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

[Lemur]

Speaking of archetypal political crap: try this on for size.

Nice to see some real conservatives waking up, too. Douthat:

There's no way to look at her performance as anything save supporting evidence for the non-hysterical critique of her candidacy - that it's just too much, too soon - and a splash of cold water for those of us with high hopes for her future on the national stage.

Dreher:

Just saw Palin talking about domestic issues on ABC World News Tonight. Depressing. Programmed, just like last night. Charlie Gibson asked her twice what she and McCain would do about the economy different from Bush. Answer: not much. [...] Your blog host is significantly more conflicted about his enthusiasm for Sarah Palin. I completely dig her, and wish she were my governor. But my vice president? Hmm.

[Tribesman]

Sounds like an archetypal political move to me. What a jerk.

So you have a new agreement that must be completely finalised by the end of this year . That is to be negotiated between a politician who has always been hostile to the US and is recently becoming far more vocal in his hostility and a politician who is leaving office at a time of crisis with a whole pile of crap to try and sort through in a couple of months .
Someone suggests that it would be wiser to just renew the existing agreement for another year and get a proper deal done during that time instead of doing a rush job on it ....and you think that is dumb

[Lemur]

The parasites and catamites who now surround McCain just keep getting classier. I guess this is the sort of result you get when you hire the guy who slimed you in 2000:

Key West resident Joelna Marcus received a phone call today. She was asked if she is Jewish, and she replied in the affirmative.

She was asked if she was religious.

She was then asked if her opinion of Barack Obama would change if she knew that Obama had given lots and lots of money to the PLO.

Update: Another FL voter (from Gainesville) has revealed he too received a similar push-poll call.

[Kralizec]

Get your Sarah Palin action figure now!

Don't worry, there are figures of McCain and a shirtless Obama too

[Crazed Rabbit]

The parasites and catamites who now surround McCain just keep getting classier. I guess this is the sort of result you get when you hire the guy who slimed you in 2000:

Key West resident Joelna Marcus received a phone call today. She was asked if she is Jewish, and she replied in the affirmative.

She was asked if she was religious.

She was then asked if her opinion of Barack Obama would change if she knew that Obama had given lots and lots of money to the PLO.

Update: Another FL voter (from Gainesville) has revealed he too received a similar push-poll call.

You post all sorts of stuff about Palin being just another politician (fair enough) as though the conservatives here are praising her to high heaven (which we are not).

You criticize us for hyperventilating attacks, sometimes rightly, and then you go on a huge attack against McCain's team because of one single blog post? Do you see the irony?

CR

[Xiahou]

(A quote from the guy whose book she tried to ban):

That alone casts a lot of doubt on his claims. There was no list of books to be banned, and Palin never went beyond the hypothetical in mentioning censorship. (see factcheck.org)

The rest of the claims and quotes in the article are unsubstantiated hearsay. I think one can safely dismiss them as well, since she never pushed creationism as governor either. It's funny to see people who bemoaned the more outlandish charges against Obama now helping push similarly nonsense charges against another without batting an eyelash. I guess it's ok when they're on the other side politically.

[seireikhaan]

The rest of the claims and quotes in the article are unsubstantiated hearsay. I think one can safely dismiss them as well, since she never pushed creationism as governor either. It's funny to see people who bemoaned the more outlandish charges against Obama now helping push similarly nonsense charges against another without batting an eyelash. I guess it's ok when they're on the other side politically.

Its equally funny when people make outlandish charges against a candidate, then decry others when they do the same to the side they prefer.

[Xiahou]

Its equally funny when people make outlandish charges against a candidate, then decry others when they do the same to the side they prefer.

Find ones I made.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No it isn't , its normal business , the judgement said nothing at all about the 9 years , the only fault is with the 13 month delay due to the implimentation of the new legislation .

I wasn't referring specifically to the judgement. I would aver that ANY regulatory process that takes 9 years for 1 party to face review by two others in order to start using a lease is excessive.

Unrestricted capitalism is prone to excesses, hence the need for regulation. Unrestricted regulation, however, stultifies efforts to use capital and can cause capital to dry up -- or get used in worse ways.

Moreover, here in the land of Uncle Sugar, numerous splinter groups (usually eco fringers or would-be anarchists) that oppose any and all development, cheerfully game the system to increase costs and slow down or halt any oil or energy projects that aren't solar power. Add in the NIMBYs and their efforts to monkey wrench things, and you often end up with a regulatory system that does not function as a watch-dog and fraud preventer, but as a preventer OF business and development.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

responding to 'khan's jibe
Find ones I made.

All-in-all, I believe we can declare this election cycle a success.


Standard for evaluation:
"Under democracy one party always devotes it's chief energies to prove the other party is unfit to rule - and both succeed." H.L. Mencken

[Tribesman]

I wasn't referring specifically to the judgement. I would aver that ANY regulatory process that takes 9 years for 1 party to face review by two others in order to start using a lease is excessive.

Not really , its the same with any big development project , when you add in that it involves the oil industry (which hasn't got a good record on compliance) and coastal development which is always delicate , 9 years is actually a short time .
Though whats funny is that we have someone complaining about government "interference" in business with regulations who is supporting a politician who made a name as somebody that stood up to the oil industry when they tried to get round government regulations .
Priceless isn't it

[seireikhaan]

Find ones I made.

Where did I say you made any?

[Xiahou]

Where did I say you made any?

Good point. I thought, after the fact, that you probably weren't directly referring to me in your post.

Standard for evaluation:
"Under democracy one party always devotes it's chief energies to prove the other party is unfit to rule - and both succeed." H.L. Mencken

It seems our election campaigns focus mainly on 2 things. One is energizing the base, and the other is convincing their opponents supporters/leaners to stay home. Makes for a nice clean fight.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What we already knew: McCain is more bipartisan than Obama.

Not really , its the same with any big development project , when you add in that it involves the oil industry (which hasn't got a good record on compliance) and coastal development which is always delicate , 9 years is actually a short time .

Ha! That doesn't disprove Seamus' point in any way. So what if its standard for the industry? That doesn't mean it's not excessive. It's fun watching you squirm when you launch silly attacks. You're a walking encyclopedia of logical fallacies.

CR

[Lemur]

What we already knew: [URL="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/?page=2"]McCain is more bipartisan than Obama.[/URL

That was Senator McCain, a completely separate entity from candidate McCain. I'm having a hard time figuring out what President McCain would look like at this point. Hopefully more like his old Senatorial persona ...

You post all sorts of stuff about Palin being just another politician

Oh, I think she's rather worse than that. She reminds me a whole hell of a lot of the Governor of Texas in 2000: the same lack of intellectual curiosity, the same disdain for dissent, the same absolute certainty whether warranted or no, the same secrecy, the same governing philosophy of "loyalty is the new competence." And she's got the same aw-shucks persona that makes authoritarians blush and heave a sigh of pure love.

I never bought the argument that McCain would be Bush II (or III, depending on how you count). But Palin really is another George W. Bush, and you guys are having the exact same love affair with her that you did with President 43. And if she comes in to the Oval Office, you're going to have a strikingly similar set of regrets.

She also commits frequent, checkable and unnecessary lies. Which is just strange. And not a good sign.

-edit-

Although in fairness to Palin, the dishonesty thing seems to be a deliberate tactic from the McCain camp right now. I don't pretend to understand it. Here's an article about it from that hotbed of Hippie Socialism, Reason Magazine:

Take Palin's claim to have opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Long after it was exposed as false, she kept making it. The assumption behind the McCain strategy is that truth is irrelevant. [...]

Why does McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign? There is plenty an honest conservative might say in opposition to Obama: He's wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal judges. He would impede school reform.

But McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe.

[Strike For The South]

I just think its funny

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, I think she's rather worse than that. She reminds me a whole hell of a lot of the Governor of Texas in 2000: the same lack of intellectual curiosity, the same disdain for dissent, the same absolute certainty whether warranted or no, the same secrecy, the same governing philosophy of "loyalty is the new competence." And she's got the same aw-shucks persona that makes authoritarians blush and heave a sigh of pure love.

I never bought the argument that McCain would be Bush II (or III, depending on how you count). But Palin really is another George W. Bush, and you guys are having the exact same love affair with her that you did with President 43. And if she comes in to the Oval Office, you're going to have a strikingly similar set of regrets.

She also commits frequent, checkable and unnecessary lies. Which is just strange. And not a good sign.

-edit-

Although in fairness to Palin, the dishonesty thing seems to be a deliberate tactic from the McCain camp right now. I don't pretend to understand it. Here's an article about it from that hotbed of Hippie Socialism, Reason Magazine:

Take Palin's claim to have opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Long after it was exposed as false, she kept making it. The assumption behind the McCain strategy is that truth is irrelevant. [...]

Why does McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign? There is plenty an honest conservative might say in opposition to Obama: He's wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal judges. He would impede school reform.

But McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe.

You guys really think you can run a campaign against Palin, Huh? That went well for you with H.W. and Quale... By the time you figure out that Obama isn't running against Palin for VP (which would be a more realistic fight), Obama will have to fight McCain all over again. Don't you see that since you've started the "all-guns-blazing" approach McCain has shot up in the polls?

I urge you to keep it up.

[CountArach]

I just think its funny

She's such a feminist.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Check this out, Ladies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkaK...eature=related

[CountArach]

Gingrich is fast on his feet, I'll give him that.

EDIT: I really didn't expect I would be typing anything like that when I woke up this morning...

[Big_John]

Check this out, Ladies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkaKwJ9eOUU&feature=related

looks like he got the memo.

[Tribesman]

Ha! That doesn't disprove Seamus' point in any way. So what if its standard for the industry? So what if its standard for the industry? That doesn't mean it's not excessive.

If its standard for the industry its standard for the industry , if it is normal it is not excessive . And as for your claim of it being onerous if it was onerous they wouldn't bother , yet as its standard and they do bother it shows that your whole rant was bollox .

It's fun watching you squirm when you launch silly attacks.

Is that a new definition of squirm you are using ? a new definition of silly attacks too ?
You posted a rant with absolutely no thought that doesn't even stand up to the briefest scrutiny .
Now I know you often express the view that any regulation whatsoever imposed by any government on any business is a complete travesty of freedom , justice and the fictional free market utopia you desire , but that is just because you live in an imaginary bubble which is completely detatched from reality .

[Crazed Rabbit]

If its standard for the industry its standard for the industry , if it is normal it is not excessive .

excessive

Main Entry:
ex·ces·sive
Pronunciation:
\ik-ˈse-siv\
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century

: exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal

Dum de dum. Or are you going to go on about how only the part of the definition you agree with is valid? That excessive can only mean one thing, nevermind the dictionary.

You posted a rant with absolutely no thought that doesn't even stand up to the briefest scrutiny .
Now I know you often express the view that any regulation whatsoever imposed by any government on any business is a complete travesty of freedom , justice and the fictional free market utopia you desire , but that is just because you live in an imaginary bubble which is completely detatched from reality .

The only one who's dared refute it is you with your legion of strawmen. You're defeated on one point and hop to another shaky point. You only quote the bits that don't grind your position into dust. You think no one notices? You think your posts are really that clever? Who even cares? You think I read your posts and go "oh drat, I never thought of it that way?" Ha!

Even that last sentence is another strawman.

CR

[Tribesman]

Dum de dum. Or are you going to go on about how only the part of the definition you agree with is valid? That excessive can only mean one thing, nevermind the dictionary.

Its Fraggle rock

Is it usual ? yes
Is it proper ? yes
Is it neccesary ? yes
Is it normal ? yes

Well done rabbit you manged to strike yourself out 4 times
Would you like to try a bigger dictionary to see if you can find a definition that doesn't fit

The only one who's dared refute it is you with your legion of strawmen. You're defeated on one point and hop to another shaky point. You only quote the bits that don't grind your position into dust. You think no one notices?

You havn't defeated a single point , bloody hell Rabbit you havn't even attempted to make a single point that supports your nonsense .
And then you top it all off with a dictionary reference that completely shows that you are unable to understand either the English language or the regulations in question .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is it proper ? yes
Is it neccesary ? yes

Um, says you. Most, I think, would disagree. I've seen and read firsthand the regulations the oil companies have to deal with on a day to day basis. Have you? And that's nothing compared to what I posted.

You havn't defeated a single point

No, you seem to develop highly specific blindness whenever I point out you've used another strawman.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Please cease and desist with the latest instalment of the Rabbit and Tribesy Show.

Your points have been made sufficiently. I think you'd be hard pressed to find another member who finds the endless continuation as amusing as you two evidently do.

Thank you kindly.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Returning to the discussion, and taking into account that most of our Republican leaning friends couldn't care less about the opinions of the rest of the world, this piece in Haaretz explains my fears about Governor Palin very well.

It's not the inexperience - I've addressed that before - but the certainty.

George Bush, who spoke incessantly about leadership before his election, has had more than seven years to prove himself a leader, and managed to prove conclusively only that he was not.

This is what is truly frightening about Sarah Palin. There is something in the smugness, the faith-based rigidity, the dismissiveness, that suggests that once again, we may have a national leader who knows better how to divide than to rule.

[KukriKhan]

So, the trouble with Palin is: she's not humble enough, or self-aware enough?

And the trouble with american politics is: we see it as a sports/entertainment event, instead of what it is: a matter of life and death?

The answer is in the beginning of the article. He heard a snippet of an interview on a taxi radio. What I'm saying is: he's buying the image - packaged and presented by media - not anything relating to substance.

I'm beginning to understand the observation of some: that the media are pissed off that they weren't invited to the deliberations on VP picks. On the Dem side, the only pressing question was: "Will it be Hillary or some other guy?" Well, it was some other guy. But speculation for weeks had the former Repub candidates jockeying for VP. Then Mac picks a 'dark horse', and scoops the scoopers. And, in a world where scoops can make or break a media career, that's not 'media-friendly'.

I can only speak for myself and the maybe 300 people I know; the coverage is certainly a sports/entertainment event (of long running) - the election is about life-and-death. And we know both those things.

[Tribesman]

Gentlemen,

Please cease and desist with the latest instalment of the Rabbit and Tribesy Show.

Hold on there Banquo , Rabbit has yet to give a single reason as to why this set of regulations is onerous , improper , unusual , abnormal or unneccesary . Since he raised it as a relevant topic in the election I am curious as to why he is unable to show a decent case and why he is supporting a candidate who made a name as someone that confronts industries that try to circumvent such legislation .

BTW Nice piece there , even if it is from the super wussy liberal self hating jews who are bent on destroying the pure zionist dream .....

Here is the answer that is truly frightening. It lets us know that the nation may be in danger of electing another leader bearing the most profound of George Bush's shortcomings: blindness to one's own shortcomings.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, the trouble with Palin is: she's not humble enough, or self-aware enough?

And the trouble with american politics is: we see it as a sports/entertainment event, instead of what it is: a matter of life and death?

The answer is in the beginning of the article. He heard a snippet of an interview on a taxi radio. What I'm saying is: he's buying the image - packaged and presented by media - not anything relating to substance.

The problem with Palin is that she's ignorant and has a low regard for ethics.

The problem with american politics is that the people have been bludgeoned by incessant attack ads into an apathetic "politicians are all crooks" stance where they either don't vote or vote off some arbitrary issue or personality trait. The psychological investment required to pay close attention to politics is too high.

I'm beginning to understand the observation of some: that the media are pissed off that they weren't invited to the deliberations on VP picks. On the Dem side, the only pressing question was: "Will it be Hillary or some other guy?" Well, it was some other guy. But speculation for weeks had the former Repub candidates jockeying for VP. Then Mac picks a 'dark horse', and scoops the scoopers. And, in a world where scoops can make or break a media career, that's not 'media-friendly'.

Palin has been a ratings success for the media. They don't have a problem with her on that front. However, she refuses to give interviews because they show how incompetent she is and they call her out on it because they want interviews.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us...agewanted=1&em

But careers were turned upside down. The mayor quickly fired the town’s museum director, John Cooper. Later, she sent an aide to the museum to talk to the three remaining employees. “He told us they only wanted two,” recalled Esther West, one of the three, “and we had to pick who was going to be laid off.” The three quit as one.

Ms. Palin cited budget difficulties for the museum cuts. Mr. Cooper thought differently, saying the museum had become a microcosm of class and cultural conflicts in town. “It represented that the town was becoming more progressive, and they didn’t want that,” he said.

I didn't read this article and worry about her not being humble