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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

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

---

I know you do. That's why I talk about needing a big, thick sample base for my polls.

Speaking of which, initial numbers. Nothing to hang your hat on, but a preview of the reaction;

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur's quoted article

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

---

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

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

What would I do without the National Review? Their editor, Rich Lowry, had a doozy:

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

I want to see the fully animated version of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What would I do without the National Review? Their editor, Rich Lowry, had a doozy:

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

I want to see the fully animated version of that.

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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

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

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

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

---

hehehe.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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

---

Actually, that's what it reminded me of, only better. Chris Mathews wishes he envisioned stars bouncing around living rooms. Sorry I didn't make the comparison myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

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

---

With early intervention and the right medication, Lemur's Disease is treatable. Here's Rep. Frank trying to defend himself while Bill O'Reilly's head explodes. Kind of hypnotic.

Random thought for the day.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's Rep. Frank trying to defend himself while Bill O'Reilly's head explodes. Kind of hypnotic.

---

For a "no spin zone", O'Reilly's head sure is. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

---

i think it was more that her 'charm' was so ham-handed, her 'folksiness' so exaggerated and deliberate. she smiles a lot, but lacks any semblance of gravitas, which is less endearing in these troubled times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

Random thought for the day.

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

With early intervention and the right medication, Lemur's Disease is treatable. Here's Rep. Frank trying to defend himself while Bill O'Reilly's head explodes. Kind of hypnotic.

---

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

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

http://news.aol.com/elections/articl...007x1200643404

Quote:

---

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

---

:laugh4:

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

He's my congresscritter, just so you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's Rep. Frank trying to defend himself while Bill O'Reilly's head explodes. Kind of hypnotic.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

He's my congresscritter, just so you know.

---

What do you think of him?

CR

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

Well I think you have the wrong idea about what progressives think about Constitutional law and the supreme court. If you think that we just view it as a back door to sneak in legislation that is somehow against the Constitution I'd have to say that as a general rule, that's not correct. I think that on certain equal rights issues, say gay marriage as one example, the promise is already in the Constitution for equal rights on those kinds of issues without saying it in exactly so many words in specific regards to every possible manifestation, like gay marriage. The Constitution doesn't uphold either religion or tradition as a basis for denying equal rights for any group. I think also that just saying "leave all the controversial stuff up to the states" creates an absolute mess... I mean, if a gay couple happens to be visiting a state where gay marriage isn't recognized and one is suddenly injured or severely ill and serious medical decisions need to be made on the spot, or one owns property in a state where gay marriage isn't recognized, and one partner abruptly dies young... you see the potential legal problems there. I am not arguing with your viewpoint on the role of the Supreme Court and the legislative branch, I'm just cleaning up how I would describe my understanding of how many on the left feel about why certain things should not just be decided on a state by state basis, especially if a component of human rights or equal rights comes into play.

Quote:

---

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

---

How is Obama intellectually dishonest? That argument would be arguably fair game to Kerry, or Hillary, or any of the Dems who voted "based on the intelligence at the time", giving the benefit of the doubt that it was credible enough to act upon and vote for the war resolution, and then later criticized the Bush Admin for how they lied us into the war. Obama voted against it... so I don't see how he has ever been intellectually dishonest about the war. The fact that only a minority saw through the marketing ploys to sell the Iraq War doesn't mean he's reinventing circumstances after the fact; I personally had been screaming from the mountaintop before Bush's first term that if he won we'd be back in Iraq, and I knew the sales pitch for the war was b.s. If you don't believe that I am sure I could google some forum posts I made somewhere on the net back in '00 if I had to.

Quote:

---

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

---

I understand, I just have absolutely no idea what it is exactly that McCain plans to cut, especially since from what we have to work on, he wants to keep Iraq going indefinitely. At the very least, from all available info, we can assume we will be there longer under a McCain presidency than an Obama one, unless it just so happens that every single brass in the military is screaming that we can leave now in an equal or shorter timespan than Obama's timetables. (Probably unlikely, given that par for course was to push into retirement generals who didn't give answers in line with what the admin wanted to hear for 8 years-- most of them early into the war planning.) Aside from that all he promises to cut is pork. So I give you the same question I gave Panzer, with a 10 trillion dollar deficit, with 300 proposed billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and the only specific thing he says he'll cut is 20 billion per year in Pork, while we continue to spend 10 billion per MONTH in Iraq, if you know of some secret trump card McCain has up his sleeve as to how he will balance the budget or cut spending, please share it. If he has a lot of spending cut plans outside of pork, and isn't sharing them on purpose, then that makes me pretty nervous because it implies it's things that would make him extremely unpopular were he to list them prior to getting elected. Things like SS, public education, etc. (We know he won't cut military spending so that's out.)

Quote:

---

Does that do it for you?

---

Yes it does, thank you for the thoughtful and non-liberalbashing response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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

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

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

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

---

Didn't you say you were undecided? :) It's hard to operate from a position of neutrality or centrality with credibility when all you ever defend is McCain/GOP/Fox, Don. I mean that constructively.

P.S., a last thought I had, I meant to post it right away but forgot, about the VP debates.

Did anyone else notice the fact that Palin went from saying that the causes of global warming were unknown and she did not believe they were manmade, immediately into saying we have to do this and we have to do that to ensure we are cleaning up our planet and not adding to the problem? That was a pretty big admission that she's lying and I'm surprised so few people caught it. If the "natural cyclical temperature changes of the Earth" that she cited were the reason then it would not follow we need to do ANYTHING on our end to work on the problem. There's nothing we can do, if global warming isn't manmade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Well I think you have the wrong idea about what progressives think about Constitutional law and the supreme court. If you think that we just view it as a back door to sneak in legislation that is somehow against the Constitution I'd have to say that as a general rule, that's not correct. I think that on certain equal rights issues, say gay marriage as one example, the promise is already in the Constitution for equal rights on those kinds of issues without saying it in exactly so many words in specific regards to every possible manifestation, like gay marriage. The Constitution doesn't uphold either religion or tradition as a basis for denying equal rights for any group. I think also that just saying "leave all the controversial stuff up to the states" creates an absolute mess... I mean, if a gay couple happens to be visiting a state where gay marriage isn't recognized and one is suddenly injured or severely ill and serious medical decisions need to be made on the spot, or one owns property in a state where gay marriage isn't recognized, and one partner abruptly dies young... you see the potential legal problems there. I am not arguing with your viewpoint on the role of the Supreme Court and the legislative branch, I'm just cleaning up how I would describe my understanding of how many on the left feel about why certain things should not just be decided on a state by state basis, especially if a component of human rights or equal rights comes into play.

---

It deosn't need to be decided on a State by State basis necessarily, neither does the issue of abortion. It could be - OR the federal legislative branch could take a whack at it. The reality is that all options are open so long as you want to discuss it. By saying that gay marriage is implied in the Constitution you are saying that the Supreme has jurisdiction and must find all laws banning them unconstituional when a case comes before them. There is really no way around that.

There are two realities. The Constitution does not mention or imply a right to marriage in any sense, mush less to gay marriage; it was not under any circumstances practiced at the time or forseen by anyone on record. If it neither mentions nor implies it the arguement is on shaky ground.
The second reality is that all men and all women are invited to marry regardless of their gender. The catch is that you must marry someone of the opposite gender. 2 homosexuals can marry one another, as long as they are of different genders. Love is irrellevant in the legal understanding, but various laws support marriage as a union between the two sexual types that procreate naturally.

Anyway
If the institution is not mentioned at all in the constituion and the institution is open to all regardless of sexual orientation - it is not inherently unequal and should be left alone by the courts. I'm not saying that you would need an amendment to make it federal law, you wouldn't because there is nothing in the Constitution mentioning marriage to be amended, but you would need some honest dialogue to convince people and pass legislation which everyone is afraid to do. The reality is that people supporting decisions like Roe and State court decisions about gay marriage are not interested in legislation, but rule by decree irrespective of democratic sentiment. Usually rule by the decree of 5. Why don't we just ditch the legislature all together and just have a bunch of supreme courts make the decisions?

Of course, there are other ways to federally mandate gay marriage without a vote in the legislature or a supreme court decision, such as repeal the defense of marriage act and transfer gay marriages nationally irrespective of laws on the books. Use other clauses that were never meant to transfer anything except for traditional marriages by technicallity. That way you can lie to people by saying you are for the repeal of the defense act, but also agaisnt gay marriage! You can have your cake and eat it too! Dumb conservatives will vote for you to oppose gay marriage, but they will get it anyway - and you knew the whole time! Thanks barry O'biden!

Certain people hate discussion and legitimate legislation. Not all democrats are like this and not all republicans are immune. Honesty and fair play are important if you want high ground to stand on when the other side does the same thing to you on a different issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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

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

---

So does The Governator's house...
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...13split600.jpg

From a legal perspective, Tuff, and it doesn't sound like you disagree from what I can tell--- marriage in the legal sense is nothing but a contract. That's all it is. The fact that marraige has a cultural and religious connotation subjective to people's unique backgrounds and upbringings is pretty much beside the point that in the eyes of the law, what marriage does is bestow certain tax implications, civil/domestic rights, medical rights and inheritance/property rights on a couple who are living together as a couple.

On a state-by-state level, the reason I think something like "state level civil contracts" are bad is because it's just begging to go to the Supreme Court anyway, when a backwards state that doesn't recognize civil unions or whatever chooses to deny one partner (recognized in a civil union in another state) hospital vistation, or goes against thier medical directives, or seizes their property and gives it to blood family instead of the civil union partner. But it doesn't sound like you disagreed much there either that it must be a state-by-state issue. I mention it because a state-based civil unions thing is a "Safe" political path that most people who I suspect really support gay marriage adopt to stay middle of the road and not alienate prejudiced voters. But it will never work if it's not Federal over all states, and if it is, then we are back to square one. Why have a separate contract that bestows exactly the same legal rights as marriage but just insist on calling it something different and giving it a totally different legal classification and title when it is presumably exactly the same thing, legally.

I don't think this is a legal problem in fact. I consider the legal aspect of gay marriage a slam dunk. No government state or Federal has the right to withhold legal benefits to life partners/couples on the basis that some religions and some moral value systems don't "like" the kind of couple in question. The problem is I believe social, the fact that people consider marriage irrevocably religious even though it ISN'T, and anyone can go get married by a Justice of the Peace. Some people view it as forcing "leftist values" into religion, which again is just ridiculous. Any church which does not wish to perform a certain kind of ceremony would never have to. But I agree with this one editorial I read a long time ago, that really, when it's all said and done, few people oppose it out of true religious fervor. It's the "ick factor." And it's zero-sum thinking. I'm not gay, I don't need it, I don't want to ever use it, it won't help me on a personal, direct level, so I'm against it, plus I think gay is gross. I think that's the strongest underlined explanation as to why we're still snagged on this issue, IMHO.

Wow off topic. Sorry. ;)

Your first reaction on seeing this clip will be, "Oh, look, a new Onion video." But it ain't so, sorry to say. Behold the level of our national discourse.

I couldn't make this Gah! up if I tried. BY all means, let us elect our leaders by the size of their flag pins.

Its the flag pins stupid!

I just received in the mail yesterday, my Sample Ballot, listing my choices this November. They are:

Party Candidates

Green McKinney-Clemente

American Independent Keyes-Drake

Peace and Freedom Nader-Gonzalez

Democratic Obama-Biden

Libertarian Barr-Root

Republican McCain-Palin

Write-In

Six choices, and a write-in (that's new from last time).

Mulling over the VeepNom debate, I'd probably put it down narrowly in Biden's favor. Of course, I'm actually a recovering college individual events participant with Org Comm PhD who is married to a recovering college CEDA debater with a Master's in Rhetoric. Neither of them used evidence credibly enough to suit me and both strayed from the questions in favor of talking point crap. Biden stuck closer to the Q's and was a bit more "we're better on this point because" than was Palin.

However, McCain's team and the pro-GOP radio spinmeisters had done a MUCH better job of setting the bar very low for Palin. She readily hopped that bar and did pick up enough points to do what McCain hired her to do, which is to get the more dyed-in-the-wool conservatives to show up at the polls rather than sit on their hands. If McCain loses too much of the core GOP, it doesn't matter how well he'll do among the mugwumps. Palin's role is just that, and by THAT standard, she did well enough to "win."

***

This election will be down to the wire and we will not know until very late that night where the chips will fall. I'm still leaning Obama in my prediction and I think my initial analysis in the OP will still be pretty close to form at the finish.

***

Having heard these nominees both argue about the respective health care programs, I can say with sincerity that I hope NEITHER version gets through.

***

I liked the points on McCain being ready for FoPo and Obama getting ready for it. I think that's a reasonable assessment. Of course, most USA voters do NOT make FoPo their focus in the polls -- especially with an economy that will be sliding into recession at about that time.

By the way, for those managing their own finances, I would suggest that it is NOT time to stay in stocks. It is time to leave and then wait for the "bottoming out" to reinvest.