is nothing new about the man

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Actually it also wan't his uncle but his great uncle.
A lot of them "misspeak" or claim to be "misinterpreted" though, so he's in good company with the "same old politics"

You're right. What nefarious politics. Trying to get away with saying auswitch instead of buchenwald. Good thing we have people like sfts and FactionHeir to see though the lies and dirty politics. :dizzy2:

I wonder if the reason he hasn't said much about his policies is that the people that don't like him only ever question whether he's really black and whether he misspoke?

[FactionHeir]

Isn't that the same reaction Clinton and McCain are/were getting?

[Strike For The South]

You're right. What nefarious politics. Trying to get away with saying auswitch instead of buchenwald. Good thing we have people like sfts and FactionHeir to see though the lies and dirty politics. :dizzy2:

I wonder if the reason he hasn't said much about his policies is that the people that don't like him only ever question whether he's really black and whether he misspoke?

A harvard educated man would know the difference dont you think? He is just the same old politician. he uses the same smut that the rest of them use. He is not change or hope or different he is just another suit.

[Lemur]

So Strike, since in your view there is no difference between Bush 43 and Obama, what characteristics would qualify as "different" for you?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Isn't that the same reaction Clinton and McCain are/were getting?

I'm talking about what you are saying, so why are you bring what some "other people" may have said about clinton and McCain into the discussion?

Do you really think it's saying auswitch instead of buchenwald is evidence of a lying politician?

[Geoffrey S]

The only reason those guys are so vague on their policies is because the electorate is too damned lazy to demand clarity. And I'd wager, politicians like it that way and won't make it too hard for each other. Who needs to do mud-slinging nowadays anyway? Partisan bloggers do it for them.

[PanzerJaeger]

Explaining my positions to a person who is in a permanent partisan crouch is beyond unrewarding.

Yep. Preaching to the quire is far more rewarding. I asked you a simple question and your eventual response was laced with personal attacks.



Stop right there. There's no diversion going on. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If we were in a place that was not the Org, I'd call you exactly what I think you are.

Just say it, the moderators won't bother you. Hell you've already called me racist. If you're not man enough though, why don't you send me a personal message?

I will say that leveling false accusations of racism against me is not simply you being an idiot, it is you being deliberately deceitful.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A harvard educated man would know the difference dont you think? He is just the same old politician. he uses the same smut that the rest of them use. He is not change or hope or different he is just another suit.

I'm sorry sfts, but at this point your bias should be clear to even you. Step back and reevaluate what you're saying. People say the wrong word in speeches just like they mess up in typing. For example you missed an apostrophe and didn't capitalize when you should have two times. A high school educated man should know better? You're just a lying politician? This is getting silly. Everyone makes typos and errors.

[Strike For The South]

So Strike, since in your view there is no difference between Bush 43 and Obama, what characteristics would qualify as "different" for you?

Both men offer no new soultions for the United States. Obama seems content on riding the populist horse into the ground just like Bush43 did early on. Lemur youre a smart guy yhou know the man offers no real hope in the short or long run. They all jsut talk a bunch of hot air. Americans polotics exploits the dumb lazy and ignornat to the highest degree

[Geoffrey S]

A stagnant, apathetic attitude best described by: :wall: , and which is the main reason why elections so often boil down to the best of a bad bunch.

[FactionHeir]

I'm talking about what you are saying, so why are you bring what some "other people" may have said about clinton and McCain into the discussion?

Do you really think it's saying auswitch instead of buchenwald is evidence of a lying politician?

I did not say that this was evidence of a lying politician anywhere now did I?
I said that him saying how his Uncle (when it was his Great Uncle) being among the first American soldiers to liberate Auschwitz (When it was Buchenwald, note 2 misspeaks in the same sentence) was just the same misspeak/misunderstand/misquote that all the other same old politicians he aims to defy are doing.

[PanzerJaeger]

A democrat's compilation of Barack Obama's lies. Some interesting stuff in there...


1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google ‘Obama Selma’ for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga’s follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out this link for verification of that….and for more.

Obama’s cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia Muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians’ homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5 AM according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side. While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya , his father’s family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s Arab, not African Negro). From
this link.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article “Obama was ‘quite religious in islam’” This link.

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008.
Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says “Obama’s narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.”

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons?

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn’t write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn’t.

33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. (Obama has now stopped saying this.)

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

40.) I don’t Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.

[Xiahou]

I still haven't waded thru the old thread to find the article about Obama being handed sponsorship of bills in IL, but here's a WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html) story about Obama's attempts to take top billing for legislation in the US senate that he had little to do with:
After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the "President's Room," just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.

As the half-dozen senators -- including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that included himself.

"I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who've actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out," he said.

To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them. But in a presidential contest involving three sitting senators, embellishment of legislative records may be an inevitability, Specter said with a shrug.

Unlike governors, business leaders or vice presidents, senators -- the last to win the presidency was John F. Kennedy in 1960 -- are not executives. They cannot be held to account for the state of their states, their companies or their administrations. What they do have is the mark they leave on the nation's laws -- and in Obama's brief three-year tenure, as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's seven-year hitch, those marks are far from indelible.

"It's not an unusual matter for senators to take a little extra credit," Specter said.

-snip-

Immigration is a case in point for Obama, but not the only one. In 2007, after the first comprehensive immigration bill had died, the senators were back at it, and again, Obama was notably absent, staffers and senators said. At one meeting, three key negotiators recalled, he entered late and raised a number of questions about the bill's employment verification system. Kennedy and Specter both rebuked him, saying that the issue had already been resolved and that he was coming late to the discussion. Kennedy dressed him down, according to witnesses, and Obama left shortly thereafter.

"Senator Obama came in late, brought up issues that had been hashed and rehashed," Specter recalled. "He didn't stay long."

Just this week, as the financial markets were roiling in the wake of the Bear Stearns collapse, Obama made another claim that was greeted with disbelief in some corners of Capitol Hill. On March 13, Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, unveiled legislative proposals to allow the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee new loans from banks willing to help homeowners in or approaching foreclosure. Obama and Clinton were in Washington for a day-long round of budget voting, but neither appeared at the housing news conference.

Yet Obama on Monday appeared to seek top billing on Dodd's proposal.

"At this moment, we must come together and act to address the housing crisis that set this downturn in motion and continues to eat away at the public's confidence in the market," Obama said. "We should pass the legislation I put forward with my colleague Chris Dodd to create meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages so that Americans facing foreclosure can keep their homes."

Dodd did say that Obama supported the bill, as does Clinton. But he could not offer pride of authorship to the candidate he wants to see in the White House next year.

"I've talked to him about it at some length," Dodd said. "When Senator Obama was there for that full day of voting, we had long conversations about it. He had excellent questions and decided to support it."

-Edit: Ok, I went thru the old thread and found the story- it even alleges the vaunted video taped confessions bill was handed to him: Obama and Me (http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/1)

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

[PanzerJaeger]

hmm..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs

[CountArach]

Crap
And that makes McCain the better choice, how?

[PanzerJaeger]

And that makes McCain the better choice, how?

When faced with the unpleasant truths... divert! You'll fit in well here. :bow:

[CountArach]

When faced with the unpleasant truths... divert! You'll fit in well here. :bow:
There was nothing of substance in there - it was entirely superfluous.

[PanzerJaeger]

There was nothing of substance in there - it was entirely superfluous.

Interesting analysis. You feel his bills and senate record are superfluous?

Obama is definitely the candidate for you!

[Lemur]

I believe CA was referring to the anonymous, un-linked un-attributed list of 46 hysterical attacks. By all means, post some more of that sort of stuff. Does your credibility wonders.

[CountArach]

I believe CA was referring to the anonymous, un-linked un-attributed list of 46 hysterical attacks. By all means, post some more of that sort of stuff. Does your credibility wonders.
That's the one. I didn't bother to watch the YouTube link.

[PanzerJaeger]

I believe CA was referring to the anonymous, un-linked un-attributed list of 46 hysterical attacks. By all means, post some more of that sort of stuff. Does your credibility wonders.

Hysterical attacks should be pretty easy to refute... :book:

[PanzerJaeger]

That's the one. I didn't bother to watch the YouTube link.


You should. Its the man's writings in his own words. Hard to spin that..

On second thought, it might chip at your preconcieved notions, so you should probably avoid it.

[KukriKhan]

Martial Law is declared here, and a 48-hour curfew imposed, so staff can sort the bloodied from the bloodiers. Thread will re-open this time Friday, 13 June, hopefully with a more civil tone. My apologies to readers. :bow:

[KukriKhan]

Thread is re-opened, a couple of hours later than promised. My apologies (longer than usual workday). :bow:

[Lemur]

Well, as you're probably aware, Fox News went for the trifecta. First there was calling for Obama's assassination (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0508/Fox_analyst_apologizes_for_Obama_assassination_joke.html), then there was the "terrorist fist-jab," (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/13/television.barackobama?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront) and now it's calling Michelle Obama his "baby mama," a phrase normally reserved for unmarried women who you've knocked up.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/BabyMama.jpg

Best comment on the subject so far: (http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=870)


Calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama” isn’t just Fox News having a happy casual larf; it’s using urban slang to a) remind you the Obamas are black, b) belittle a woman of considerable personal accomplishment, and c) frame Barack Obama’s relationship to his wife and children in a way that insults him, minimizes his love for and commitment to his family, and reinforces stereotypes about black men. Someone at Fox News just ought to call Barack Obama “boy” at some point so we can have all the cards right out there on the table.

[m52nickerson]

A democrat's compilation of Barack Obama's lies. Some interesting stuff in there...


1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google ‘Obama Selma’ for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga’s follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out this link for verification of that….and for more.

Obama’s cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia Muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians’ homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5 AM according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side. While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya , his father’s family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s Arab, not African Negro). From
this link.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article “Obama was ‘quite religious in islam’” This link.

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008.
Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says “Obama’s narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.”

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons?

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn’t write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn’t.

33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. (Obama has now stopped saying this.)

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

40.) I don’t Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.

As I stated in another thread it seems Snopes has gone through and proved all this false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

So, did you copy and paste this without knowing they were lies, if so it shows that you are uninformed, or did you know they were lies, and are now helping to perpetuate those lies?
Which one is it?

As far as your YouTube video, it is quit easy to tell that Obama is describing what thing were like for him growing up. That and the fact that the statements are incomplete. Perhaps you shoud try and post something with some type of substance.

[Xiahou]

Well, as you're probably aware, Fox News went for the trifecta.

Well, that settles it- I won't be voting for FoxNews this November. What? It's not running? Oh, nevermind then. :oops:

[Lemur]

Xiahou, the responses from the blogosphere have been hilarious; you'd have to be made of the anti-funny to not enjoy them. Maybe the best one-liner: "Did no one at that Fox Chyron department know how to spell 'Negress?' " (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/do-they-really-want-to-pl_b_107006.html)

But the Scalzi post I linked to has some doozies worthy of Devastatin' Dave himself:


Back in the day – you know, when presidential candidates were respectably white – news organizations called potential First Ladies “wives.” But now that black folks are running, we can get all funky fresh with the lingo, yo. So it’s basically fine for Fox News to use “Baby Mama” for Michelle Obama, slang that implies a married 44-year-old Princeton-educated lawyer is, to use an Urban Dictionary definition of the term, “some chick you knocked up on accident during a fling who you can’t stand but you have to tolerate cuz she got your baby now.” Because the Obamas are black! And the blacks, they be all relaxed about that ****, yo. Word up.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Breaking news - Obama's half brother (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659716936&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to smear Obama as a Muslim (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/christian)!

Now, it seems to me Obama does have a history of being raised in a Muslim background, Indonesia specifically. Why the Clintonesque need to completely deny that and so turn a non-event politically into something where it can be said he's lying about his past?

And I really hope no one is stupid enough to go after Obama's wife with what they have now. It should be enough to simply show Obama's positions on the issues, namely international, like saying Jerusalem will remain undivided, then backing down much quicker than he did in his unilateral talks with Iran thing.

And my support for McCain is growing after hearing of his economic/tax plan.

CR

[OverKnight]

I read in the Boston Globe that the Barack Obama campaign has set up a website to repudiate the web based rumors about him and his family:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/13/obama_camp_creates_website_to_fight_rumors/

The article makes the point that this is an interesting tactic considering the conventional wisdom is that by trying to fight rumors you only serve to spread them.

Still the whole "Barack is a secret Muslim" meme has some traction, so maybe it is best to fight it.

A link to the site itself (responds to some accusations made up thread):

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

And a trip to snopes is always a good idea. I still get emails from one or two of my friends about one urban legend or another, ie the Post Office is going to tax e-mails.

Of course, people will believe what they want to believe, even if it isn't true.

[m52nickerson]

Of course, people will believe what they want to believe, even if it isn't true.

That is the sad fact. Instead of people focus on lies and half truths. You know there is a large segment of the population that would say that Obama is a black Muslim but could not tell you the smallest thing about his platform. It's the same for McCain, all they know it that he is a former veteran who spent many years as a P.O.W., but could not tell you were he stood on any issues.

We can't even have a discussion here with out people bringing in all kinds of crap.

[Geoffrey S]

That is the sad fact. Instead of people focus on lies and half truths. You know there is a large segment of the population that would say that Obama is a black Muslim but could not tell you the smallest thing about his platform. It's the same for McCain, all they know it that he is a former veteran who spent many years as a P.O.W., but could not tell you were he stood on any issues.
I think the candidates themselves are largely to blame for that. Commit themselves to a specific policy this early? They wouldn't dare, and with the media too lazy to challenge them on that matter it's going to stay that way for some time yet.

It's the same everywhere. I may not like Gordon Brown, for instance, but the opposition is getting a very easy time of it without having to present what their alternatives will be.

[CountArach]

That is the sad fact. Instead of people focus on lies and half truths. You know there is a large segment of the population that would say that Obama is a black Muslim but could not tell you the smallest thing about his platform. It's the same for McCain, all they know it that he is a former veteran who spent many years as a P.O.W., but could not tell you were he stood on any issues.

We can't even have a discussion here with out people bringing in all kinds of crap.
I shall revert to my usual fall-back position.

I blame the media.

[m52nickerson]

I shall revert to my usual fall-back position.

I blame the media.

The media does share some of the blame, but it is the voters that listen to the media don't do any research for them selfs and vote on who is wearing an American flag pin on there suit.

I do think as time goes on this will improve. My son's (he's two) generation will grow up so internet proficient that they will be far more informed then we are. I think people will more and more come to realize what is important and what is not.

[Odin]

I think people will more and more come to realize what is important and what is not.

I think we are there as evidenced by the success of Obama. We'll put aside the fact he beat the clinton machine at thier own game a second (not to minimalize it), but getting caught in the crap about his religion, racial make up, expirence is a waste of time.

Whats important here is people have realized whats important, and thats giving the U.S. political system a major enema and flushing out the conservatives. We realize whats important, we may stay the course (OMG am I quoting Bush?) here in the states but this ones a slam dunk.

Conservatives have set us back so far that the person who represents the greatest change will win. So it happens to be a black man, who had a muslim father and a white grandmother (I thought it would be a female, but I digress). The conservatives created an entire new cabinet level of government, forced Tommy Franks into a ridiculous battle plan for Iraq, created huge deficits, pissed on personal freedoms and have let the infrastructure of the country go to :daisy:.

So whats important is, is someone put a new roll of toilet paper in the bathroom and flush :toilet:

And thats whats going to happen. Sure you will be able to spend pages and pages and minutes of your time bickering back and forth with the various elements here at the org as to who voted for what bill when, or "does he raise his pinky when he drinks, thats the white coming out" but its really a very simple situation.

What is important, is the conservative government of the last 8 years has had a mamoth failre accross the board. They had it all in 2000 and what did they do with it? a well funded successful aids relief program in africa.

What people have come to realize, is that they made a mistake to trust Bush. Yep big mistake was made in 04, but hey 06 the people started to flush away the conservatives so hang in there. Your forecast for the future enlightenment is optomistic and its refreshing, but you've missed the mark its happening now.

Its happening now because the conservatives failed accross the board on a mamoth scale, their majority was unprecedented and they blew, so take heart friend we realized it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well said...

[CountArach]

Well said...
I concur. Excellent post Odin :bow:

As for polling (Seeing as I am absolute poll junkie), Obama has been getting a lot of party unity bounces across the country and the two sites that I watch the most closely (links in their title) for Electoral Vote distributions are showing the following:
Five Thirty Eight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/):
Obama 308.5 EVs (64.7% chance of victory - Lines up with the trading markets)
McCain 229.5 EVs (35.3%)

Popular vote - Obama 51.4, McCain 48.6

Note that this site was apparently quite accurate during the Primary season, and has recently updated its methodology to help predict states that haven't received much in the way of recent polling data. The methodology is very complex and takes into account long-term trends as well as recent polling averages. Overall I would trust this as quite accurate.

Electoral Vote Predictor (http://www.electoral-vote.com/):
Obama 304
McCain 221
Tied 13

This site has a much more simple methodology - an average of all the polls in the last week. Probably not as accurate as the other site, but seeing as the two coincide quite well I would be willing to say that this site isn't too bad. It also has an excellent Senate (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Jun14-s.html) map.

[Don Corleone]

I have two things I'd like to say.

First, I'll acknowledge that Obama has a lead on McCain.

Second, I'll point out that it's nowhere near as big as Kerry's or Gore's over Bush was at this point. One thing I've learned... it'll always be a photo finish.

As for the disrespecting of Michele Obama, shameful. I think she can be quite chafing, but implying she's an out of wedlock mother? Pathetic.

[Lemur]

I'll point out that it's nowhere near as big as Kerry's or Gore's over Bush was at this point.
Hmm, that's not what the professional poll-smokers (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/12/1135634.aspx) are saying ...


While polls can't accurately gauge an election five months out -- after all, so much can still happen -- it's worth putting Obama's lead into this perspective: Bush never trailed Kerry in the 2004 NBC/WSJ polls that measured registered voters' preference for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. And Bush's lead was never bigger than four points.

Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.

Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:
March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%

[Don Corleone]

Hmm, that's not what the professional poll-smokers (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/12/1135634.aspx) are saying ...


While polls can't accurately gauge an election five months out -- after all, so much can still happen -- it's worth putting Obama's lead into this perspective: Bush never trailed Kerry in the 2004 NBC/WSJ polls that measured registered voters' preference for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. And Bush's lead was never bigger than four points.

Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.

Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:
March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%

What!?! I thought Kerry had an 18 point lead at the conventions. I thought it was a done deal in June/July 2004. And you say Bush supposedly never trailed? I'm lazy, so can I ask you to go check Zogby for me? Pretty please?

[CountArach]

What!?! I thought Kerry had an 18 point lead at the conventions. I thought it was a done deal in June/July 2004. And you say Bush supposedly never trailed? I'm lazy, so can I ask you to go check Zogby for me? Pretty please?
2004 Polling Averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html)
Analysis (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/we-dont-know-as-much-as-we-think-big.html)


From April onward, John Kerry never held a lead of more than about 2 points in the Real Clear Politics national average, and George W. Bush never held a lead of more than 6 or 7 points. Those numbers pretty well framed the actual result of Bush +2.4.

[Don Corleone]

Fascinating. And here all this time, I thought Bush had more comebacks than Rocky. Was it that close with Gore all the time too?

Anyway, thanks for the info Lemur & CA.

[CountArach]

Fascinating. And here all this time, I thought Bush had more comebacks than Rocky. Was it that close with Gore all the time too?

Anyway, thanks for the info Lemur & CA.
Pleasure, I really enjoy polling so its no trouble :bow:

From the second link:

In 2000, George W. Bush was ahead by an average of 4.7 points in 14 June polls. In November, Al Gore won the popular vote by 0.5 points.

[Strike For The South]

I think we are there as evidenced by the success of Obama. We'll put aside the fact he beat the clinton machine at thier own game a second (not to minimalize it), but getting caught in the crap about his religion, racial make up, expirence is a waste of time.

Whats important here is people have realized whats important, and thats giving the U.S. political system a major enema and flushing out the conservatives. We realize whats important, we may stay the course (OMG am I quoting Bush?) here in the states but this ones a slam dunk.

Conservatives have set us back so far that the person who represents the greatest change will win. So it happens to be a black man, who had a muslim father and a white grandmother (I thought it would be a female, but I digress). The conservatives created an entire new cabinet level of government, forced Tommy Franks into a ridiculous battle plan for Iraq, created huge deficits, pissed on personal freedoms and have let the infrastructure of the country go to :daisy:.

So whats important is, is someone put a new roll of toilet paper in the bathroom and flush :toilet:

And thats whats going to happen. Sure you will be able to spend pages and pages and minutes of your time bickering back and forth with the various elements here at the org as to who voted for what bill when, or "does he raise his pinky when he drinks, thats the white coming out" but its really a very simple situation.

What is important, is the conservative government of the last 8 years has had a mamoth failre accross the board. They had it all in 2000 and what did they do with it? a well funded successful aids relief program in africa.

What people have come to realize, is that they made a mistake to trust Bush. Yep big mistake was made in 04, but hey 06 the people started to flush away the conservatives so hang in there. Your forecast for the future enlightenment is optomistic and its refreshing, but you've missed the mark its happening now.

Its happening now because the conservatives failed accross the board on a mamoth scale, their majority was unprecedented and they blew, so take heart friend we realized it.

So we should vote change for changes sake?

[m52nickerson]

So we should vote change for changes sake?

Since what we have been doing has not worked, yes!

Remember, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

........guess the conservatives did not get that memo.

[Strike For The South]

Since what we have been doing has not worked, yes!

Remember, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

........guess the conservatives did not get that memo.

Higher taxes and a larger federal goverment will not fix anything. It merley burdens normal working people with more taxes and red tape. I see no upside good sir

[m52nickerson]

Higher taxes and a larger federal government will not fix anything. It merely burdens normal working people with more taxes and red tape. I see no upside good sir

Obama does want to raise taxes......on people who make over $250,000 dollars a year. No exactly normal working class folks. He also wants to make sure the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, again 90% of those cuts were to large corporations.

Plus, over the last 8 year the conservatives have expanded the size of government to its largest size ever. Obama wants more over site in the corporate world, not the private.

Look at the simple fact.....

Clinton's 8 years the country had an economic boom.

Bush's 8 years the country has just about gone bust.

Tell me Strike, are you and your family better off now in Bush's last year, then you were in Clinton's?

[Ice]

I think we are there as evidenced by the success of Obama. We'll put aside the fact he beat the clinton machine at thier own game a second (not to minimalize it), but getting caught in the crap about his religion, racial make up, expirence is a waste of time.

Whats important here is people have realized whats important, and thats giving the U.S. political system a major enema and flushing out the conservatives. We realize whats important, we may stay the course (OMG am I quoting Bush?) here in the states but this ones a slam dunk.

Conservatives have set us back so far that the person who represents the greatest change will win. So it happens to be a black man, who had a muslim father and a white grandmother (I thought it would be a female, but I digress). The conservatives created an entire new cabinet level of government, forced Tommy Franks into a ridiculous battle plan for Iraq, created huge deficits, pissed on personal freedoms and have let the infrastructure of the country go to :daisy:.

So whats important is, is someone put a new roll of toilet paper in the bathroom and flush :toilet:

And thats whats going to happen. Sure you will be able to spend pages and pages and minutes of your time bickering back and forth with the various elements here at the org as to who voted for what bill when, or "does he raise his pinky when he drinks, thats the white coming out" but its really a very simple situation.

What is important, is the conservative government of the last 8 years has had a mamoth failre accross the board. They had it all in 2000 and what did they do with it? a well funded successful aids relief program in africa.

What people have come to realize, is that they made a mistake to trust Bush. Yep big mistake was made in 04, but hey 06 the people started to flush away the conservatives so hang in there. Your forecast for the future enlightenment is optomistic and its refreshing, but you've missed the mark its happening now.

Its happening now because the conservatives failed accross the board on a mamoth scale, their majority was unprecedented and they blew, so take heart friend we realized it.

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

Democrats are better than Republicans.

[CountArach]

Higher taxes and a larger federal goverment will not fix anything. It merley burdens normal working people with more taxes and red tape. I see no upside good sir
Higher taxes hey? With Obama taxes will be lower for the Middle class (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125/)...

Economists of various ideological persuasions, however, view Mr. McCain’s assessment as inaccurate or exaggerated. Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class — the voters both candidates see as the key to victory.

In a study of the candidates’ plans made public Wednesday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that in contrast to Mr. McCain, “Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.”

The study said, “The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution,” whereas “Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes.”

Other groups that focus on tax and economic policy are preparing similar analyses, but say they regard the Tax Policy Center’s assessment as highly reliable, based on its work in the past.

EDIT: And lol @ Sasaki :laugh4:

[Ice]

Obama does want to raise taxes......on people who make over $250,000 dollars a year.

Ah the old steal from the rich because they don't work enough for their money argument. I suppose that really doesn't ever get old because we all know anyone making over 250k a year deserves to have their taxes raised.

Oh wait, it gets really really old.

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more

God forbid we try to private portions or raise the retirement age. More taxes.

Wait. Does this really fix social security, or simply add more government spending to delay its collapse longer? :idea2:



No exactly normal working class folks.

I beg to differ.



He also wants to make sure the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, again 90% of those cuts were to large corporations.

Really? Can I see link for that statistic? I thought Bush cut taxes across the board?






Plus, over the last 8 year the conservatives have expanded the size of government to its largest size ever. Obama wants more over site in the corporate world, not the private.

Link? Explanation? More red tape isn't always a good think. Can you specify what you are talking about?


Look at the simple fact.....

Clinton's 8 years the country had an economic boom.

Bush's 8 years the country has just about gone bust.

:laugh4:

Gone bust? Do you know why the economy is sluggish right now? Do you know remember the great economic boom we had the last couple years before the housing crash? Do you know the reasons for the great economic boom AND CRASH UNDER CLINTON? If you do, I'd love to debate this with you.


Tell me Strike, are you and your family better off now in Bush's last year, then you were in Clinton's?

A weak argument at best. Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, while Obama is not imho.

[Ice]

Higher taxes hey? With Obama taxes will be lower for the Middle class (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125/)...

That's great, CA. Raise the taxes on those who create the wealth in this country at a time when the economy and business's are struggling. I mean, those rich people are really stupid, right? Higher taxes won't encourage them to hide more of their assets, right?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more



Why do people say this? Of course making 102k a year is wealthy. Where do you live, the hamptons?

[Ice]

To set the record straight here, I'm not a fanboy of John McCain. Who I really wanted to see in Washington is Ron Paul. You'd see change under him, but not the same old crap we keep hearing about under Obama.

Although Paul didn't the get the ticket, I will vote for McCain. While I think he is old and disagree with him of many things ranging from the war and civil liberties, hopefully I can count on him to veto most of this crap the democrats will send through.

[Ice]

Why do people say this? Of course making 102k a year is wealthy. Where do you live, the hamptons?

No, Sasaki, I live in a mixed white collar/blue collar area about 20 minutes west of Detroit.

Where do you live, bubble**** nowhere, where you can buy a mansion for a 100k?

100k isn't wealthy in the slightest for a family of four, especially when you take into account the costs of higher education and other assorted costs.

[CountArach]

That's great, CA. Raise the taxes on those who create the wealth in this country at a time when the economy and business's are struggling. I mean, those rich people are really stupid, right? Higher taxes won't encourage them to hide more of their assets, right?
Tax cuts on the wealth won't stimulate growth. Seriously. Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?

[Ice]

Tax cuts on the wealth won't stimulate growth. Seriously. Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?

Hard to tell statistically what's from the tax cuts specifically due to the fact that the central bank had rates lowered at 1% for a while, but yes:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

Furthermore, the tax cuts weren't on wealth, but on income. Why can't it get through some of your heads, that some of the upper tier's that were cut were not famously wealthy. When one's taxes get cut by 3-4%, a lot of that money will be pumped back into the economy via purchases.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Democrats are better than Republicans.

No offense to Americans, but both the big parties suck. Badly. Really, you people should vote third party.

[CountArach]

100k isn't wealthy in the slightest for a family of four, especially when you take into account the costs of higher education and other assorted costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

The top 20% earn $92 000 and the top 5% earn $167 000. $102 000 slots in there somewhere.

I would say that is wealthy.

Anyway I'll get to the rest of the economy later today. I need to study for an exam I have tomorrow.

[discovery1]

Look at the lot of you, running to defend Obama like he's the answer to all of america's problems. Well let me say this, with a Democratic house and senate, he will be as great a disaster as Bush was, maybe even worse. I have 100 USD to back it up.

[seireikhaan]

Folks, one thing to remember is that what 100k buys you in one part of the country will be different than 100k in another part. 100k here in Iowa makes you a rather wealthy person, as prices are, generally, lower than most other parts of the country. 100k in Southern California will net you considerably less.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, Sasaki, I live in a mixed white collar/blue collar area about 20 minutes west of Detroit.

Where do you live, bubble**** nowhere, where you can buy a mansion for a 100k?

100k isn't wealthy in the slightest for a family of four, especially when you take into account the costs of higher education and other assorted costs.

I've spent a few minutes trying to compose an explanation but words fail me and I think we had this argument before. So let's just say our society values consumer products too much (they actually lead to depression) and that some family not being able to afford the latest flatscreen tv because of higher taxes isn't a tragedy especially when you consider they'll be able to buy the same tv for half the price in a years time. And the result is, you know, health care. This is probably futile since you also disagreed with people making 250k having higher taxes. Our great grandfathers would have laughed at what we consider "middle class".

[Xiahou]

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.:laugh4::2thumbsup:

By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more
The best part about that is those same people will see nothing in return for that. That's right, they're being forced to pay money into a supposed retirement system that they'll never get a return on. This isn't "change" it's just the same tired old class warfare that we always get from Democrats. :no:


Has there been a great deal of economic growth since the Bush tax cuts?Yes. :yes:

I'd really love to hear how Obama intends to give "tax breaks" to the lower class as well- should be interesting to hear when you consider most low income households already pay little or no federal income taxes.

[Ice]

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

The top 20% earn $92 000 and the top 5% earn $167 000. $102 000 slots in there somewhere.

I would say that is wealthy.

Define wealthy. If you define wealthy as having more money that the majority of people, someone who makes 51% would be considered wealthy.

So what is your definition? Where do you draw the arbitrary line in a country of over 300 million people? Do you think making 100k in NYC equates to making 100k in El Paso Texas?


Anyway I'll get to the rest of the economy later today. I need to study for an exam I have tomorrow.

It's been a while since I've had a good debate on this. I look forward to it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Folks, one thing to remember is that what 100k buys you in one part of the country will be different than 100k in another part. 100k here in Iowa makes you a rather wealthy person, as prices are, generally, lower than most other parts of the country. 100k in Southern California will net you considerably less.

There's a reason people are willing to pay $2,000 a month in manhattan instead of $300 in Iowa. 100k in SoCal doesn't get you less--it get's you SoCal. Never been there, but I've been to Iowa. 'Nuff said.

[Ice]

I've spent a few minutes trying to compose an explanation but words fail me and I think we had this argument before.

Most likely. You should see me at college. Your ideas are a dime a dozen there.


So let's just say our society

replaces the bolded with human nature


values consumer products too much (they actually lead to depression) and that some family not being able to afford the latest flatscreen tv because of higher taxes isn't a tragedy especially when you consider they'll be able to buy the same tv for half the price in a years time.


That's a rather large generalization you just made. Keep making them though it's nothing different. Let me guess, next you'll time me how everyone making over the "middle class line" owns a yacht?


And the result is, you know, health care. This is probably futile since you also disagreed with people making 250k having higher taxes.

I never said that. I disagree with them getting a tax increase when everyone else does not.

I believe John F Kennedy, a democrat ironically, illustrated my point well when he cuts taxes for everyone. My father once told me an excellent quote along the lines about how everyone deserves to have their taxes cut in times of prosperity, but I can't find it.



Our great grandfathers would have laughed at what we consider "

middle class".

I'd understand why they were laughing, however, this isn't 1910 anymore.

[Ice]

There's a reason people are willing to pay $2,000 a month in manhattan instead of $300 in Iowa. 100k in SoCal doesn't get you less--it get's you SoCal. Never been there, but I've been to Iowa. 'Nuff said.

I'm not seeing the point here.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm not seeing the point here.

If someone in SoCal wanted to be able to buy more stuff but couldn't because of the price of living in SoCal, they could move to Iowa, where they could afford the more stuff. There's a reason some places are more expensive than others. The land itself has value and is among the stuffs they're paying for. They're still just as wealthy as a person with the same income living in Iowa; they're just spending more of their wealth on their location instead of on other stuff. It was a pretty simple point.

Ajax

[CountArach]

Hard to tell statistically what's from the tax cuts specifically due to the fact that the central bank had rates lowered at 1% for a while, but yes:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm
Studying bored me, so I'm going to look at some economic charts...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20051026
As can be seen at this link, while there has been economic growth in all but one key indicator, the growth has been far slower than it was prior to the tax cuts.

But on the same site I found a great study here (http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf) that explores the effects of the tax cuts.

Page 3 covers GDP and concludes the same thing - that GDP increased, but far slower than the previous cycles. When he looks at Gross Domestic Income the number agrees with his conclusions about GDP. The writer then goes on to look at Private Sector job growth (Page 4). It is concluded that the number at the time of publishing (October 2005) was only 1% higher than March 2001 - compared to an average of 9.1% in previous cycles with the lowest coming in at 6.9%. Thus the Tax Cuts haven't encouraged entrepreneurship.

Page 5 is interesting:

In making the case for the tax cuts of 2003, the Bush Administration acknowledged that strong job growth should be expected without tax cuts. It projected that 4.1 million jobs would be created between mid-2003 and the end of 2004 without the 2003 tax cuts, and that 5.5 million jobs would be created with the tax cuts. In fact, Congress enacted even deeper tax cuts than those on which the Bush Administration’s estimates were based. Even so, only 2.6 million jobs were created over that 18-month period. Thus, by the Bush Administration’s own analysis, the 2003 tax cuts failed to create more jobs than would have been expected without the tax cuts.
So Bush failed, even by his own reckoning :laugh4:

Page 6 - Personal income had stalled over the year this was created - again falling lower than the lowest points of the previous cycles.

I'll come back to the rest if I can be bothered. For now I'll let you chew through that.

[Ice]

If someone in SoCal wanted to be able to buy more stuff but couldn't because of the price of living in SoCal, they could move to Iowa, where they could afford the more stuff. There's a reason some places are more expensive than others. The land itself has value and is among the stuffs they're paying for. They're still just as wealthy as a person with the same income living in Iowa; they're just spending more of their wealth on their location instead of on other stuff. It was a pretty simple point.

Ajax

Yeah it's really that simple. I'll work as an investment banker in Iow... oh wait, that's right I can't.

I was born in Southern California and all my family lives here, but it's too expensive so I guess I'll move out to the middle of no where to live where I can find an identical job.

Yeah real simple.

The black and white crowd continues to amaze me.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kush is absolutely right.

Obama's huge payroll tax increase (slightly over 12%) on the wealthy will certainly hurt the economy. It will just stave off the collapse of social security a bit longer. Lots of Americans have mutual funds and that benefited from the tax rate cuts on dividends or the like.

McCain mentioned that he would cut our very high corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% - a very necessary move.

Obama is a anti-trade panderer. Getting rid of NAFTA will hurt the whole economy.

The GOP deserves a beat-down. But handing the keys to a large dem majority will let them run wild and ruin our country with the same plethora of government programs from four decades ago that were all failures. And by same, I do mean the very same sort of programs, defrosted and reheated for Obama.

Or take the idiotic plan of "windfall profits" on oil companies. Exxon, right now, pays 44% of every dollar it makes to the government. ~10% of every dollar is profit. The dems are a bunch of greedy, populist schemers who want to seize that money and let the gov't get fatter off of it.

Some good articles here (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aK5JGbiyzVRw&refer=columnist_shlaes)and here (http://www.newsweek.com/id/140465).


The problems are obvious. The retirement of the baby boomers is going to have a crippling effect on all government budgets—federal, state and local. Unless entitlements are trimmed substantially, America is headed for fiscal bankruptcy. Immigration policy needs reform, most urgently so that the United States can once again attract the world's most talented people. Spending on research, technology and infrastructure needs a big boost. (U.S. spending on infrastructure as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in the industrialized world today.) Energy policy needs to be overhauled. Trade policy needs to be revitalized. Tax and regulatory codes need to be simplified in order to keep America a competitive place to do business.

Obama, of course, isn't going to do any of that.

CR

[CountArach]

Some good articles here (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aK5JGbiyzVRw&refer=columnist_shlaes)and here (http://www.newsweek.com/id/140465).
Sorry CR but neither of them tell me anything about why lifting the top tax bracket would be bad for the economy. Also the second article claims that the economy won't go into recession - which is contrary to the opinion of almost every major economist.

[m52nickerson]

Ah the old steal from the rich because they don't work enough for their money argument. I suppose that really doesn't ever get old because we all know anyone making over 250k a year deserves to have their taxes raised.

Oh wait, it gets really really old.

So I take it you make over 250k. Well if you are paying more taxes is not going to change your life style.


By the way, did you know Obama wants to "fix" social security by raising taxes on those who make over 102k a year? I'm sure anyone making 102k a year is wealthy too and deserves to be taxed more

102k is a very good living. Not what I would call working class.


God forbid we try to private portions or raise the retirement age. More taxes. Because privatized Health care has worked so well. Do you want to work until your 70.


Wait. Does this really fix social security, or simply add more government spending to delay its collapse longer? :idea2:

Better than nothing, or privatization.


I beg to differ.

I dont, my wife and my self both work 40 hours a week and together brought home just over 60k. That is working class. So you are tell ME that someone who make more than 40% more then we do is still working class?


Really? Can I see link for that statistic? I thought Bush cut taxes across the board?

I will apologize because I got two issues rolled into one.
90% of the tax cuts went to the top two brackets. http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_again_bush_exaggerates_tax.html
If you look at the first chart and add up all the average tax change and then add up just the top two bracket you find that the top two had 88% of the cut. Sorry off be 2%.

The other was Bush's corporate tax cuts. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/


Link? Explanation? More red tape isn't always a good think. Can you specify what you are talking about?
Well we had the addition of the office of home land security. We also had a steep increase in Government spending. The size of the government is not just rules but how much money it uses. http://mises.org/story/2116


Gone bust? Do you know why the economy is sluggish right now? Do you know remember the great economic boom we had the last couple years before the housing crash? Do you know the reasons for the great economic boom AND CRASH UNDER CLINTON? If you do, I'd love to debate this with you.

Crashed under Clinton? So let me get this straight the economy was doing very well when Bush took office, then four or five years later the economy slowed partly because of the housing market and it was Clinton's fault?:inquisitive:


A weak argument at best. Obama is nothing like Bill Clinton. Clinton was a very moderate Democrat, while Obama is not imho.

He is still a Democrat, and other than his health care reform his economic plan shares major point with Clinton's plan.

[m52nickerson]

Kush is absolutely right.

Obama's huge payroll tax increase (slightly over 12%) on the wealthy will certainly hurt the economy. It will just stave off the collapse of social security a bit longer. Lots of Americans have mutual funds and that benefited from the tax rate cuts on dividends or the like.

McCain mentioned that he would cut our very high corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% - a very necessary move.

That is called Trickle-Down economics. Reagan did that and it does not work, unless you want to help drive inflation.

[Ice]

Studying bored me, so I'm going to look at some economic charts...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20051026
As can be seen at this link, while there has been economic growth in all but one key indicator, the growth has been far slower than it was prior to the tax cuts.

But on the same site I found a great study here (http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf) that explores the effects of the tax cuts.

Page 3 covers GDP and concludes the same thing - that GDP increased, but far slower than the previous cycles. When he looks at Gross Domestic Income the number agrees with his conclusions about GDP. The writer then goes on to look at Private Sector job growth (Page 4). It is concluded that the number at the time of publishing (October 2005) was only 1% higher than March 2001 - compared to an average of 9.1% in previous cycles with the lowest coming in at 6.9%. Thus the Tax Cuts haven't encouraged entrepreneurship.

Page 5 is interesting:

So Bush failed, even by his own reckoning :laugh4:

Page 6 - Personal income had stalled over the year this was created - again falling lower than the lowest points of the previous cycles.

I'll come back to the rest if I can be bothered. For now I'll let you chew through that.

It's relative, CA.

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf

Also, CA, how much information in that report you posted can attributed to the actual tax cuts? It really is hard to isolate the cuts to see their exact value on the economy, as your report shows it claims that somehow housing investment went up when, historically, it was suppose to go down with tax cuts. Other factors were acting on the economy.

However, the USA did pretty damn good in comparison to many industrialized countries as the report shows. How much is attributed to the tax cuts? I really don't know.

[Ice]

So I take it you make over 250k. Well if you are paying more taxes is not going to change your life style.

I'm 20 years old. You think I make over 250k?




102k is a very good living. Not what I would call working class.


What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

I also never said it wasn't a bad living. It is damn good. I wouldn't consider it extremely rich however.


Because privatized Health care has worked so well. Do you want to work until your 70.

Health Care is a complex issue and isn't really comparable to privatizing social security.

I'm not sure the age I want to retire at, but when I do, I'm going to rely of the government to tell me when. I'm planning to have my own fund set up so I won't have to rely on big daddy giving me my monthly check.

Nothing is forcing you to retire at the age you start collecting social security. It's up to you to mention your retirement funds appropriately.



Better than nothing, or privatization.

Not it isn't. Social security is ticking time bomb. The USA will continue to grow for a very long time until it reaches its carrying point which is a long way off. The problem will get worse not better.



I dont, my wife and my self both work 40 hours a week and together brought home just over 60k. That is working class. So you are tell ME that someone who make more than 40% more then we do is still working class?


Yup, if they work for a living.


I will apologize because I got two issues rolled into one.
90% of the tax cuts went to the top two brackets. http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_again_bush_exaggerates_tax.html
If you look at the first chart and add up all the average tax change and then add up just the top two bracket you find that the top two had 88% of the cut. Sorry off be 2%.


Yes, the top two brackets received 90% of the tax income from the cuts. So?


a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
* the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
* the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
* the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
* the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
* the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

The lowest bracket was cut 5% and the highest bracket was cut 4.6%. The rest of the brackets were cut by 3%. It seems decent enough to me.



The other was Bush's corporate tax cuts. [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/

What's your problem with this?



Well we had the addition of the office of home land security. We also had a steep increase in Government spending. The size of the government is not just rules but how much money it uses. [URL]http://mises.org/story/2116


You didn't answer my question. Where does Obama want move oversite in the private world and how will this help us?


By the way, you won't see me defending George Bush's spending habits.


Crashed under Clinton? So let me get this straight the economy was doing very well when Bush took office, then four or five years later the economy slowed partly because of the housing market and it was Clinton's fault?:inquisitive:


Yeah that's exactly what I said. How about the Tech Bubble? The early recession under Bush?


He is still a Democrat,
There's that blind partisanship we all love.


and other than his health care reform his economic plan shares major point with Clinton's plan.

Bill or Hillary?

[CountArach]

It's relative, CA.

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf

Also, CA, how much information in that report you posted can attributed to the actual tax cuts? It really is hard to isolate the cuts to see their exact value on the economy, as your report shows it claims that somehow housing investment went up when, historically, it was suppose to go down with tax cuts. Other factors were acting on the economy.

However, the USA did pretty damn good in comparison to many industrialized countries as the report shows. How much is attributed to the tax cuts? I really don't know.
Those two articles aren't remotely comparable. My one was non-partisan and yours was written by a Republican House. Not that I am denying that statistics aren't entirely relative - its just that I would prefer two non partisan sources.

I have no idea how much can be attributed to the tax cuts - it is just that I think that the claim that they have spurred economic growth is utter BS. Also I am not saying you don't still kick other industrialised country's collective asses - just that the tax cuts didn't do it.

[Strike For The South]

Obama does want to raise taxes......on people who make over $250,000 dollars a year. No exactly normal working class folks. He also wants to make sure the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, again 90% of those cuts were to large corporations.

Plus, over the last 8 year the conservatives have expanded the size of government to its largest size ever. Obama wants more over site in the corporate world, not the private.

Look at the simple fact.....

Clinton's 8 years the country had an economic boom.

Bush's 8 years the country has just about gone bust.


Why should there be more oversite in the corporate world those guys busted hump to get where they are. Why should a president tell them what to do. Saying Dem=good for the economy and GOP=bad is a simplistic veiw that is false (as Kush ponted out)


Tell me Strike, are you and your family better off now in Bush's last year, then you were in Clinton's

Grocers stay pretty much the same no matter what. Everyones got to eat!

[m52nickerson]

I'm 20 years old. You think I make over 250k?

It sounded like that from the way you were arguing. So what types of jobs do you think make 250k a year?


What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

I also never said it wasn't a bad living. It is damn good. I wouldn't consider it extremely rich however.

No it is not extremely rich, but those that make the much can afford to pay more taxes and not see a significant change in there way of life.


Health Care is a complex issue and isn't really comparable to privatizing social security.

Yes it is, but it is a perfect example of a privatized service that is failing.


I'm not sure the age I want to retire at, but when I do, I'm going to rely of the government to tell me when. I'm planning to have my own fund set up so I won't have to rely on big daddy giving me my monthly check. Nothing is forcing you to retire at the age you start collecting social security. It's up to you to mention your retirement funds appropriately.

While that is good for you, it may not work for other people. So what happens to the person that never could afford to put anything away for retirement, then suddenly finds he can't work anymore?


Not it isn't. Social security is ticking time bomb. The USA will continue to grow for a very long time until it reaches its carrying point which is a long way off. The problem will get worse not better. I can agree with this, just not the solution you offered.



Yup, if they work for a living.

So a CEO of a company you would call working class because he works? If not what working class job pays 250k a year.



Yes, the top two brackets received 90% of the tax income from the cuts. So?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001


The lowest bracket was cut 5% and the highest bracket was cut 4.6%. The rest of the brackets were cut by 3%. It seems decent enough to me. What's your problem with this?

Those in the top two brackets did not need a tax cut. They were not struggling.


You didn't answer my question. Where does Obama want move oversite in the private world and how will this help us?

It would help provide health care to many more Americans. It would prevent health care companies from telling you and your doctor what medication you can use.

For example - My wife suffers from very bad migraines. She had a prescription that worked fairly well for her. Then the insurance company told us that she could only get 4 pills per month instead of the 12 sh was getting. We can't afford to pay for the extra pills out of pocket, so because of the health care company I now have to watch my wife suffer through her migraines.


Yeah that's exactly what I said. How about the Tech Bubble? The early recession under Bush?
The .com crash did not affect the whole country, only a few individuals that that were in that industry. There was not small recession.

You are going to blame Clinton for the fall of the housing market when if happened 4 year after he left office? No, that lies with Bush and the sub-prime mortgage lenders. Bush and his administration was warned, but because of a lack in government over site we are in the situation we are currently dealing with.


There's that blind partisanship we all love.
It is only blind if you don't think true that parties position, or continuing to support plans that have not worked. Like the conservatives are doing.



Bill or Hillary? Bill, Hillary and Obama share the same core beliefs when it comes to the economy. Like a balanced budget.



Why should there be more oversite in the corporate world those guys busted hump to get where they are. Why should a president tell them what to do. Saying Dem=good for the economy and GOP=bad is a simplistic veiw that is false (as Kush ponted out)

Grocers stay pretty much the same no matter what. Everyones got to eat!

The goverment should have over site in businesses that provide needed services to the US people. Again millions of people do not have health care. Why, because the health care companies are simple out to make money. If they can cover 1 million people and make 10 million in profits, or cover 250k and make 10.1 million in profit. They will cover less people. It is the same for the insurance companies. That is why over site is needed.

So....12 year with Reagan and Bush Sr. we get a recession, 8 years with Clinton a huge economic boom, then 8 years with Bush Jr. and we have another recession. I can see were that would be coincidence.

....and Strike, food costs have gone up. So food is the only way you measure your standard of living, or are you side stepping the question?

One other thing, could one of your explain how McCain would fix health care and justify how it would work?

[Odin]

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

I didnt say I liked the choice or that it wasnt crap. I just find it a rather silly excersise to not acknowledge the reason we are at this point./

The dems dont have anything new to offer (except a black man who had a muslim father and a white grandmother), Obama is a cookie cutter democrat. The reason he is going to win isnt because the democrats have a wonderful plan, its because the conservatives failed.

The quicker the right recognizes this and starts getting their own house in order, the quicker they will retake the majority.

You know that whole schtict, lower taxes, smaller government less intrusion. Remember those were solid republican tenets and (keeping with crap) they flushed it down the toilet.

So thats more my point, picking apart obama dosent get to the root of why it happened or why he is better then McCain, because he isnt. What he is, is he isnt conservative/republican and thats the problem.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

Yup, if they work for a living.



You can say that all you want, but it's silly. Bill gates worked for his living, therefore he is working class! That's not the definition of working class.

[Ice]

Those two articles aren't remotely comparable. My one was non-partisan and yours was written by a Republican House. Not that I am denying that statistics aren't entirely relative - its just that I would prefer two non partisan sources.

It seemed reasonable enough to me. No real party gimmicks on the surface. Your's wasn't exactly unbiased yourself. The author tore the tax cuts apart until he got the residential investment section where he couldn't why home prices were rising where taxes were cut. He concluded that outside forces must have been acting. This was my point the entire time.



I have no idea how much can be attributed to the tax cuts - it is just that I think that the claim that they have spurred economic growth is utter BS. Also I am not saying you don't still kick other industrialised country's collective asses - just that the tax cuts didn't do it.


What did then? Comparing the US market with similar markets is a good indicator. Comparing the US market with old markets isn't really.

[Ice]

It sounded like that from the way you were arguing. So what types of jobs do you think make 250k a year?

Doctors, Lawyers, Senior Management to name a few

All of these jobs require that you go to school for an ungodly amount of time, pay an ungodly amount of money, do a crap ton of work, and work for a living.




No it is not extremely rich, but those that make the much can afford to pay more taxes and not see a significant change in there way of life.


I'm sure you a more than qualified to make this assumption, but humor me, how do you know this? What entitles them to have their taxes raised?


Yes it is, but it is a perfect example of a privatized service that is failing.

No it isn't. Stop trying to make something simple when it really isn't.

We have a mixed system of health care in this country. Ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid (State/Federal level)? Public/Free Clinics?

Beirut/Redleg were arguing this in the thread "American Socialism" earlier last week, so feel free to look at the debate.


While that is good for you, it may not work for other people. So what happens to the person that never could afford to put anything away for retirement, then suddenly finds he can't work anymore?

I'm not seeing why this should be my problem.


I can agree with this, just not the solution you offered.

Than offer a solution other than the taxing the wealthy which besides have other immediate consequences only delays the problem.



So a CEO of a company you would call working class because he works? If not what working class job pays 250k a year.


CEO I wouldn't really consider working. They make in the millions. A doctor, a dentist, a vet, an orthopedic surgeon would be good examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001




Those in the top two brackets did not need a tax cut. They were not struggling.

That wasn't the point of the tax cuts and besides the point. The cuts were there to give more money to the people and spur economic growth. Whether they did that is questionable though.




It would help provide health care to many more Americans. It would prevent health care companies from telling you and your doctor what medication you can use.


For example - My wife suffers from very bad migraines. She had a prescription that worked fairly well for her. Then the insurance company told us that she could only get 4 pills per month instead of the 12 sh was getting. We can't afford to pay for the extra pills out of pocket, so because of the health care company I now have to watch my wife suffer through her migraines.


I feel sorry for your wife, but I'd rather be able to shop around and negotiate with insurance companies that the government have a monopoly on what procedures I can get done.



The .com crash did not affect the whole country, only a few individuals that that were in that industry. There was not small recession.


[QUOTE]The Dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002.

Nevertheless, laid-off technology experts, such as computer programmers, found a glutted job market. In the U.S., International outsourcing and the recently allowed increase of skilled visa "guest workers" (e.g., those participating in the U.S. H-1B visa program) exacerbated the situation

University degree programs for computer-related careers saw a noticeable drop in new students. Anecdotes of unemployed programmers going back to school to become accountants or lawyers were common.

Doesn't sound like it. You also have to remember many people held those companies' stock in their retirement funds.



You are going to blame Clinton for the fall of the housing market when if happened 4 year after he left office? No, that lies with Bush and the sub-prime mortgage lenders. Bush and his administration was warned, but because of a lack in government over site we are in the situation we are currently dealing with.


You are missing the point entirely. I'm not blaming Clinton and I'm not blaming Bush. I'm mainly blaming the banks, but more importantly the Federal Reserve who kept rates at the low 1% rate for so long.


It is only blind if you don't think true that parties position, or continuing to support plans that have not worked. Like the conservatives are doing.


No, it's fairly blind if you simply support a democrat over republicans without knowing/discussing the issues.


Bill, Hillary and Obama share the same core beliefs when it comes to the economy. Like a balanced budget.


No they don't. Bill was pro NAFTA, while Hilary and Obama want to significantly change it.

Bill did have a balanced budget due to massive decreases in military spending, but tell me how Obama is going to balance the budget with an estimated 300 billion in new spending. If you could please tell me how without "getting rid of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy" it would be nice.

[Ice]

I didnt say I liked the choice or that it wasnt crap. I just find it a rather silly excersise to not acknowledge the reason we are at this point./

The dems dont have anything new to offer (except a black man who had a muslim father and a white grandmother), Obama is a cookie cutter democrat. The reason he is going to win isnt because the democrats have a wonderful plan, its because the conservatives failed.

The quicker the right recognizes this and starts getting their own house in order, the quicker they will retake the majority.

You know that whole schtict, lower taxes, smaller government less intrusion. Remember those were solid republican tenets and (keeping with crap) they flushed it down the toilet.

I'd rather they do it with a republican president and democratic congress than with a purely democratic leading federal government.

I do agree with your other points though.



So thats more my point, picking apart obama dosent get to the root of why it happened or why he is better then McCain, because he isnt. What he is, is he isnt conservative/republican and thats the problem.


I acknowledge this, however, I'd rather see McCain for pre mentioned reasons: he will veto all the junk the democrats send through.

[Ice]

You can say that all you want, but it's silly. Bill gates worked for his living, therefore he is working class! That's not the definition of working class.

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

The definition of working class is subjective.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

The definition of working class is subjective.

No it isn't. That's ridiculous.

[Ice]

No it isn't. That's ridiculous.

It appears like we'll agree to disagree here

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It appears like we'll agree to disagree here

Well that depends. Are you using the dictionary definition of "disagree" or your own, made up, definition?

Eh, just messin with ya. Let's drop the argument.

[Strike For The South]

The goverment should have over site in businesses that provide needed services to the US people. Again millions of people do not have health care. Why, because the health care companies are simple out to make money. If they can cover 1 million people and make 10 million in profits, or cover 250k and make 10.1 million in profit. They will cover less people. It is the same for the insurance companies. That is why over site is needed.

So....12 year with Reagan and Bush Sr. we get a recession, 8 years with Clinton a huge economic boom, then 8 years with Bush Jr. and we have another recession. I can see were that would be coincidence.

....and Strike, food costs have gone up. So food is the only way you measure your standard of living, or are you side stepping the question?

One other thing, could one of your explain how McCain would fix health care and justify how it would work?

You do realize pigeonholing the ebb and flow of the United States economy into neat little terms like the presidencey doesnt work right? You realize the economy is not simply dictated by the party in power or even there polices.

If the inscurance company wishses to do that so be it they are a private company out to make profit and that is ok becuase when companies make money the entire economy is in better shape. You can bring out all the sob stories you like about little johnny ands his incurable cancer but the fact is he is one child and we need to be concerend about 300 million not just one. Charity is best left to the churches.

You asked about my family and my family more specifiacly me and my father are groceres and as we all know the mighty grocery buisness is not affected by the goverment.

McCain will let the marketes work themsleves as it should be.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As to Reaganomics not working:

The USA experienced the longest period of sustained growth with low inflation in its entire history after Reagan's policies came on line in the early '80s. SO successful, that by the 2nd Clinton term there were some articles that were suggesting we were "past" business cycles (obviously, we are not). Reagan DID create a massive increase in the national debt because of the heavy military spending used to push the CCCP past its balance point in the then 30+ year-old Cold War. Moreover, he made these increases while prevented, by political realities, from making the sweeping reductions in the size of government that he'd have preferred.


As to taxing those who earn 100k+ at a higher level then currently. This will only dampen the economy slightly and will increase federal funding somewhat. Truth be told, most of those employed at a 400k+ level per annum are NOT going to say "_____ this, I'm off for Monaco!" just because their taxes go up by 15-20%. On the flip side, tax cuts do improve the economy, but are NOT the panacea of improvement most conservatives think. Of the two, I think tax cuts create a somewhat better combination of revenue and money in private economic hands.


NOTE: Kush made a point that deserves more play. An INCOME tax increase strikes me as the worst option. By taxing higher wage earners, you provide some disincentive for people to get ahead, to open a small business, etc. If your goal is to make the rich pay more since they have somehow benefited more from society, then you should be taxing WEALTH -- not taxing income and preventing the little guy from achieving a Horatio Alger story.


Yes, going after Mrs. Obama in this manner is tacky, even if she once used the phrasing of herself in a moment of exuberance. Good point that.

[LittleGrizzly]

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

So i guess middle class americans would be buying football teams and yachts....

[Lemur]

Yes, going after Mrs. Obama in this manner is tacky, even if she once used the phrasing of herself in a moment of exuberance.
Except that by all accounts, she did not use the "baby mama" phrase. She once introduced Senator Obama as "my baby's daddy," not as "my baby daddy." The two expressions have different implications and different baggage.

But as Scalzi said in his inspired rant (http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=870):


Michelle “Fox News’ Ethnic Shield” Malkin defends Fox News’ use of the “Baby Mama” phrase by essentially making two arguments. First, Michelle Obama once called Barack Obama her “baby’s daddy,” and as we all know, a married woman factually and correctly calling her husband her child’s father is exactly the same as a major news organization calling a potential First Lady some chick what got knocked up on a fling. Second, the term “baby-daddy” has gone out into the common culture; heck, even Tom Cruise was called Katie Holmes’ baby-daddy, you know, when he impregnated her and she subsequently gave birth while the two were not married, which is exactly like what happened between Michelle and Barack Obama, who were married in 1992 and whose first child was born six years later.

So by Malkin’s reasoning it’s perfectly fine for Fox News to call Michelle Obama the unmarried mother of Barack Obama’s children because an entirely different phrase has to her mind entered the common culture, and there was this one time that Michelle Obama once uttered something that sounded like that entirely different phrase, which is not the phrase that Fox News used. But wait! Malkin also points to someone in her comment thread saying that one time, Michelle Obama actually used the phrase “baby daddy”! No apostrophe! It’s in a comment thread, so it must be true. Therefore, Michelle Obama apocryphally using a piece of urban slang makes it perfectly okay for Fox News to use an entirely different piece of urban slang. And that’s why, you see, it won’t be a problem for Bill O’Reilly to refer to Barack Obama as “my nigga” on the next O’Reilly Factor.

[m52nickerson]

Doctors, Lawyers, Senior Management to name a few

All of these jobs require that you go to school for an ungodly amount of time, pay an ungodly amount of money, do a crap ton of work, and work for a living.

They do a lot of work, but very few would think of them working class.


I'm sure you a more than qualified to make this assumption, but humor me, how do you know this? What entitles them to have their taxes raised?

They get there taxes raised because they can afford it.



No it isn't. Stop trying to make something simple when it really isn't.

We have a mixed system of health care in this country. Ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid (State/Federal level)? Public/Free Clinics?
Yes we have a mixed system. The parts you mentioned are the socialized parts, and while they have there problems are far from as bad off as the Privatized part.


I'm not seeing why this should be my problem.

Because you live in this country and not in a vacuum. If people with out health care are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment hospitals will be forced to recover those cost. That happens by raising prices, yes hospitals can do that. In turn it cost your health care company more to pay for treatments they cover. In turn you will see your rates and copays go up. So in the end you will pay that money one way or another.


Than offer a solution other than the taxing the wealthy which besides have other immediate consequences only delays the problem.

I see none. Taxing the wealth will help reduce the gap that exists. When we eliminate that gap the system is fixed.



CEO I wouldn't really consider working. They make in the millions. A doctor, a dentist, a vet, an orthopedic surgeon would be good examples.

Again you may think these fit the definition of working class, but are sadly mistaken.



I feel sorry for your wife, but I'd rather be able to shop around and negotiate with insurance companies that the government have a monopoly on what procedures I can get done.

What leverage would you have in negotiating with the insurance companies? You would tell them you want full coverage on all procedures and they would quote you a price, that you most likely could not afford, and you would have the option of taking it or leaving it.



Doesn't sound like it. You also have to remember many people held those companies' stock in their retirement funds. Yes some people did lose everything, but it was still a small part of the country.


You are missing the point entirely. I'm not blaming Clinton and I'm not blaming Bush. I'm mainly blaming the banks, but more importantly the Federal Reserve who kept rates at the low 1% rate for so long.

Now your not blaming Clinton? perhaps you should re-read your post and see that when I asked if you were blaming Clinton for the housing crash four years into Bush's presidency you said.
Yeah that's exactly what I said.So now it is the banks fault. So the government should not keep an eye on things like that?


No, it's fairly blind if you simply support a democrat over republicans without knowing/discussing the issues. Like the issue of the economy which we have seen that the republican's plans have not worked.


No they don't. Bill was pro NAFTA, while Hilary and Obama want to significantly change it.

Bill did have a balanced budget due to massive decreases in military spending, but tell me how Obama is going to balance the budget with an estimated 300 billion in new spending. If you could please tell me how without "getting rid of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy" it would be nice.

He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?

Cutting federal taxes does not save people money in the end. If the feds cut taxes they also cut spending to make up for it. One the first things that goes is the funding to the states. The states in turn must raise taxes or also cut spending. So now state and local programs like Police, Fire, schools, and other state programs get cut. To many cuts and the states and local governments are forced to raise taxes or add service fees.

Prime example. Here in the State of Florida, which I'm an employee, a motion recently passed that lowered property taxes significantly. Florida has no income tax. It saved most tax payers around $250 dollars a year. So with less money in the state budget cuts were made.

Now I work for the Polk County Health Department, Environmentally Engineering Division, Drinking Water Program. Basically my department regulates all the water system in the county. I myself do the physical inspections of the water plants.

Now with the budget cuts the state Health department has been forced to raise fees, and will soon require all the water system to pay for a yearly permit. For small systems (like a mobile home park) it will only be a small amount, but for the bigger City and County owned system it will cost quite a bit. Were do you think they will make up for that. Customers water bills.

That is only water. Many cities and municipalities are now adding fees for Fire Department Service, increasing fees for construction permits, fees for any other service that has fees.

Schools are cutting after school programs which has caused an uproar because working parents now have to pay sitters or after school center.

I could go on.

...oh by the way, Florida state employees will not be getting a raise this next year. That makes two years in a row. It is expected that our health care, which we pay for as negotiated by the state and the health care companies, will go up.

...and we might lose dental.

So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!

[Ice]

They do a lot of work, but very few would think of them working class.

I guess I'm one of the few then.




They get there taxes raised because they can afford it.

Read Rabbit's post below mine for a summary of my views



Yes we have a mixed system. The parts you mentioned are the socialized parts, and while they have there problems are far from as bad off as the Privatized part.

How do you figure?



Because you live in this country and not in a vacuum. If people with out health care are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment hospitals will be forced to recover those cost. That happens by raising prices, yes hospitals can do that. In turn it cost your health care company more to pay for treatments they cover. In turn you will see your rates and copays go up. So in the end you will pay that money one way or another.

I was talking about Social Security not health care. Social security is meant to supplement one's income when they retire. It is not meant as a substitute for a pension or retirement fund.




I see none. Taxing the wealth will help reduce the gap that exists. When we eliminate that gap the system is fixed.


What Gap? Don't you get it? More people will collecting social security than will be funding it. Raising taxes or not, it's only a matter of time before the entire system collapses.



Again you may think these fit the definition of working class, but are sadly mistaken.

*Shrugs* Doesn't really mean much.



What leverage would you have in negotiating with the insurance companies? You would tell them you want full coverage on all procedures and they would quote you a price, that you most likely could not afford, and you would have the option of taking it or leaving it.

Or, you search around for other insurance companies, make a deal with the hospital (I'm assuming you haven't read their debate left), apply for medicare, or try a private clinic.



Yes some people did lose everything, but it was still a small part of the country.

Yes, but it still effected many.


Now your not blaming Clinton? perhaps you should re-read your post and see that when I asked if you were blaming Clinton for the housing crash four years into Bush's presidency you said.So now it is the banks fault. So the government should not keep an eye on things like that?


Ever hear of sarcasam?

Where did I say bank regulation wasn't a good thing?


Like the issue of the economy which we have seen that the republican's plans have not worked.

Subjective, but I tend to agree. The key is cutting taxes and spending. George Bush didn't do such a thing. John McCain will attempt to keep the tax cuts and cut spending.


He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?

You don't need more government money if you spend less.

Besides, letting the tax cuts for the "wealthy" (I still laugh when this term is used) expire will not fund all of Obama's endeavors and balance the budget. There simply isn't enough money there to do it. Now if he rolled back the entire tax cut program Bush enacted now that might be different.


Cutting federal taxes does not save people money in the end. If the feds cut taxes they also cut spending to make up for it. One the first things that goes is the funding to the states. The states in turn must raise taxes or also cut spending. So now state and local programs like Police, Fire, schools, and other state programs get cut. To many cuts and the states and local governments are forced to raise taxes or add service fees.

I see no problem with this. Have the states tax their residents more for the services they use if the people want them.


Prime example. Here in the State of Florida, which I'm an employee, a motion recently passed that lowered property taxes significantly. Florida has no income tax. It saved most tax payers around $250 dollars a year. So with less money in the state budget cuts were made.

Now I work for the Polk County Health Department, Environmentally Engineering Division, Drinking Water Program. Basically my department regulates all the water system in the county. I myself do the physical inspections of the water plants.

Now with the budget cuts the state Health department has been forced to raise fees, and will soon require all the water system to pay for a yearly permit. For small systems (like a mobile home park) it will only be a small amount, but for the bigger City and County owned system it will cost quite a bit. Were do you think they will make up for that. Customers water bills.

That is only water. Many cities and municipalities are now adding fees for Fire Department Service, increasing fees for construction permits, fees for any other service that has fees.

Schools are cutting after school programs which has caused an uproar because working parents now have to pay sitters or after school center.

I could go on.

...oh by the way, Florida state employees will not be getting a raise this next year. That makes two years in a row. It is expected that our health care, which we pay for as negotiated by the state and the health care companies, will go up.

...and we might lose dental.


Sounds like the state of Florida's problem and not the federal government. We have as many problems as you and possibly more up here in the great state of Michigan. Try paying an additional 5% in state income taxes along side federal.


So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!

I'm not surprised you don't care. Taxing from those who have more is always easy for the takers.

[Crazed Rabbit]

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.

CR

[Ice]

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.

CR

Thanks crazed rabbit, I'll direct nickerson down to this post for one of my points. :bow:

[CountArach]

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.
As a class-warfarist myself, I can tell you that the biggest problem we have is inherited wealth or wealth that is earned in an unfair way, such as stock market manipulation. Definitions of unfair vary (For example Communists would claim that it is all wealth. I don't follow that line of thinking), but I personally don't have any problem with Doctors.

Also I see us as the Government, and hence through paying taxes I am indeed still pooling my own resources with that of other people who live in the society. But hey, I'm a nutty leftard, so my opinion doesn't matter anyway.

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.
Linky?

[Lemur]

To read Crazed Rabbit's take on taxation, any form of graduated tax is class warfare. A rather extreme viewpoint, frankly, and one which has zero chance of gaining traction anytime soon. Neither McCain nor Obama are talking about doing away with graduated taxation in the next Presidential cycle.

In fact, if you take both men at their word (a dangerous proposition with anyone, much less a politician) they both intend to increase deficit spending. McCain's proposals would increase the debt much faster. Fortunately for me, I don't believe a word of it.

Interesting article about Mike Huckabee as a VP contender (http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=83abd879-2d6c-41f4-afea-4009d82b0be6).

-edit-

As for this very silly debate about what constitutes "working class," I'll just ask Kush where the "professional class" begins, since he seems to have squeezed everyone from a McDonald's fry cook to the majority of Fortune 500 CEOs into "working class."

[Odin]

To read Crazed Rabbit's take on taxation, any form of graduated tax is class warfare.

Well I agree with CR and in a sense it is class warfare. The issue can be viewed many ways, for arguments sake lets suppose I am one of the wealthy who makes in excess of 250k a year. Should the government be in the business of forcing me to pay more to fund programs to help others?

Essentially thats whats already happening, if I dont pay I go to jail and loose everything I have worked for to accumulate. Graduated taxes are penalties on people who have obtained more through their own efforts, skills and talents.

Now if the government wanted to ask me to give more, thats different isnt it, but thats not whats happening. The message strikes at the core of the american value of you can be whatever you want and achieve what ever you want with hard work (see barak obama), but once you get there you have to pay a penalty for the effort.
:logic:

[Lemur]

Odin, two questions: (1) How, exactly, would a government go about "asking" for more, rather than demanding more? The law is a blunt instrument, and anything codified by law is backed up by force or the threat of force. That's how government works. If, for example, you refuse to obey the speed limit, and you refuse to pull over for the cop behind you with the flashing lights, things can get ugly. If this coercive aspect of government really bugs you, there are myriad ways in which you are oppressed, far and beyond income tax.

Secondly, both you and CR use the argument that wealth obtained by hard work, forethought and risk-taking should not be subject to graduated taxation. Okay, what about Paris Hilton? What about johhny trust fund? Is taxing their wealth also "class warfare," whatever that means? If not, how would you differentiate between unearned and earned wealth? Can such a distinction be made? Should it?

[LittleGrizzly]

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

People are going to aim for high paying jobs whatever the tax rate is like, if the goverment increased taxes on wages over £250,000 over here that would not deter me in the slightest from going for a job with that wage.... would anyone intentionally go for a lower paid job just because of an increased tax burden at that level of pay..... you'll still end up richer than the factory worker so i don't see any potential doctors quitting and going for a factory job just because of a reversal of bush's tax cuts, infact im sure before the tax cuts there were plenty of doctors in training who felt it was worth it despite the extra tax burden.

[Odin]

two questions: (1) How, exactly, would a government go about "asking" for more, rather than demanding more?

Perhaps the same way in the 70's it encouraged conservation? Lester the lightbulb and woodsy owl? Seriously what were arguing here is should they be demanding more. I understand why they would want to and the mechanisms in place to do that, but at the heart of the demand is the notion that I should give over my income to assist the government to assist others they deem in need of my help. Thats the core of the problem and always has been, the government as a middle man for the dispensation of resources dosent have a stellar record.


Okay, what about Paris Hilton? What about johhny trust fund? Is taxing their wealth also "class warfare," whatever that means? Yes it is. Someone earned the wealth, and penalizing people for inheretence is almost worse then the penalty on income. Johnny Trust fund is essentially vilianized in the current structure due to whom he is related too. Again, it comes down to the imposition of an ethical code enforced by a government entity. So he was gifted a million bucks, why should he have to pay a penalty? Because its the right thing to do? Because he is a spoiled rich kid? Who gets to make that determination? The government for the people by the people? Well isnt Johnny one of those people?



If not, how would you differentiate between unearned and earned wealth?

All wealth is earned at some point Lemur, Johnny trust fund may not have earned it but someone alont the line did. Imposing graduated taxes on wealth is an unequitable means to impose funding on entitlement programs. Its okay to believe someone should want to help others because they are prosperous, its another thing to enforce their participation via law.



Should it?

Sadly it can, but no it shouldnt. The 16th amendment alows the federal government to levy income tax, but it also is supposed to make it proportionate based on state populations and income. Graduated taxes based on individual income seems to fly in the face of this thus the no it shouldnt argument with the noted cavaet that the 16th amendment can be intrpreted in many ways.

In my personal view it dosent make it right and is not in sync with the intention of the constitution.

[Lemur]

[The] heart of the demand is the notion that I should give over my income to assist the government to assist others they deem in need of my help. Thats the core of the problem and always has been, the government as a middle man for the dispensation of resources dosent have a stellar record.
From the sound of it, you're opposed to the notion of government. 'Cause if you take away all taxation and coercion, you got no government, friend. The beast that taketh one of every ten sheep, as David lamented, is always going to be a middleman. If that's unacceptable to you, then you're not okay with anything that has come since homo habilis.


All wealth is earned at some point Lemur, Johnny trust fund may not have earned it but someone alont the line did.
So if I earn a thousand dollars and drop it on the street, and a kid picks it up, that counts as earned income for the kid who picked it up, because it was earned at some point? I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. When people (especially accountants) talked about "earned income" they're referring to income you earned yourself. Not the income your aunt Edna gifted to you. We all know that as far as aunt Edna is concerned, that is earned income. Once it is gifted to you, it is not earned income. This is not an arbitrary definition designed by liberal elitists; this is accounting 101.

So you're opposed to all graduated taxation, and you're opposed in principle to all redistribution of wealth, and you're opposed to government qua government. I think in your rhetorical voyage you have sailed off the map.

Note, Odin; I don't think you are an extremist, but I think your argument has taken you to a distant shore.

[Odin]

From the sound of it, you're opposed to the notion of government. 'Cause if you take away all taxation and coercion, you got no government, friend. The beast that taketh one of every ten sheep, as David lamented, is always going to be a middleman. If that's unacceptable to you, then you're not okay with anything that has come since homo habilis.

I am opposed to government enforcing ethics and morals via penalties through law and not allowing me the choice. Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want Lemur, its still a pig.



So if I earn a thousand dollars and drop it on the street, and a kid picks it up, that counts as earned income for the kid who picked it up, because it was earned at some point?

Of course it is, assuming from your example you earned it at some point. If you had then its likely already been taxed. Who is being obtuse? you've gone from inheritence to a kid finding money in the street.


I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. When people (especially accountants) talked about "earned income" they're referring to income you earned yourself. Not the income your aunt Edna gifted to you. We all know that as far as aunt Edna is concerned, that is earned income. Once it is gifted to you, it is not earned income. This is not an arbitrary definition designed by liberal elitists; this is accounting 101.

Thats pretty funny Lemur, please lecture me some more on "accounting 101" I nearly pissed myself. You left out one important fact though, you are taxed on the gift because its included in your gross income. So aunt edna and johnny take the same hit. That was accounting 102 though and its been nearly 20 years since I had it, my appologies for inproper citation


So you're opposed to all graduated taxation, and you're opposed in principle to all redistribution of wealth, and you're opposed to government qua government. I think in your rhetorical voyage you have sailed off the map.

In classic Lemur argument style you wrap up your posts with attempting to state someone elses position based on what will help make your argument. "You're opposed to government" is a classic example of the traditional leaps you make in your argument style. Of course you have no verifiable quote to affirm this statement, but it helps to make your ending sound good dosent it Lemur?

I am not opposed to painting opponnents a certain way in a debate, but you have danced around the core tenet of my argument. The government shouldnt impose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements to others, it should be voluntary not mandated by a law. Sadly it wasnt a clever dance for you Lemur, making absolute statements as to my position based on your assumption lends me to think you dont have a well thought out response.

[Lemur]

I am opposed to government enforcing ethics and morals via penalties through law and not allowing me the choice.
Odin, dude, that's what government does. We argue about what extent and in which areas government should do it, but nobody seriously argues that government should not enforce "ethics and morals via penalties." Punishing murderers, for instance, is an enforcement of an ethical and moral standard. Your rhetoric is way too sweeping.


Of course [found money is earned], assuming from your example you earned it at some point. If you had then its likely already been taxed. Who is being obtuse?
This is kinda wacky, Odin. So if money was earned at some point by someone, it's considered earned income no matter who holds it? And considered earned for that person, no matter how removed their relationship? Dude, maybe we should move this over to the "Marijuana: 0" thread ...


You left out one important fact though, you are taxed on the gift because its included in your gross income.
Oh for Pete's sake, so since some gift income is taxed (not all, don't be silly and pretend it is, and let's not even talk about faux-charity dodges you can use to move wealth without even saying "hi" to the taxman), then it's ... what, exactly? That makes it earned income for the receiver? This is getting kinda weird.


In classic Lemur argument style you wrap up your posts with attempting to state someone elses position based on what will help make your argument. "You're opposed to government" is a classic example of the traditional leaps you make in your argument style.
Dude, you sound as though you are opposed to government. I'm sorry it makes you mad when I point this out.


In not opposed to painting opponnents a certain way in a debate, but you have danced around the core tenet of my argument.
While I'll admit I'm a fantastic dancer, I haven't been deliberately trying to obscure your argument. When you denounce all government for being a "middleman," what is your humble reader supposed to think?


The government shouldnt oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements to others, it should be voluntary not mandated by a law.
I've read this sentence several times now, and I'm still not clear on what it means. The government shouldn't oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements ... no, I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Could you please rephrase?

[Odin]

I've read this sentence several times now, and I'm still not clear on what it means. The government shouldn't oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements ... no, I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Could you please rephrase?

The rest of your reply comes off as rather childish, okay you think I am anti government, weird, and a dude, I'm not going to get into personal snipeing with you Lemur and my instincts tell me thats where its heading.

However as far as what your not clear on, Im not sure whats confusing. Taxes are levied upon those who make income in part to fund programs which benefit others. This levy is enforced by law, it is not by choice, its a mandate. So if I happen to not believe in social security (as an example) under the law I am forced to help fund it. This is counter intuative to what I believe (note the bolding) was the basis for the founding of our nation.

I wont go back through the history here with you Lemur but think Boston Tea party.

Anyway, I appreciate the civil back and forths Im not angry and I dont find you completely out of line in your commentary to me. However I do find it traveling toward a path that might lead to more personal infrences of sanity, charecter and reason. While I am all for that kind of back and forth I am choosing to obstain going forward.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Except that by all accounts, she did not use the "baby mama" phrase. She once introduced Senator Obama as "my baby's daddy," not as "my baby daddy." The two expressions have different implications and different baggage....

I take your point -- what a difference that possessive makes. Continuing usage of this phraseology could well constitute actionable racism once the user is advised of their error. Ms. Malkin is wrong. My point was that, even if Mrs. Obama HAD used the more objectionable phrasing, playfully, in a moment of exuberance -- and she was introducing her husband at his victory speech as a U.S. Senator -- using it as a means of needling Senator and Mrs. Obama would STILL be tacky, especially after having been advised that the person in question would appreciate that the speaker desist.

People who continue to refer to me as "Jimmy" after I've advised them to call me "Jim" piss me off -- it's rude. On that basis alone, and even if they truly believed the two "daddy" phrases were synonymous (and you've argued well that they would have been aware they are not) FOX should have desisted as a matter of basic courtesy.

Our broadcast media is as uncivil as is far too much of the rest of our culture. :shame:


McCain did come out, weakly, in favor of a flat tax (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc2kngJ1dZo)). However, no specific proposals along this line are noted on his website.

[Redleg]

He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?


So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!


I removed everything else because I want to address these two comments only. How can the government raise money other then Income Taxes on the wealthy? I must first ask are you really that naive about how the government raises money?

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

Treasury Bonds
Tariffs
THe old Sin tax on tobacco and achocal
Custom Fees
Fines for crimes - yes even the Federal Governments issues fines for minor violations of the law.
Tax on Gasoline

There are many ways for the government to tax citizens besides the Income Tax.

So if I feel that those making under 25K should also be taxed at a standard rate, and stated I don't care if they get upset? How whould you respond to that.

One thing about living in the United States is that one has the ability to voice their opinion. As far as taxes are concerned - I am personally in favor of scraping the current Income Tax scheme and going to a flat tax on income. The cost savings alone in getting rid of the bueraracy that is the IRS would be worth paying a slightly higher average tax, within my own tax bracket.

[Lemur]

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5058692)

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?

-edit-

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7457700.stm) from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Class warfare? Please. The graduated income tax is the geneva convention of class warfare.

[Odin]

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7457700.stm) from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

Hhhhhmmmmmmm baiting, as entertaining as it might be to go on and on with you Lemur, you lack humility and for that matter you insist that others answer you're questions yet choose to ignore others. I can see now why your a fan of entitlements, for some reason you've personally adopted it as a conversation prerequisite.

And to think I was going to unsubscribe. Tell you what ! I'll stay subscribed for another day and let you get that last zinger in you hold so dear (not that thats indicitive of your charecter) and then I'll move on.

Oh, in case your question was serious, didnt you take accounting 101? Dogs dont file returns Lemur... :thumbsup:

[Lemur]

Hhhhhmmmmmmm baiting, [...] you lack humility [...] your a fan of entitlements, for some reason you've personally adopted it as a conversation prerequisite. [...]I'll stay subscribed for another day and let you get that last zinger in you hold so dear
Ad hominem much, friend? That's a lot of personal attacks to cram into a response originating from a dog's trust fund. Let's take it to PM if it's going to be all about my personal character defects, shall we? See you in my inbox.

[Ice]

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5058692)

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?

-edit-

This one's for you, Odin: A judge has cut Leona Helmsley's dog's trust fund (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7457700.stm) from $12 million to $2 million. May we safely say that that is earned income for the dog?

I'd prefer in perfect theory no income tax.

If I can't have that I wouldn't mind a flat tax, but with more deductions for the low income earners (See I'm not a total tyrant here).

If we can't have that, I'd accept a less graduated progressive income tax scale. Something like 10%,12%,15%, and 20%. The difference can be made with cuts in spending.

[Xiahou]

If I can't have that I wouldn't mind a flat tax, but with more deductions for the low income earners (See I'm not a total tyrant here).No way, deductions are evil- keep it simple. If anything, just have a floor where all income below a certain level isn't taxed. Once politicians start handing out certain deductions to constituencies and interest groups, we're back to the current mess of a tax system we have now.

[Ice]

No way, deductions are evil- keep it simple. If anything, just have a floor where all income below a certain level isn't taxed. Once politicians start handing out certain deductions to constituencies and interest groups, we're back to the current mess of a tax system we have now.

That works too. However, I think stuff like student loans, mortgage interest, and charity should stay tax deductible.

[Redleg]

Of relevance to the tax discussion:

How to earn $200k or more and pay no taxes. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5058692)

It's worth asking whether a flat tax would make any difference in terms of what the wealthy contribute to the kitty. Once you've got some money, you can afford an accountant and a lawyer, and once those guys are at it, the amount of tax you pay goes down, down, down.

What do the more conservative Orgahs think? Flat income tax or no income tax? And would the flat tax be revenue neutral, a net loss or a net gain? And if you're in favor of no income tax, how would you propose to cut spending or raise other revenue to make up for the deficit?



Any sound fiscial conservative will state that the government should not spend more then what it takes in.

As for taxes - if I was president for a day would be something like this - For all income of a corporate enity 15%, use simple accounting rules - gross income minus expenses = net income which is then taxed. The personel income would be 12.5% of all income above $10,000 for the individual, for families the amount would be $20,000.

After shutting down half of the IRS because they are no longer needed - one might actually begin to see a net gain. Of course if spending remains out of control the personal income tax could be raised a percent or two.


Now if one wishes to do away with the current income tax - the federal government could look at the personal property tax method that many counties use to generate income. I looked at the nationwide sales tax - but I dont think that would work very well for the federal government at all.

So the flat tax - getting rid of the IRS and the current loopholes in the tax laws - seems to be the best reform for our current tax scheme. I favor a base rate of income because those living on minimum wage can barely afford to survive as it is with local and state taxes sapping parts of their income for daily living.

That goes to what programs and spending the government should end - social welfare programs I would leave in the budget, I would just look at reducing the beuraracy and using the state welfare systems also. Foreign aid would be limited to what surplus is in the budget and available after we take care of our own nation first. (Military foreign aid would be the first to go.) Military bases in Europe would be shut down with the troops re-assigned stateside or elsewhere where their presence is required. But I don't see a need for US troops in Europe at this time.

Lots of way to trim the fat off of the government spending - the biggest way is for the President to do his job and Veto any bill that has pork spending included. Take a hard look at farm subsidities (SP) also - removing any that don't make since for economic growth of the nation or to insure that farmers can survive a bad growing season.

Lots of ways for the government to trim the budget - just few politicans are actually willing to do so because of a desire to be re-elected versus actually doing the right thing for the nation.

[LittleGrizzly]

Taxes are levied upon those who make income in part to fund programs which benefit others. This levy is enforced by law, it is not by choice, its a mandate. So if I happen to not believe in social security (as an example) under the law I am forced to help fund it. This is counter intuative to what I believe (note the bolding) was the basis for the founding of our nation.

If people just paid for what they wanted, wouldn't you pretty much have what you had know ? except for stuff noone would want to pay towards like.......

[m52nickerson]

So this has turned it to a tax thread. Ok, but all I'm hearing from the people who are against taxing individuals that make over 250k at a higher rate is, not fair, I don't want to pay taxes, not fair, I'm not going to need what the money is used for, not fair, I don't care about people less well off from me, NOT FAIR.

Lets look at some numbers.

Lets say we have Bob. Bob makes $250k per year. Bob pays $3200 per year for health insurance for him and his family. Now under the current tax plan Bob is taxed at 33%.

so

$250,000
- $3200 Since insurance deduction come out pretax
=$246,800 Taxable income.

After taxes = $165,356

That is $3179 take home pay each week. (Yes I know there is SS tax, and other deductions but I'm keep it simple)

Now with the same figures using the 36% tax pre-cuts we get

After taxes = $157,592

That is $3030 take home pay each week.

A difference of $149 per week. Now for someone taking how over 3 Gs a week that is not much at all.

If you can look at me and tell me that for $150 a week from someone that makes $3000 a week you are willing to take money away from the government to use for programs to help other Americans. You are greedy, selfish, or both.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So this has turned it to a tax thread. Ok, but all I'm hearing from the people who are against taxing individuals that make over 250k at a higher rate is, not fair, I don't want to pay taxes, not fair, I'm not going to need what the money is used for, not fair, I don't care about people less well off from me, NOT FAIR....If you can look at me and tell me that for $150 a week from someone that makes $3000 a week you are willing to take money away from the government to use for programs to help other Americans. You are greedy, selfish, or both.

NOTE: Nick's example was removed to save space in the reply.


Well, I do agree with you that "fair" rarely enters into it -- especially when government is involved. I was saddened by your last statement -- apparently, despite being part of an organization that gives more than $100 million a year to charity, I am both "greedy" and "selfish."

However, a few counter questions for you:

Why should people who receive the same services from the government pay differently for those services? I pay the same cost per kilowatt hour as the next electricity consumer. Why not the same for roads etc.? Why should I have to pay for 2-3 other people to use a given service of government when I receive no more benefit than they from that service?

If people who earn less SHOULD pay less, then why is this not always the case? Why shouldn't we all pay .001% of our income each time we purchase a McDonalds Big Mac Combo?

Why do you presume that only the government can/will take care of the poor, the underprivileged, or the unlucky? Given government efficiency, I assume that you would not argue that government service programs are managed as effectively as many private charities.

Should everybody earn the same wage, or are some jobs of more "value" than others? Is "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" the only equitable approach?

How altruistic is it of you to support a tax system where "altruism" is mandated and the funds taken from a taxpayer at the -- implied -- point of a gun?

YES, government's must acquire money through taxes to fund government. But how and why is it appropriate to take my money to fund "charity" efforts without my getting a direct say in where that charity dollar goes?


BTW, never worry if a political thread morphs into a tax thread -- taxation is at the core of politics and government and any political thread that doesn't address it on some level is probably of lesser value.

[CountArach]

Well turning this back to the election (Though I can see us going off topic a lot before the conventions...) I thought I would post up this article from that liberal hate-machine the New York Times. All I can really say about it is that I am glad that some of the Main-stream Media have seen through the 'Maverick' image that McCain tries to project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

One paragraph I found interesting:

In a CBS News poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of registered voters said they believed he would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, and 21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Mr. Bush. Twenty-eight percent said he would be less conservative than Mr. Bush.

[Lemur]

Here's a good one: Political donations broken down by profession. Note that when you donate money, you fill in a text box for "profession" with anything you like. There's nothing to stop you from writing "bullfighter" or "Manservant of Xenu." Anyway, give it a gander, (http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2008/05/political-giving-by-occupation.html) it's instructive nonetheless. Damn those liberal oncologists!

[LittleGrizzly]

I knew retired voters always came out in force on voting day, but it looks like they put thier money where thier mouth is as well, biggest contributor by profession!

[woad&fangs]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/mccain_takes_po_1.html
So, in a room full of investors, bankers, and economists McCain claims he trusts "the peoples" more than the economists when it comes to his gas tax holiday.

[Lemur]

It's sad when you see a politico pandering to his base. I cringe when Obama beats on NAFTA, although hopefully that will cease now that he's won the primary.

George F. Will takes on McCain's latest pander (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602041_pf.html), saying that the Supreme Court allowing the detainees at Guantanamo the right of habeas corpus is "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."


Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

[Don Corleone]

It's sad when you see a politico pandering to his base. I cringe when Obama beats on NAFTA, although hopefully that will cease now that he's won the primary.

George F. Will takes on McCain's latest pander (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602041_pf.html), saying that the Supreme Court allowing the detainees at Guantanamo the right of habeas corpus is "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."


Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

Okay, between all the interpretations and re-interpretations, I get easily confused. Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us. I have no problems with declaring them to be unlawful combatants and pursuing some pre-defined due process, but superseding their legal status and rights to due process indefinitely... if it's happening, it's a very black day for our justice system.

[Lemur]

Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us.
Don, we have done so for the last five years. Some of the men have been interned for four years or more without even knowing what charges are being levied, and with no legal avenue to find out. It's very Kafka.

Big report out, also, about how our detainee programs has been going. The answers are not pretty. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html)


[Mohammed] Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

[Xiahou]

Okay, between all the interpretations and re-interpretations, I get easily confused. Have we actually suspended Habeus Corpus for detainees? If so, shame on us. I have no problems with declaring them to be unlawful combatants and pursuing some pre-defined due process, but superseding their legal status and rights to due process indefinitely... if it's happening, it's a very black day for our justice system.Since the Eisentrager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager) decision, the courts have had no jurisdiction(including habeas corpus) over enemy prisoners held on foreign soil. This latest SCOTUS decision seems to have knocked this precedent down.

[Don Corleone]

I feel like I may be mired in too many briefings of the Ministry for Public Information myself these days. :dizzy2: Okay, I'm really not kidding around or being tongue in cheek here, this really is coming as something of a shock, as I thought I knew the answers to all of this years ago:

-Unlawful enemy combatants. Check. Understand that. They're not POW's, nor are they international criminals. They're a different animal all together.

-No Geneva convention protections, as they're not POW's of a regular army. Understood that too.

-Habeus Corpus: "Show the body". In other words, at some point, regardless of who they are and what they've done, the government has to level some charges at them in some form of an arraignment. Grand juries are reserved for domestic civil courts, but the military courts have some equivalent.

-Are you telling me that these enemy combatants have never had the 'military tribunals' the Bush administration claimed they all had 3 or 4 years ago? They're just sitting there, waiting for somebody to remember why they got put there in the first place?

:dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:

I'm sorry, I really am ignorant. I thought the brou-ha-ha was that the rest of the world didn't like the military tribunals themselves, not that they never actually happened. My God, we are animals. :shame:

In reading up on Nuremberg for the Holocaust denier thread, I came across an interesting piece of history. The British and the French and the Russians wanted to take the Nazi leaders out to the woods and just make them disappear. It was the Americans who insisted on the War Crimes Tribunal. We insisted that we weren't savages, that the charges we would bring to bear would withstand scrutiny and justice would be served, and that if we didn't handle it that way, the only difference between us and them would have been luck. It was one of the greatest gifts America has given the world.

And now we've done this.

[Xiahou]

-Are you telling me that these enemy combatants have never had the 'military tribunals' the Bush administration claimed they all had 3 or 4 years ago? They're just sitting there, waiting for somebody to remember why they got put there in the first place?

:dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:
No, they've had tribunals to review their unlawful combatant status- several phases of reviews, actually. This is about giving them habeas corpus to appear in our civilian courts, which they apparently now can. :sweatdrop:

Edit: Also, in an interesting twist, the SCOTUS seems to have ruled that American citizens held by US forces overseas do not (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/headlines) enjoy such rights. :dizzy2:

As the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Guantanamo prisoners, it dealt a new setback for American citizens being held in Iraq. In a unanimous ruling, justices ruled two Americans cannot use the US court system to challenge their transfer into Iraqi military custody.

[Don Corleone]

No, they've had tribunals to review their unlawful combatant status- several phases of reviews, actually. This is about giving them habeas corpus to appear in our civilian courts, which they apparently now can. :sweatdrop:

Edit: Also, in an interesting twist, the SCOTUS seems to have ruled that American citizens held by US forces overseas do not (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/headlines) enjoy such rights. :dizzy2:

I guess the real question is, have they been charged, and have they had their due process? Have they been able to address the charges leveled against them? I'm not saying that it all has to be done in the 9th Lower Manhatten Traffic Court, but a JAG tribunal would be fine, so long as there is some established procedure that has been recorded for posterity and is subject to external review.

We HAVE done all of that you say?

[Xiahou]

We HAVE done all of that you say?
I imagine that a few of them haven't been accused of anything other than being an unlawful combatant. Some are charged with other crimes and are going thru tribunals as outlined by Congress- although it remains to be seen how much, if at all, the latest SCOTUS ruling mucks that up. Many prisoners at Gitmo have been released, some have been released that shouldn't have. There are some that the administration would like to release, but the governments where they hold citizenship won't take them- it's not like we can just drop them back in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Off the top of my head, I don't know that full breakdown of who's being released vs who's being tried via tribunal vs how many are still in "limbo". However, my view has always been that not totally unlike POWs, unlawful combatants don't necessarily need to be charged with a specific crime to be held. You can hold them until it's safe to release them. As long as they are given reasonable scrutiny as to whether they are rightly or wrongly captured, I don't see why every one of them needs to be charged with a crime.

Edit: Here's (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/index.html) an interesting link where you can read a lot more about who's detained in Gitmo.

[Lemur]

A vendor at the Texas GOP convention goes there (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/stick-a-pin-in-it.html). I hope the state GOP cracks down on this sort of not-even-veiled race-baiting. It ain't gonna play well in the general election.

[Don Corleone]

I've heard a few of these pathetic efforts lately, from Democrats and from Republicans.

The first time I heard the Black House "joke", was at a Democratic fundraiser in Denver. There's also the whole Curious George flap down in Florida (the T-shirts). Then just recently, apparently did a skit on TV with sock puppets, and Obama was the monkey puppet.

[PanzerJaeger]

How many times have we seen GWB compared to a chimp? Why can't Obama be compared to Curious George in our colorblind society? The resemblence is uncanny. Now his "baby mama", she really does look like a monkey.

Isn't it kind of the point of Barack's post-racial candidacy to be able to draw human-monkey comparisons to politicians whenever they apply, regardless of race?

[m52nickerson]

Well, I do agree with you that "fair" rarely enters into it -- especially when government is involved. I was saddened by your last statement -- apparently, despite being part of an organization that gives more than $100 million a year to charity, I am both "greedy" and "selfish." It may have been a bit over done in calling people greedy or selfish, I've been very angry as of late......I apologize.


However, a few counter questions for you:

Why should people who receive the same services from the government pay differently for those services? I pay the same cost per kilowatt hour as the next electricity consumer. Why not the same for roads etc.? Why should I have to pay for 2-3 other people to use a given service of government when I receive no more benefit than they from that service?

If people who earn less SHOULD pay less, then why is this not always the case? Why shouldn't we all pay .001% of our income each time we purchase a McDonalds Big Mac Combo?

Why do you presume that only the government can/will take care of the poor, the underprivileged, or the unlucky? Given government efficiency, I assume that you would not argue that government service programs are managed as effectively as many private charities.

Should everybody earn the same wage, or are some jobs of more "value" than others? Is "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" the only equitable approach?

How altruistic is it of you to support a tax system where "altruism" is mandated and the funds taken from a taxpayer at the -- implied -- point of a gun?

YES, government's must acquire money through taxes to fund government. But how and why is it appropriate to take my money to fund "charity" efforts without my getting a direct say in where that charity dollar goes?

First let me address the issue of charity. Giving to private charities is a very good thing, but the amount of money charities get are in not way guaranteed. Government program while not as efficient and may have funding cut very rarely go away entirely.

There is one main reason why I believe individuals who make more money should be taxed at a higher rate. They can afford it. Higher taxes for someone who makes 250K will not change there quality of life. It will not stop them from buying the things they want. It may not be fair, but it does not hurt them.

Some else I thought of today, I know that is dangerous, a graduated tax code which taxes the wealthy at a higher rate and lessens the amount taken from the Working Class and Poor helps the economy.
"What?", you may say. Taking more from the wealthy will not stop them from buying goods. They will still be able to buy that new car, or new DVD player. Now if we raise taxes on the Working Class or Poor it will affect them more then the Wealthy. The Working Class will not be going out and buying a new DVD or financing that new car. Since the Working Class and Poor are the biggest tax group they have the largest affect on the economy. If we lower there taxes they may be able to afford to but the extras and help keep the economy going. That benefits all classes.

Now in saying that I now longer have the mental faculties needed to argue about taxes.

[Xiahou]

I'm glad to see that McCain has now flip-flopped on earlier statements and come out in favor of ending the moratorium on offshore drilling. Is it political pandering? I think so, but I really don't care as long as they follow through on it. The majority of Americans support the idea and Democrats are positioning themselves on the losing side of the issue so long as gas prices remain high.

Here (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/florida-gov-cri.html) is a link I grabbed for reference.

[CountArach]

Now on the polling front. FiveThirtyEight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) gives Obama a 74.3% chance of winning the general election based on state-wide polling. It averages out at 333.9 EVs. That's incredible. This is because new polls have come out in PA (Obama up by 12), OH (Obama up by 6) and FL (Obama up by 4... somehow...). If he can pull in 2 of those three its all over.

McCain might be forced to spend time and money in Florida, when he would normally see it as a state that he could win without question (A lot of jaded Clinton supporters, aged population). Spending time and money there puts him on defence, which is not where he wants to be, especially this early in the election campaign. Don't get me wrong, this is far from over, but still - not a good way for it to start for McCain.

[m52nickerson]

Now on the polling front. FiveThirtyEight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) gives Obama a 74.3% chance of winning the general election based on state-wide polling. It averages out at 333.9 EVs. That's incredible. This is because new polls have come out in PA (Obama up by 12), OH (Obama up by 6) and FL (Obama up by 4... somehow...). If he can pull in 2 of those three its all over.

McCain might be forced to spend time and money in Florida, when he would normally see it as a state that he could win without question (A lot of jaded Clinton supporters, aged population). Spending time and money there puts him on defence, which is not where he wants to be, especially this early in the election campaign. Don't get me wrong, this is far from over, but still - not a good way for it to start for McCain.

I don't think Florida is going to be a cake walk for McCain. Governor Christ who has screwed things up down. His approval rating is dropping faster then Glass Joe VS. Little Mac. There are many people down here upset with the governor at following McCain around instead of being in state and doing his job. I don't think Florida is a lock for McCain. If Obama can do a good job at bringing in the Clinton crowd he may take it.

[Lemur]

Man who claims he had sex with Barack Obama hosts the Best. Press conference. Evar (http://reason.com/blog/show/127093.html).


[Larry] Sinclair's lawyer Montgomery Sibley—whose license is currently suspended in D.C. and Florida—showed up in a kilt and told reporters that his above-average endowment made slacks tight and uncomfortable. The Rev. James David Manning, who gained web celebrity in April for a YouTube'd sermon in which he called Obama a "long-legged mack daddy," sat in the crowd of 50 or so with his family. He didn't take questions. [...]

Sinclair was asked who funded the event (donors, over the internet), how he made his living (he's on disability), and whether Obama was "well hung" (I'm not going to dignify his answer here). The only new "evidence" he presented was the name of a limo driver and the bar where he claimed to have met Obama (who, in Sinclair's story, used his real name and job title as he rendevouzed with a cruising criminal he'd never met before). [...]

The second Sinclair stopped taking questions, he fled the room and reporters were denied access to anyone but Sibley. I was a little disappointed until I heard the reason. Larry Sinclair was arrested after the press conference and is being held by the Washington, D.C. metropolitan police. He's been charged as a fugitive from justice; one of his warrants can be seen here.

-edit-

More details emerge. Seriously, this must have been the most gob-smackingly fantastic (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/obama-accuser-larry-sincl_n_107900.html) presser of all time.


[Sinclair was represented by]a kilted lawyer (with a suspended license) named Montgomery Blair Sibley, who informed those assembled that his preferences in dress were arrived at as a way to secure comfort for his unusually large sexual organs. "I don't know why men wear pants," he said with a poker face. "It's a function of male genitalia. If you're size normal or smaller, you're probably comfortable with [pants]. ... Those at the other end of the spectrum find them quite confining."

"I asked him to wear a suit and tie," Mr. Sinclair said ruefully. Then, he admitted to suffering from a brain tumor.

[CountArach]

I don't think Florida is going to be a cake walk for McCain. Governor Christ who has screwed things up down. His approval rating is dropping faster then Glass Joe VS. Little Mac. There are many people down here upset with the governor at following McCain around instead of being in state and doing his job. I don't think Florida is a lock for McCain. If Obama can do a good job at bringing in the Clinton crowd he may take it.
Actually his approval rating is in the high 50s (59 in April), which is by no mean bad at all.

More polls released today include Obama being up by 5 in Florida, down by 1 in Ohio, up by 2 in Virginia, down by 4 in Arkansas (I doubt he will win Arkansas given Clinton's popularity there) and up by 9 in Wisconsin.

[Xiahou]

I thought this was kinda funny: Muslims barred from picture at Obama event (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080618/pl_politico/11168)

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

[Don Corleone]

It would appear all promises in November 2007 to the contrary, Barrack Obama will forgo Public Financing (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html)of his campaign. Looks like he's willing to just GIVE McCain the moral high ground and settle for the cash.

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

Obama wrote: "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Not that I agree with the rules on Public Financing of Campaigns in the first place, but then I never took a pledge to do so.

Shifting gears for a moment, I can't find the post itself, but somewhere Lemur was wondering aloud what would come of a Republican campaign button (If Obama gets elected, will it still be the White House). As I pointed out at the time, the joke first made its way onto the national stage at a large Democratic (Hillary) fundaraising event in Denver this past winter.

The Texas GOP meanwhile have banned the button's vendor (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) and donated the licensing fee he paid to charity.

[ajaxfetish]

The Texas GOP meanwhile have banned the button's vendor (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) and donated the licensing fee he paid to charity.

Good for them! :bow:

Ajax

[Lemur]

It would appear all promises in November 2007 to the contrary, Barrack Obama will forgo Public Financing (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html)of his campaign. Looks like he's willing to just GIVE McCain the moral high ground and settle for the cash.
Yeah, I'd take the cash, too. In fact, I think I would have to thwack somebody on the back of the head if they were willing to forgo their huge fundraising advantage just to make nice with Common Cause.


The Texas GOP meanwhile have banned the button's vendor (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) and donated the licensing fee he paid to charity.
Hey, good for them! Way to show how it's done. After the supreme creepiness of the Hillary Clinton campaign, it's nice to see folks stepping up and saying no to race-based campaigning.

-edit-

And does nobody want to talk about disbarred lawyers with oversized genitals in kilts? I still burst out laughing when I read about that ...

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, I'd take the cash, too. In fact, I think I would have to thwack somebody on the back of the head if they were willing to forgo their huge fundraising advantage just to make nice with Common Cause.

Here's the thing... McCain is THE McCain of McCain-Feingold. He's a campaign finance reformer all the way, and you don't get squeakier clean funding. Obama is pulling a bait and switch here. For the past year and a half, he said he wanted to be the voice of change, for hope. Then he gets a fundraising advantage and says "Screw all of you, I'm in it to win it". Made me so torqued, I just donated $50 to McCain, and I don't even like the guy.