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

[Lemur]

PJ, I accept your apology. Meanwhile, here's more astute reasoning for you to dismiss, since it doesn't fit into your narrative:

Let's get something straight: Anytime race is THE topic du jour in the campaign, it's a bad day for Obama. Period. There are a lot of voters out there who don't want to have their vote judged through the prism of race. (If somehow a swing voter in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan is made to feel that voting against Obama will make them a racist, they'll be resentful.) While today's papers are filled with "who played the race card first?" allegations between the two campaigns, know this fact: The Obama campaign doesn't want the race issue to become an overarching theme of the campaign. [...]

When the McCain folks hit “Send” on that Rick Davis email at 11:46 am ET charging the Obama campaign with playing the race card, what it did was knock Obama’s message of the day -- hitting McCain on Exxon’s quarterly profits -- off the political front burner. (After all, what are we talking about today? Exxon? Or race?) And in a way, it appears that the larger strategy behind the negative ads, Britney and Paris, Landstuhl, etc., is to knock Obama off his message of the day and keep him busy responding to these charges. Compare this week, for instance, with last week, when Obama controlled the message. As the McCain campaign and RNC folks are touting, they've won the week, if you count winning the week as controlling the message (by the way, check out how many views the "Celeb" ad has gotten on YouTube). To use a boxing analogy, McCain is putting Obama into a bear hug -- making it nearly impossible for the Illinois senator to move (in the polls?) or land a punch. But as a big boxing aficionado, McCain also must realize that the fans often don’t take too kindly to boxers who constantly bear hug their opponent. And at some point, the refs break up the bear hugging and the boxing match is forced. But for now, the McCain campaign appears to have a way to knock Obama off message. The only problem for McCain, he's still not on any message of his own, other than "not-Obama."

[Xiahou]

Here's a new McCain ad tweaking Obama. This is my favorite by far.

If this is Steve, the prince of darkness, Schmidt's doing- I approve.

[Lemur]

That is the funniest campaign ad yet -- I approve. If Schmidt can keep playing at that level, I will withdraw all of my doubts of the man.

[CountArach]

Here's a new McCain ad tweaking Obama. This is my favorite by far.

If this is Steve, the prince of darkness, Schmidt's doing- I approve.

That was hilarious

[m52nickerson]

How do you not understand the agenda of MoveOn.org at its followers. The change they want is not in line with the mainstream of the people. People always want change - but it does not necessarily fall in line with MoveOn.org idea of change.

Seeing that MoveOn supports Obama, and it looks like more people support him, they seem the same to me.

You do understand what Policy means do you not? Legislation is something that the President does to meet his policy goals. Presidential policy does not equate to new laws passed by the congress. If you do not have a basic understanding of how the different branches work and how presidential policy is implemented - you really can not argue the issue with me.

So wouldn't there plans be there policies, I think so. You are still avoiding my original question of what more detail do you want? You can see the candidates policies on there web sites. The was those policies are implemented IS by passing laws and regulation. If you don't think so explain it to me.

Actually its been about both. And yes its a weakness of Obama's. There is a specific reason why Obama has not agreed to the number of debates put forth by McCain, and there is a reason why the dates have not been agreed upon concerning the current agreed upon debates. In fact it changes several times a month depending on what news source you pull concerning the debate issue. Sorry that you don't understand that point - but then again I am not favoring either candidate over the other at this time based upon debate points - as stated before it only a tell for me. Now if Obama seriousily wants to convince me to vote for him he is going to have to show that he is all about change and is not the typical politician - because I have had enough of them. Currently Obama is only showing that he is the typical politician - changing his stance and his policies toward the center so he can convince more voters to vote for him. However we have not seen any major substance from either candidate either now have we.

So what is that specific reason, Obama's scared. I doubt it. More like he does not what to share his spot light with McCain more then a few times. McCain is good at town halls, he is a likable guy. Obama is no dope. He does hold town halls, and held his own VS. Clinton.

I highly doubt you are as independent as you claim, as I doubt you would know substance if it jumped up and bit you.

Are you so sure about that? Speech writers write what is told to them by the candidate - and the campaign staff. Does that necessarily equate to the true plans. I very well remember Bush Sr. running on the campaign promise not to raise taxes - guess what he did after he got into office.....

Well since you can see the plans online and so far they are the same as the speeches, I'm sure. Oh and what Bush did was called lying.

Then you are argueing a false postion - since I said it was one of the critiria I use when looking at the candidates. Debates are indeed important to the process. Far more then your willing to admit to.

No I was making a point, if I had wanted to argue a false potions I would not have admitted that you were not claiming that.

Then it seems you have a fundmental problem in understanding what a presidential debate actually accomplishes. Now then if you want to go on a about speeches and interviews - why are you against town hall debates if you like interviews? Or are you only talking about structure interviews were the questions are known and approved beforehand by the campaign?

I want free interaction - not controlled events when candidates discuss issues.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said I preferred structured debates controlled by a moderator, to town hall style. Town halls can be dominated by persons with stronger personalities. That does not mean that person is correct.

No I was not talking about scripted Interviews. Interview eliminate what I just spoke of. I want to hear what the candidates have to say in a point counter point debate, not an argument.

You might want to read a bit of history

See, you are the one who made the claim that when a single party controls everything it is a disaster. So the burden of proof is on you. So were is it.

Depends on what you think was a disaster - Somilia for one, and a few other exambles one can find if they do a bit of reading.

Somilia could be one, but since I don't see how a difference in congress would have changed anything since the president is commander and chief it is not realy a good example.

The budget has not been balanced for a long time there - the two current wars we are in - only highlight the issue - but they are not the sole cause of the issue.

....and I never said they were the sole issue.

Nice attempt but you fail once again - the war is a cost, pork requires something hidden within the bill itself - for instance the last Iraq spending bill contained both funds for the war, and guess what true pork.

It seems you have a basic misunderstanding of what pork spending is all about. THe Farm bill is a good examble of a bill that contains lots of pork also.

Now it is you that is failing. I never stated that the war was pork. I asked you to tell me what pork you are talking about. What is the pork on the farm bill. Again you are the one making the claim, I'm asking for you to give specific examples. So what is the pork in the farm bill?

Which lowers both parties to the same level - and it completely disgusts me that both decided to go that way. Mickey Mouse is becoming a better and better candidate every day.

So Obama saying that the people or groups that oppose him might bring up his race lowers him. At best he ends up wrong if they do not bring it up.

Over all Red you seem to be side stepping direct question I'm asking, and FAILing to provide and information to support your claims. I hope in your next post you do more then say "your wrong, go read".

[Lemur]

As amusing as that "Messiah" ad was, it's worth pointing out that while it's 100% funny, it's not 100% accurate:

It should be noted, the McCain camp took at least two quotes from Obama out of context. It uses one controversial remark made by Obama that popped up earlier this week, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." A Democratic source later told multiple news outlets that, in context, Obama wasn't speaking about himself but about America generally -- the source quoted Obama as having also said, "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol.'" It's fairly obvious that Obama was joking in another similar quote used in the video.

And yes, Xiahou, Steve Schmidt seems like the kind of guy you'd develop a Republican man-crush on.

The motor behind his operation now is Steve Schmidt, the shaven-headed strategist who earned his bones running Karl Rove's war room in 2004, Frenchifying and de-war-heroizing John Kerry. What Schmidt and his associates have apparently concluded is that McCain's weaknesses -- on the election's most salient issues and as a candidate -- are so pronounced and Obama's vulnerabilities so glaring that the low road is their guy's best, and maybe only, route to the White House. They've concluded, in other words, that even if McCain may not be able to win the election in any affirmative sense, he might still wind up behind the big desk if he and his people can strip the bark off Obama with sufficiently vicious force.

[Redleg]

Seeing that MoveOn supports Obama, and it looks like more people support him, they seem the same to me.

Then I suggest you research MoveOn.org a bit more. There agenda is not just about change - but a specific type of change. And that is different then the average american's desire for change in the government.

So wouldn't there plans be there policies, I think so. You are still avoiding my original question of what more detail do you want? You can see the candidates policies on there web sites. The was those policies are implemented IS by passing laws and regulation. If you don't think so explain it to me.

What detail is in the websites - they consist of broad strokes of idea's. No substance about how the candidate desires to pursue the implenation of the idea. It's all fine for the primary races - but in the presidential election I expect more detail on what direction and how that direction is going to be done.

So what is that specific reason, Obama's scared. I doubt it. More like he does not what to share his spot light with McCain more then a few times. McCain is good at town halls, he is a likable guy. Obama is no dope. He does hold town halls, and held his own VS. Clinton.

Did I say scared? I said he had a reason - never claimed to know the reason just that there is one. Now your hinting to a personality flaw with the candidate that demonstrates that he is concerned about maintaining his image - not discussing his policy. Another factor that we have had more then enough of in the highest office.

I highly doubt you are as independent as you claim, as I doubt you would know substance if it jumped up and bit you.

Oh a personal attack - how interesting. Care to guess my voting record? I vote Democrate in all local elections because I agree with social policies at the community level. I vote a mix based upon the candidates presented for state elections. All depends on how well I agree with their stances. And in national elections I concentrate on who I believe will do the least damage to the country in both elected branches. So before you attempt such an arguement you better understand something about politics and a persons philisophy. A Constitutionist closest describes my mindset, which makes me more independent then you seem to be. And your other comment demonstrates that you have a base misunderstanding of government policy and how it works. To bad you have demonstrated how un-intellegent you truely are. Now do you want to continue with this type of exchange feel free, I am more then game.

Well since you can see the plans online and so far they are the same as the speeches, I'm sure. Oh and what Bush did was called lying.

And it cost him his job now didnt it? Now again neither contain enough detail to demonstrate how the man plans to accomplish his objectives. This is the same folly that Bush Sr. did that you state means he lied. But you don't see the lack of detail as an issue for Obama. I frankly see it as an issue that both candidates have. Poor details in their plans - just broad strokes that demonstrate neither candidate is much better then the other.

No I was making a point, if I had wanted to argue a false potions I would not have admitted that you were not claiming that.

Practicing duplicty are you?

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said I preferred structured debates controlled by a moderator, to town hall style. Town halls can be dominated by persons with stronger personalities. That does not mean that person is correct.

Careful now you about to committ a serious error in your arguement providing an arguement that demonstrates Obama is more controled by his handlers then McCain. Leadership is about being able to make a decision, its not always the right decision, but sometimes it requires strength to make a decision. I have seen both types of interviews - the stronger personalities always dominate the debate. So this arguement seems a bit weak for a desire not to do town hall styles. The main difference between the two types of debates is that the candidate does not get informed before what the questions will be. There is some time limit and structure differences - but the benefit of a town hall far exceeds the problems. Why are you scared of the average citizen being able to ask questions of his future president?

No I was not talking about scripted Interviews. Interview eliminate what I just spoke of. I want to hear what the candidates have to say in a point counter point debate, not an argument.

Town Hall debates can function just as well in that regard. If the candidate is a hot head - I want to see it in the town hall debate. If he can not control his arguement style to a logical postion then I desire to know that weakness. So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.

See, you are the one who made the claim that when a single party controls everything it is a disaster. So the burden of proof is on you. So were is it.

Is your memory that short - 2001 to 2006
the first two years of Clinton's adminstration
the carter adminstration.

Come now understand the politics of having both parties control the elective branches.

Somilia could be one, but since I don't see how a difference in congress would have changed anything since the president is commander and chief it is not realy a good example.

Oh congress could have changed quite a bit in regards to it. Just like congress could of done quite a bit to prevent the invasion of Iraq.

....and I never said they were the sole issue.

Good - so you agree that the budget has not been balanced for many years now - regardless of which party is in power in the whitehouse or congress.

Now it is you that is failing. I never stated that the war was pork. I asked you to tell me what pork you are talking about. What is the pork on the farm bill. Again you are the one making the claim, I'm asking for you to give specific examples. So what is the pork in the farm bill?

Okay fair enough the way you stated your question was off. Pork is simple - any rider placed into the bill that does not support the stated purpose of the bill. Simple enough to explain. Now what is pork - in 2007's war spending bill the congress added about $5 billion to provide releif to Kansas Farmers because of the extreme conditions that ruined crops during the winter/early spring. Now the farm bill contains even more pork in it.

So Obama saying that the people or groups that oppose him might bring up his race lowers him. At best he ends up wrong if they do not bring it up.

as before both candidates are not doing a very good job of address issues.

Over all Red you seem to be side stepping direct question I'm asking, and FAILing to provide and information to support your claims. I hope in your next post you do more then say "your wrong, go read".

No - I want you to actually read the bills and the constitution. If I told you then you will not educate yourself on the issue. So if you want details I suggest you provide more detail yourself, since you still have not provide details concerning how MoveOn.org and the American people's desire for change are the same thing.

So be careful of calling the Kettle black if your committing the same error.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?

[seireikhaan]

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?

You don't want Mitt for vp?

[m52nickerson]

Then I suggest you research MoveOn.org a bit more. There agenda is not just about change - but a specific type of change. And that is different then the average american's desire for change in the government.

You are look at it in much more detail then I am. All I was getting at was both are for change.

What detail is in the websites - they consist of broad strokes of idea's. No substance about how the candidate desires to pursue the implenation of the idea. It's all fine for the primary races - but in the presidential election I expect more detail on what direction and how that direction is going to be done.

Now see, I was under the impression you had read there plans. Here is part of Obama's health care plan.

# Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

Did I say scared? I said he had a reason - never claimed to know the reason just that there is one. Now your hinting to a personality flaw with the candidate that demonstrates that he is concerned about maintaining his image - not discussing his policy. Another factor that we have had more then enough of in the highest office.

No you did not, I was asking if that was the reason. So I guess if you don't know the reason why the dates have been rejected it's really only a guess that it has anything to do with Obama not wanting to debate McCain.

Oh a personal attack - how interesting. Care to guess my voting record? I vote Democrate in all local elections because I agree with social policies at the community level. I vote a mix based upon the candidates presented for state elections. All depends on how well I agree with their stances. And in national elections I concentrate on who I believe will do the least damage to the country in both elected branches. So before you attempt such an arguement you better understand something about politics and a persons philisophy. A Constitutionist closest describes my mindset, which makes me more independent then you seem to be. And your other comment demonstrates that you have a base misunderstanding of government policy and how it works. To bad you have demonstrated how un-intellegent you truely are. Now do you want to continue with this type of exchange feel free, I am more then game.

I really don't care about your claimed voting record, and you are most likely more independent then me. I can't remember the last time I voted for a Republican candidate.

Now if 'm so un-intelligent why don't you explain how policies are implemented if not by regulations and laws? I believe this is the second time I asked this question, now you would not dodge it again would you?

And it cost him his job now didnt it? Now again neither contain enough detail to demonstrate how the man plans to accomplish his objectives. This is the same folly that Bush Sr. did that you state means he lied. But you don't see the lack of detail as an issue for Obama. I frankly see it as an issue that both candidates have. Poor details in their plans - just broad strokes that demonstrate neither candidate is much better then the other.

I don't see a lack of detail from ether candidate. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what more detail you want.

Practicing duplicty are you?

No, I was just making a point, please try to follow along.

Careful now you about to committ a serious error in your arguement providing an arguement that demonstrates Obama is more controled by his handlers then McCain. Leadership is about being able to make a decision, its not always the right decision, but sometimes it requires strength to make a decision. I have seen both types of interviews - the stronger personalities always dominate the debate. So this arguement seems a bit weak for a desire not to do town hall styles. The main difference between the two types of debates is that the candidate does not get informed before what the questions will be. There is some time limit and structure differences - but the benefit of a town hall far exceeds the problems. Why are you scared of the average citizen being able to ask questions of his future president?

I have said that I want to see debates, but I prefer a more classic style of debate over town halls. That does not mean I would not be interested in see at least on town hall between Obama and McCain. Now from may comments that the stronger personality will sometimes dominate a town hall debate means Obama is under more control. Now f you put just about anyone in an open forum like a town hall with Bill O' he will dominate. That does not mean he is right, just that he can yell louder.

So, I want to see debates between the two. At least one should be a town hall. I see now reason why we need 10 town halls.

Town Hall debates can function just as well in that regard. If the candidate is a hot head - I want to see it in the town hall debate. If he can not control his arguement style to a logical postion then I desire to know that weakness. So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.

So what a candidate presents does not present there positions?

Is your memory that short - 2001 to 2006
the first two years of Clinton's adminstration
the carter adminstration.

Come now understand the politics of having both parties control the elective branches.

Oh congress could have changed quite a bit in regards to it. Just like congress could of done quite a bit to prevent the invasion of Iraq.

Now what would that have been? The president is the commander of the military he does not need permission from congress to deploy troops.

Good - so you agree that the budget has not been balanced for many years now - regardless of which party is in power in the whitehouse or congress.

Yes we are.

Okay fair enough the way you stated your question was off. Pork is simple - any rider placed into the bill that does not support the stated purpose of the bill. Simple enough to explain. Now what is pork - in 2007's war spending bill the congress added about $5 billion to provide releif to Kansas Farmers because of the extreme conditions that ruined crops during the winter/early spring. Now the farm bill contains even more pork in it.

I understand what pork is, I asked what was the pork in the farm bill.

Oh, do you think that the farmers of Kansas did not deserve government help?

as before both candidates are not doing a very good job of address issues.

No McCain is not doing a good job, he is to busy attacking Obama. Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks. You should know that since I'm sure you are listen to the speeches since you agree that debates are not the sole way of picking a president.

No - I want you to actually read the bills and the constitution. If I told you then you will not educate yourself on the issue. So if you want details I suggest you provide more detail yourself, since you still have not provide details concerning how MoveOn.org and the American people's desire for change are the same thing.

You can't know if I have read them or not. If I have do you think I would come back here and provide support for your arguments. Since you are making the claims, it is up to you to provide support for them. If you can't or won't then you lose the argument.

So be careful of calling the Kettle black if your committing the same error.

That is way I'm so lucky that I addressed this at the beginning.

Now I hope you answer the questions I asked, sidestepping is so un-becoming.

[CrossLOPER]

Guys, Obama and McCain are settling it the old fashioned way.

[m52nickerson]

Guys, Obama and McCain are settling it the old fashioned way.

Funny, is that McCain's Mighty McHammer, and Obama's Obamachucks?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks.

I'm sorry, but that can only be met with a snort of laughter.

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

Indeed - of which there don't seem to be any. It's nice to say things like easy enrollment and simplified paperwork (which is, of course, what the government is known for), but something else entirely to get down to the nitty-gritty of the exact wording.

CR

[CountArach]

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.

McCain has been focussing on his military record, and not emphasising his conservative agenda.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Well, considering how national security is considered his strength and pretty much the only thing conservatives actually like about him, I'd say it's a smart move on his part.

[m52nickerson]

I'm sorry, but that can only be met with a snort of laughter.

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.

So when Obama was in Orlando today and he was speaking about the economy he was not addressing an issue? He has also spoken about health care, that is not one of the major issues of this election?

Indeed - of which there don't seem to be any. It's nice to say things like easy enrollment and simplified paperwork (which is, of course, what the government is known for), but something else entirely to get down to the nitty-gritty of the exact wording.

CR

Ok, the candidates could draft proposed regulations and put them out. Do you really think that is needed?

[Crazed Rabbit]

McCain has been focussing on his military record, and not emphasising his conservative agenda.

Never said he wasn't. But he's less focused on nebulous stuff like 'change' and 'hope'.

So when Obama was in Orlando today and he was speaking about the economy he was not addressing an issue? He has also spoken about health care, that is not one of the major issues of this election?

Having just skimmed the speech, he's talking about the issues in platitudes of change, not really addressing the issues. He's got a laundry list of complaints and promises his 'change' will fix things.

Ok, the candidates could draft proposed regulations and put them out. Do you really think that is needed?

It'd certainly be better.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

You don't want Mitt for vp?

I wanted Mitt for President, but it was not to be. I love that guy, but I really wanted a female in the number 2 slot. 2 males may look like the past - and that is exactly where mccain doesn't need any help. He needs to set himself apart from the tickets of the past so that he can look like a viable alternative to Obama's future. If he picks an incredibly inteligent woman with solid conservative credentials, a gorgeous personality and style - he can create that alternative more effectively. If he picks a female first he may have the upper hand. Romney is my number 2 pick for VP but my number 1 for top slot. Karl Rove continues to say that he would pick Romney if it were his choice.

Jindal is number 3, but the republicans have, for better of worse, the votes of racists in this election. Jindal may get a small number of voters to say "to hell with it - if we are gonna get a "black" no matter how we vote, we may as well go for the one who promises the most stuff and screws the rich" - which would be a gain for the democrats. I'm assuming that this will be a line of thought, but I can't be sure. It would be interesting to see how large a portion of voters are bigots and what their politics play like.

[Redleg]

You are look at it in much more detail then I am. All I was getting at was both are for change.

Then you are grossly mistaken. MoveOn.Org is after a specific type of change - not just change.

Now see, I was under the impression you had read there plans. Here is part of Obama's health care plan.

# Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

What is the time line, what is the cost, how is it going to be funded, what hurdles does he forsee in implemation of the plan. Again what are the details - that is just a broad stroke plan. So I think your just naive enough to think that this is a plan - however this is not a plan - plans have details in them

No you did not, I was asking if that was the reason. So I guess if you don't know the reason why the dates have been rejected it's really only a guess that it has anything to do with Obama not wanting to debate McCain.

So we will save this for latter - since you have demonstrated a base misunderstanding of my point because of your eagerness to defend a candidate that I have not attacked - only questioned. As a citizen I have every right to question the candidate's ability to lead the nation. So are you attempting to claim a citizen does not have the right to question the candidate's ability to actualy lead the nation, because his political agenda does not have details in it?

I really don't care about your claimed voting record, and you are most likely more independent then me. I can't remember the last time I voted for a Republican candidate.

So again we determine that you like to make cheap shots because someone disagrees with your stated postion.

Now if 'm so un-intelligent why don't you explain how policies are implemented if not by regulations and laws? I believe this is the second time I asked this question, now you would not dodge it again would you?

Hmm you should of watch the school house rock explanation of how things are done in congress - its really rather simple, a measure is brought forth into the congress, and if it has the desired sponsers it can become a bill, and if the bill gets past that process it can then become a piece of legislation. which is what laws and regulations are part of. Now once again how does the above agenda of Mr. Obama meet the criteria of developing a contrete plan on how to bring about his agenda for health care reform for the nation. Because all I see - as with McCains is a broad stroke on what they would like to have happen, nothing about cost, timeline, or any other details in the plan.

I don't see a lack of detail from ether candidate. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what more detail you want.

Alreadly stated several times in the thread, if you do not have the ability to understand what detail means just let me know - its easily looked up in the dictionary.

No, I was just making a point, please try to follow along.

Try making the point - instead of practicing duplicity.

I have said that I want to see debates, but I prefer a more classic style of debate over town halls. That does not mean I would not be interested in see at least on town hall between Obama and McCain. Now from may comments that the stronger personality will sometimes dominate a town hall debate means Obama is under more control. Now f you put just about anyone in an open forum like a town hall with Bill O' he will dominate. That does not mean he is right, just that he can yell louder.

As stated before - I prefer town hall types - and the shouting match type of personality would turn off most voters that watched that type of behavior in a town hall meeting. Only party hacks want that. Citizens who want to legimately look at all candidates want to see how the candidates respond to questions and answer the question.

So, I want to see debates between the two. At least one should be a town hall. I see now reason why we need 10 town halls.

I see the need for one a week from the conventions until the election - of both types, in equal portions so we, the citizens of the nation, can determine of which of the two candidates have the best interests of the country at heart. Mistakes happen, bad decisions will happen, but I want the candidate that has the best interest of the people of the nation at heart to be voted into office. Right now neither candidate seems to present that picture,

So what a candidate presents does not present there positions?

Read it again

Now what would that have been? The president is the commander of the military he does not need permission from congress to deploy troops.

Read the War Powers Act of 1973, he can make certain deployments under specific conditions prior to congressional approval. Guess what every senator and representive I have written to - fail to address that important piece of legislation in their responses to me. Congress has failed terribly in upholding their constitution and legislative duties.

I understand what pork is, I asked what was the pork in the farm bill.

As stated before - read for yourself, its not hard to find it in there once you begin to read it.

Oh, do you think that the farmers of Kansas did not deserve government help?

Not as pork I don't.

No McCain is not doing a good job, he is to busy attacking Obama. Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks. You should know that since I'm sure you are listen to the speeches since you agree that debates are not the sole way of picking a president.

I seem marginal addressment of issues by Obama, I see hope speech being present by Obama, however I don't see much detail in his speeches about how he is going to change the government. Now I might be missing some of the speeches - but from what I have seen and read - I don't see anything that demonstrates that he has a real plan to lead the nation, just the typical message of hope and improvement I would expect of a candidate for office. And yes McCain is indeed much worse in this area then Obama, hince the reason I want to see more debates to force them to address the issues - or resort to personal attacks only. Then I can determine which one I will vote for based upon their behavior

You can't know if I have read them or not. If I have do you think I would come back here and provide support for your arguments. Since you are making the claims, it is up to you to provide support for them. If you can't or won't then you lose the argument.

See I dont care to provide you with the evidence that is easily seen by a little google search of the internet. This is a political discussion about how individuals feel about an issue. Now are you attempting to claim that pork is not included in the Farm Bill? Because that would be very foolish of you, and would demonstrate that you have not read the bill yourself.....

And I dont care if I will or lose the arguement,

That is way I'm so lucky that I addressed this at the beginning.

Now I hope you answer the questions I asked, sidestepping is so un-becoming.

I wish you would do the same thing - so again the Pot calling the Kettle black, you want becoming arguements don't resort to cheap shots.

[m52nickerson]

Then you are grossly mistaken. MoveOn.Org is after a specific type of change - not just change.

It is still change.

What is the time line, what is the cost, how is it going to be funded, what hurdles does he forsee in implemation of the plan. Again what are the details - that is just a broad stroke plan. So I think your just naive enough to think that this is a plan - however this is not a plan - plans have details in them

That was not very hard was it. The plan in part will be funded by repealing Bush's tax cuts, plus most people will pay for the coverage. Will be depended on how long it take for the bill to get through congress. I will give you that he does not address the hurdles. You do realize that that is only a small part of his plan.

So we will save this for latter - since you have demonstrated a base misunderstanding of my point because of your eagerness to defend a candidate that I have not attacked - only questioned. As a citizen I have every right to question the candidate's ability to lead the nation. So are you attempting to claim a citizen does not have the right to question the candidate's ability to actualy lead the nation, because his political agenda does not have details in it?

You have the right to question, and I have the right to defend.

So again we determine that you like to make cheap shots because someone disagrees with your stated postion.

So the fact that I don' care about your voting record is another cheap shot, so sorry to offend you.

Hmm you should of watch the school house rock explanation of how things are done in congress - its really rather simple, a measure is brought forth into the congress, and if it has the desired sponsers it can become a bill, and if the bill gets past that process it can then become a piece of legislation. which is what laws and regulations are part of. Now once again how does the above agenda of Mr. Obama meet the criteria of developing a contrete plan on how to bring about his agenda for health care reform for the nation. Because all I see - as with McCains is a broad stroke on what they would like to have happen, nothing about cost, timeline, or any other details in the plan.

You had stated that you wanted to know how the candidates would implement there plans. I responded with regulations and laws. You then told me I was wrong. Now you say that ultimately laws and regulations are used.

Alreadly stated several times in the thread, if you do not have the ability to understand what detail means just let me know - its easily looked up in the dictionary.

I have been asking what details you wanted, it has taken this long for you to tell me.

Try making the point - instead of practicing duplicity.

I guess your ability to see a point is equal to your ability to spot substance. Oops, sorry I forgot you bruise easy.

As stated before - I prefer town hall types - and the shouting match type of personality would turn off most voters that watched that type of behavior in a town hall meeting. Only party hacks want that. Citizens who want to legimately look at all candidates want to see how the candidates respond to questions and answer the question.

....and you can get that from both styles of debates. Just because a debate has a moderator, does not mean the candidates will know all the question ahead of time. Plus a moderator has the power to make sure each candidate gets equal time to speak, no letting one dominate.

I see the need for one a week from the conventions until the election - of both types, in equal portions so we, the citizens of the nation, can determine of which of the two candidates have the best interests of the country at heart. Mistakes happen, bad decisions will happen, but I want the candidate that has the best interest of the people of the nation at heart to be voted into office. Right now neither candidate seems to present that picture,

A good debater can argue a point even if he does not believe it, so I don't see how you or any one will see who has the best interest of this country at heart. But is that even a question? Don't you think that both candidates have made their plans because they feel that is what is best. If not what possible agenda do they have.

Read it again

Ok

So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.

I still don't see how what a candidate presents is different than what his position is.

Read the War Powers Act of 1973, he can make certain deployments under specific conditions prior to congressional approval. Guess what every senator and representive I have written to - fail to address that important piece of legislation in their responses to me. Congress has failed terribly in upholding their constitution and legislative duties.

The president may deploy troops for 60 days before needing a declaration of war from congress. Yes congress has not done a good job of using this, of course after 60 days. That is a enough time to get deep enough into a situation that it would be hard to just pull out. This still does not provide any proof that when on party controls both the electoral branch and the congress it leads to disaster.

As stated before - read for yourself, its not hard to find it in there once you begin to read it.
Not as pork I don't.

Not all pork is bad. Passing the relief as part of the defense bill simple saved time.

Now as far as the farm bill would some of the pork you are talking about be the Food Stamp Program?

I seem marginal addressment of issues by Obama, I see hope speech being present by Obama, however I don't see much detail in his speeches about how he is going to change the government. Now I might be missing some of the speeches - but from what I have seen and read - I don't see anything that demonstrates that he has a real plan to lead the nation, just the typical message of hope and improvement I would expect of a candidate for office. And yes McCain is indeed much worse in this area then Obama, hince the reason I want to see more debates to force them to address the issues - or resort to personal attacks only. Then I can determine which one I will vote for based upon their behavior

Well I have to say you are not listen to the speeches and want a level of detail that at this point is unrealistic.

See I dont care to provide you with the evidence that is easily seen by a little google search of the internet. This is a political discussion about how individuals feel about an issue. Now are you attempting to claim that pork is not included in the Farm Bill? Because that would be very foolish of you, and would demonstrate that you have not read the bill yourself.....

As I stated not all pork is bad, personally I like baby back ribs.

And I dont care if I will or lose the arguement,

Then why are you still hear?

I wish you would do the same thing - so again the Pot calling the Kettle black, you want becoming arguements don't resort to cheap shots.

So what questions of your have I not answered?

[Lemur]

Redleg, M52, if we could only harness the energy you're putting into this back-and-forth, we could power a smallish city for a week. Think about it. It's your duty to find a way to capture this brilliant and wasted effort.

[m52nickerson]

Redleg, M52, if we could only harness the energy you're putting into this back-and-forth, we could power a smallish city for a week. Think about it. It's your duty to find a way to capture this brilliant and wasted effort.

We could, but this is more fun!

[Redleg]

It is still change.

However it does not equate to what you stated it did now does it.

That was not very hard was it. The plan in part will be funded by repealing Bush's tax cuts, plus most people will pay for the coverage. Will be depended on how long it take for the bill to get through congress. I will give you that he does not address the hurdles. You do realize that that is only a small part of his plan.

The problem is that no-one knows that, Your making an assumption on what his plan might be, I want to see what he says about it - not what others think it might be. To bad you didnt read it the first time I said it either. Its easy to find out what details mean - all it requires is looking it up in the dictionary.

You have the right to question, and I have the right to defend.

you have the right to voice your opinion. Obama has to provide the answers to the questions - not you. Especially given that I have not attacked Obama, just questioned his political plans for the nation. So it seems you have become overly defensive for nothing. Simple fact is I am not against Obama, but neither am I for him at this time. He simply has not provided enough information for me to make a decision concerning his run for office, in fact your attempts have demonstrated how weak some of his positions truely are. So all your attempts at being defensive are for not. However you have demonstrated one of the fundmental flaws of the democratic party during election time. (and yes the Republicans have the same flaws to.)

So the fact that I don' care about your voting record is another cheap shot, so sorry to offend you.

Actually that wasnt the cheap shot - try again.

You had stated that you wanted to know how the candidates would implement there plans. I responded with regulations and laws. You then told me I was wrong. Now you say that ultimately laws and regulations are used.

Try again - I said something completely different. So I guess I will make it simple for you - Obama's implentation is the plans and details that he wants written into the bills that have to go through the process to become law. His implenation is what details is he going to put into executive orders, and what if any new governmental departments he wishes to create. Legislation of law and regulations is what Congress does to Fund his plan. Government 101 in school will teach you this if you can find the time to actually seek an education.

I have been asking what details you wanted, it has taken this long for you to tell me.

Nope, its the first time you chose to actually read it - details is a pretty specific comment - all one has to do is look into the dictionary to determine what it means.

I guess your ability to see a point is equal to your ability to spot substance. Oops, sorry I forgot you bruise easy.

Not at all on either case - but since you wish to play that game - I guess I will also

....and you can get that from both styles of debates. Just because a debate has a moderator, does not mean the candidates will know all the question ahead of time. Plus a moderator has the power to make sure each candidate gets equal time to speak, no letting one dominate.

- both types of debates have the opporunity for one individual to dominate.

A good debater can argue a point even if he does not believe it, so I don't see how you or any one will see who has the best interest of this country at heart. But is that even a question? Don't you think that both candidates have made their plans because they feel that is what is best. If not what possible agenda do they have.

and I am not going to enlighten you on how to judge people for yourself - everyone has their own opinion on that subject. So your point here is mote.

OkI still don't see how what a candidate presents is different than what his position is.

Politicians are politicans - they speak to get votes. So until you know what his postion truely is - you dont know for a fact what he is saying is what he will do, or is it just campaign speech. Here is what allowing people to question candidates does when its not a set piece debate or interview process - the candidates don't have prepared speeches or answers available - they have to come from themselves with the answer.

The president may deploy troops for 60 days before needing a declaration of war from congress. Yes congress has not done a good job of using this, of course after 60 days. That is a enough time to get deep enough into a situation that it would be hard to just pull out. This still does not provide any proof that when on party controls both the electoral branch and the congress it leads to disaster.

Actually it does given the screams of Bush Lied to congress. You cant have both ways in that aspect - both parties in power is not good for the nation. No comprise is necessary when both control the elective branches/

It also says something else about the deployment of troops for 60 days also. He can not just deploy troops for any old reason that he feels like doing it for. And then your forgetting the most important part of the Resolution where he has to come to congress to justify his actions - or the plug is pulled on the operation. And there is a time table for that action to.

Not all pork is bad. Passing the relief as part of the defense bill simple saved time.

Incorrect all pork is bad - it is nothing else then a cheat on the system - emergancy spending bills are the correct way to do it and are just as simple to do.

Now as far as the farm bill would some of the pork you are talking about be the Food Stamp Program?

Nope look deeper into it. But since you seemly cant find the legislation itself, pure laziness on your part since a simple google search is all that is required to find the farm bill.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmb...d=FARMBILL2008

one should have to explain why the government includes Social Security funding in the Farm Bill.....

But since you were to lazy to do a simple google - and I image you are to lazy to read the complete bill to find all the pork included in it.. Bill Moyers at PBS has a decent write up on the pork and problems with the 2008 Farm bill. THere are others but they are from more consertive postions, Bill actually does a pretty good job of addressing some of the pork in the bill.

Well I have to say you are not listen to the speeches and want a level of detail that at this point is unrealistic.

And you would be incorrect once again - detail is required for many things when candidates are making specific campaign promises.

As I stated not all pork is bad, personally I like baby back ribs.

good for you - to bad you are acting like a pig.....

Then why are you still hear?

Cause I can......

So what questions of your have I not answered?

Several - review the thread....

[CountArach]

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?

Be my guest, just don't complain when the Democrats start pointing out that she is currently under investigation.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Whereas it is understood that this subject is likely to provoke much heated debate, there are some posters tripping over the line into personal attacks. Mild so far, but getting increasingly unpleasant.

Unlike the campaigns, here there are rules against being beastly to one another. Let's respect them, and each other.

Thank you kindly.

[m52nickerson]

However it does not equate to what you stated it did now does it.

Yes it does. A majority of people what change, but I bet you would be hard presses to find a consensus within those people of what specific type of change. I in no way meant that a majority of people want the exact same things as MoveOn, just that they want change.

The problem is that no-one knows that, Your making an assumption on what his plan might be, I want to see what he says about it - not what others think it might be. To bad you didnt read it the first time I said it either. Its easy to find out what details mean - all it requires is looking it up in the dictionary.

You mean about how he will fund it, no the part about the repealing of tax cuts is in there. Now a time line, no he has not given one, so yes that is one more detail he could put in.

Now me looking up "detail" in the dictionary would not have told me what you wanted to know. Here is one definition "An individual part or item; a particular."

Now what did you say it before?
well here, you stated you wanted to know how he was going to implement and pay for it. This then launched the discussion how things are implemented.

you have the right to voice your opinion. Obama has to provide the answers to the questions - not you. Especially given that I have not attacked Obama, just questioned his political plans for the nation. So it seems you have become overly defensive for nothing. Simple fact is I am not against Obama, but neither am I for him at this time. He simply has not provided enough information for me to make a decision concerning his run for office, in fact your attempts have demonstrated how weak some of his positions truely are. So all your attempts at being defensive are for not. However you have demonstrated one of the fundmental flaws of the democratic party during election time. (and yes the Republicans have the same flaws to.)

He has not provided enough for you. Now explain to me how I have shown his positions to be weak.

Actually that wasnt the cheap shot - try again.

No - it is to easy.

Try again - I said something completely different. So I guess I will make it simple for you - Obama's implentation is the plans and details that he wants written into the bills that have to go through the process to become law. His implenation is what details is he going to put into executive orders, and what if any new governmental departments he wishes to create. Legislation of law and regulations is what Congress does to Fund his plan. Government 101 in school will teach you this if you can find the time to actually seek an education.

Ok you have said that you wanted to know how he would implement his plan. I responded with laws and regulations, which start as a bill. All you would have to say is you wanted to know how his bills would be written.

Now your assumption the laws and regulations fund plans is incorrect. Laws and regulations are what is used to enact as plan. The president and other write a bill, that then goes through congress and the house were if passed becomes a law. Even new agencies need laws behind them. Now once the law is in place it is up to other government agencies, like EPA, to write regulations on how that law is going to be followed. Then individual states may have to adopt laws and then regulations so that state regulatory agencies can enforce those laws. Funding specifications may be included in the laws or regulations, such as a case of subsidies, most funding will come from funds dedicated the regulatory agencies tasked with enforcing the laws through there regulations.

Now if you feel that is the level of detail you need, fine. It is not accurate to say that without draft bills, or parts of bills, a plan has no substance. Substance can be defined as "the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing" - from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).

- both types of debates have the opporunity for one individual to dominate.

Yes, one by making better points and rebutting the points of your opponent and the other by talking more and louder.

and I am not going to enlighten you on how to judge people for yourself - everyone has their own opinion on that subject. So your point here is mote.

Nor would I want YOU to. My point was far from moot.

Politicians are politicans - they speak to get votes. So until you know what his postion truely is - you dont know for a fact what he is saying is what he will do, or is it just campaign speech. Here is what allowing people to question candidates does when its not a set piece debate or interview process - the candidates don't have prepared speeches or answers available - they have to come from themselves with the answer.

The candidates know what their plans are. I doubt most politicians will forget what they have spoke about before and then say something total different in a debate. It is not like the speech writer get no impute from the candidates, and the candidates do not go out and just riddle off a speech without reading it first.

If you feel that the candidates are not being honest in there speeches and plans, why would you even think about voting for one of them?

Actually it does given the screams of Bush Lied to congress. You cant have both ways in that aspect - both parties in power is not good for the nation. No comprise is necessary when both control the elective branches/

It also says something else about the deployment of troops for 60 days also. He can not just deploy troops for any old reason that he feels like doing it for. And then your forgetting the most important part of the Resolution where he has to come to congress to justify his actions - or the plug is pulled on the operation. And there is a time table for that action to.

Unless the country is under serious attack or serious threat.

Now the US was in Somalia as part of a UN mission. They were sent there by president Bush Sr. under a Dem controlled congress.

So, your point is moot. Do you have any proof the when one party controls the White House and congress it leads to disaster.

Incorrect all pork is bad - it is nothing else then a cheat on the system - emergancy spending bills are the correct way to do it and are just as simple to do.

Well that is your opinion, but I don't see it.

Nope look deeper into it. But since you seemly cant find the legislation itself, pure laziness on your part since a simple google search is all that is required to find the farm bill.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmb...d=FARMBILL2008

one should have to explain why the government includes Social Security funding in the Farm Bill.....

That is in the bill it self.

PART V--PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

SEC. 15361. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

To ensure that the assets of the trust funds established under
section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) are not reduced
as a result of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall transfer annually from the general revenues of the Federal
Government to those trust funds the following amounts:

But since you were to lazy to do a simple google - and I image you are to lazy to read the complete bill to find all the pork included in it.. Bill Moyers at PBS has a decent write up on the pork and problems with the 2008 Farm bill. THere are others but they are from more consertive postions, Bill actually does a pretty good job of addressing some of the pork in the bill.

I found were Moyer talks about pork, and were he talks bout the farm bill, but not at the same time.

Back to your original example, the relief funds in the defense bill. The definition of Pork is-The term pork barrel politics refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. So is that relief money really pork, No. Is the social security funds in the farm bill pork, no.

But, by the definition I will take back my position that all pork is not bad, because by this it is. Now by reading the farm bill I can't find any pork.

And you would be incorrect once again - detail is required for many things when candidates are making specific campaign promises.

No - if I promise you that I will do something it does not mean I have to tell you how.

good for you - to bad you are acting like a pig.....

Oink, oink.

Several - review the thread....

Did, can't find any. You must be wrong.

[Kralizec]

How are farm subsidies not pork? The only reason for not discontinuing them is to avoid pissing off farmers and their sympathisers. I recall that there were some funds allocated for research in the US farm bill that may be useful, but farm subsidies in the strict sense don't serve any legitimate purpose.

[m52nickerson]

How are farm subsidies not pork? The only reason for not discontinuing them is to avoid pissing off farmers and their sympathisers. I recall that there were some funds allocated for research in the US farm bill that may be useful, but farm subsidies in the strict sense don't serve any legitimate purpose.

They are not because Pork is government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes, normally added by a single politician to a bill. Now whether subsidies serve a purpose is debatable.

I'm not arguing that farm subsidies are right, just that they are not by definition Pork.

[Kralizec]

It's still shameless clientalism - if I understand the term correctly, pork is the same thing but favouring only your own local constituents.

Now whether subsidies serve a purpose is debatable.

I'd like to see you try. I've never heard or read anyone put up a good argument in favour of them.

[m52nickerson]

It's still shameless clientalism - if I understand the term correctly, pork is the same thing but favouring only your own local constituents.

Correct, Red and myself are talking about pork, since this is what McCain is saying he is against.

I'd like to see you try. I've never heard or read anyone put up a good argument in favour of them.

I will not be trying to defend the subsidies as I really do not think we need then, at least not in their current from.

A quick search does turn up some site like this one in defense of farm subsidies.