Possible Presidential Pairings?

Mar 11, 2008 11:19 pm

Politics aside, this would make for an interesting pairing:

  Pres - White Man     (McCain)   vs    Black Man         (Obama) VP    - Black Woman (Rice)              White Woman  (Clinton)     Apparently, the rumors about Condi Rice as a VP-candidate is getting some traction.    
Mar 12, 2008 1:01 am

The Obama/Clinton ticket would win easily.

I think that the only way that McCain can win this thing is if Rice is his VP and Clinton is at the top of the Dem ticket with someone other than Obama.  It would be close, but McCain would have a chance to win.   McCain reminds me of John Kerry.  I'm not talking about political ideals.  Rather, when Kerry lost against Bush, the dems weren't excited about their candidate.  They were voting against Bush.  The Republicans have that problem this time.  They don't like their candidate.  They will be voting against the other guy.  It's tough to win an election voting against someone instead of for someone.
Mar 12, 2008 1:14 am

[quote=anonymous]

The Obama/Clinton ticket would win easily.

[/quote]

The problem is Obama seems hell-bent on Billary NOT being his number two.

I’m not crazy about Condie as a VP either, my choice would be Huckabee to balance out the ticket, hell I’d like to see Colin Powell but he’d never take it which is why I think he’d be an excellent Veep.
Mar 12, 2008 11:42 am

Big difference between Huckabee & Colin Powell.

Mar 12, 2008 12:24 pm

The problem is Obama seems hell-bent on Billary NOT being his number two.

  I think that you are correct.  I was commenting on the original post.  I think that regardless of who the #2 person will be, Obama will win fairly easily.   The point that I'm really trying to make is that the republicans only have one chance outside of a scandal and/or catastropic event between now and the election.  This "one chance" involves 3 things happening:   1) Hillary must be the Democratic nominee 2) Obama can't be her running mate 3) McCain needs a strong female running mate, preferably an African American.  Maybe this is a sad commentary on my part, or our country's part, but I can't think of a strong female African American Republican with name recognition other than Rice.
Mar 12, 2008 1:27 pm

How about this combo:

  John McCain w/ Michael Moore for his VP Barrack Obama w/Rush Limbaugh as his VP
Mar 12, 2008 1:52 pm

How about Ferris Bueller for President & Bobby Hull as his Veep? Think of all the hunting ‘accidents’ that would occur… Bobby might even be able to convince his little muffin to start another war. Iran needs to be put in it’s place, and we messed up the invasion of Cuba the first time - gotta get that one right. And each and every person in Saudi royal family would own a variable annuity - for tax deferral of course(bring back some of that oil revenue. Who needs better fuel standards?). What a platform they’d have!

Mar 12, 2008 2:23 pm

If there was a muslim running I’d give him or her a good look - doubt they’d get my vote because the country’s just not ready yet & I’d like my candidate to win. You wouldn’t get my vote, either, sorry. I’d like to vote for McCain, but he’s just a tad too hawkish for me. Don’t really like any of the alternatives. What experience does Hillary really have? She was in the other wing of the house when the decisions were made? Obama’s platform is the plain vanilla democratic platform that’s been run & lost with 100 times. He’s far better at communicating it’s virtues than those that have come before him, but is it really a change? No… not really. Barack as a leader presents a significant change, and so does McCain.

Mar 12, 2008 6:01 pm

Rice? Huckabee?

Are you guys still on your client 9 goes down high? (no pun intended)

For a candidate to get my vote the have to believe that the doctrine of pre-emptive war is flawed. More over they would have to be far removed from such a flawed policy, and definately not the primary drafter of such a disgraceful National Security Strategy. Guess that eliminates Rice.   More so, for a candidate to get my vote they have to acknowledge that the earth is not flat, dinosaurs lived long before man came along. They would  have to believe that there was an ice age, and that the tiny specks of light we see in the night sky come from far far away. Much further away than the roughly 5000 year time line covered in the Bible. Additionally they have to leave the Constitution alone. We don't need any more amendments. This eliminates Huckabee.   Any candidate who gets rid of Real ID has my vote
Mar 12, 2008 7:21 pm

Mar 14, 2008 6:41 pm

Huckabee and Rice are off of the table anyway. 

  Rice is a continuation of the Bush legacy on foreign policy - now there's a popular horse you want to hitch your wagon to in November.   You may not like bond guy's politics (or religion, see hijacked Spitzer thread), but he is spot on with Huckabee.  I'm Christian, but that guy is wacko.  Plus he has some tapes of old sermons floating out there somewhere, which have remained hidden but wouldn't stay under wraps in a general election.  By the way, those tapes were made when the big issues the Southern Baptists were rallying against weren't abortion and gays, but about women who didn't sumbit 100% to their husbands.  I bet that will play well when one of those sermons gets sent to CNN at the end of October.
Mar 27, 2008 8:28 pm

While I might disagree with Bondguy on his religious views. I would assume that we could agree that we both disagree with Obama’s religious views displayed very “colorfully” by the Rev Wright.

Mar 27, 2008 11:33 pm

It really disappoints me that Obama hasn’t taken a bigger hit to his popularity. It doesn’t bode well for America to be populated by so many D.A.'s (not District Attorneys). Face it, Obama is a racist. He hangs around with racists, his religious beliefs are racist, he is a racist.

  Just as the press called Reagan the "Teflon President", Obama is the "Teflon Democrat" and sh*t doesn't stick to teflon.            
Mar 28, 2008 12:03 am

[quote=henryhill]How about this combo:

  John McCain w/ Michael Moore for his VP Barrack Obama w/Rush Limbaugh as his VP[/quote]   McCain might talk his bud Joe Liberman into being his running mate... since he's weak on economics, maybe Romney (although people didn't want a Mormon in office) then there's Huckabee who wouldn't be bad either.
Apr 8, 2008 12:21 am

Uh-Oh, more rumors circulating the networks about a “McCain - Rice” ticket.

Apr 9, 2008 4:40 pm

“Starting in the 70s and to this day politicians have been promising to reform the oil industry. The only thing that has changed is that today Exxon is making 40 billion dollars a year in profits and gas is $3.50 a gallon at the pump. My name is Barack Obama and I approve this message because it’s time for change. I’ve never taken money from oil companies or their lobbyist and they won’t run my White House. It’s time for change…”

  Let's look past the fact that politicians aren't allowed to take money from any corporations, this is the message that Obama is flooding the airwaves with in PA. Now, I've paraphrased it from memory so I don't have it exactly right, but read it. It's message is spot on.   McCain represents staus quo. If he wants to have a chance he needs to understand what is motivating people, and it's not about who he picks for VP. I'll leave it to someone else to utter the famous line from the 92 election that sums up what's on people's mind these days. That barack has closed the gap in PA to under ten points shows that his message is hitting a nerve. McCain should be very worried. An he needs to get on message.
Apr 10, 2008 5:19 am

Is there any chance of Bloomberg jumping in?

Apr 10, 2008 9:33 pm

Bloomberg said "no, but…"



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bloomberg+presidential+race&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Apr 10, 2008 9:35 pm

Apparently I don’t know how this fandangled computer works, so cut and paste the article above if interested.

Apr 20, 2008 4:15 am

I’d like to see McCain/Huckabee.  Really the reason I like Huck is because of the Fair Tax.  I know that’s a whole new debate in and of itself, but it would be nice to not have to worry about tax season ever again.

May 26, 2008 12:36 pm

[quote=doberman]Politics aside, this would make for an interesting pairing:

  Pres - White Man     (McCain)   vs    Black Man         (Obama) VP    - Black Woman (Rice)              White Woman  (Clinton)     Apparently, the rumors about Condi Rice as a VP-candidate is getting some traction.    [/quote]   Actually, if you want to get technical about it, Obama is half-white, too.  But due to the darker, more dominate genes/traits, he looks, talks and acts 100% black.  Halle Berry is half black, too but calls herself black.  Wouldn't it be more honest to just have a race called Half  Vanilla/Half Chocolate (half n half).   More political commentary:  What's the big deal of Hillary's comments.  Maybe she meant, "relax folks, if I get assasinated then I'm out of the picture so let me hang around till the end of this, will ya?".   I'd like to see Joe Lieberman as McCain's VP.   But, can any new president do anything about these out-of-control gas prices? 
May 26, 2008 11:28 pm

[quote=megamonet

  But, can any new president do anything about these out-of-control gas prices?  [/quote]   Yes and that's what scares me. Given the current and "anticipated" crop of politicians, they would only screw it up, further.   Two things are preventing a reduction in oil prices: our unwillingness to drill for more oil and a weak dollar. Doing what it takes, to correct both problems, would be politically unpopular. So, gas prices will continue to go up, the dollar will continue to go down, and the oil companies will face the prospect of becoming nationalized.    
Aug 29, 2008 4:58 pm

Crazy that McCain picked a women and Obama picked an old dude… Personally, I see McCain in the white house!



Miss J

Aug 29, 2008 5:02 pm
MISS JONES:

Crazy that McCain picked a women and Obama picked an old dude… Personally, I see McCain in the white house!

Miss J

  What besides ANWAR drilling will Palin exactly do?   Not saying I know much about it, but couldn't McCain have picked someone with better economic policies?  I realize he's trying to win the women's vote, but...
Aug 29, 2008 5:18 pm

He's holding on to that race card like it's Uno or something, I'm sure he'll keep throwing that out there when he gets the chance. 

Aug 29, 2008 5:29 pm
IsOldSpiceRightForMe:

He’s holding on to that race card like it’s Uno or something, I’m sure he’ll keep throwing that out there when he gets the chance.



HA HA HA.. My assistant and I are cracking up at that UNO comment!!!
Aug 29, 2008 5:34 pm

[quote=iceco1d]Just for OldSpice & Norway…to McCain I ask the same question of Hanley…

  "Hey John, you hittin' that?"  [/quote]   With HIS wife?!!!  Better up the Viagra scrip.   Ditto on the UNO card...that was funny, Old Spice.
Aug 29, 2008 5:40 pm

I know…I just don’t think he can handle both w/o the little blue pill!

Aug 29, 2008 5:46 pm
iceco1d:

No, no, no.  Not his wife, our next Veep!

  Imagine this.  McCain has an affair with Palin.  Both get impeached so the Speaker of the House is the next president:   Nancy Pelosi.  Uh-oh.
Aug 29, 2008 5:53 pm
iceco1d:

He won’t get impeached if he doesn’t lie about nailing Palin…Clinton got impeached for perjury, not getting head.



Ice- I think you need to get some.. Your mind has been in the gutter recently. That always happens to me when I am in need. So go take care of business and get back with us. (not with the details obviously)

Miss J
Aug 29, 2008 5:54 pm
MISS JONES:

[quote=iceco1d] He won’t get impeached if he doesn’t lie about nailing Palin…Clinton got impeached for perjury, not getting head.[/quote]

Ice- I think you need to get some… Your mind has been in the gutter recently. That always happens to me when I am in need. So go take care of business and get back with us. (not with the details obviously)

Miss J

  He just got married.  That explains it.
Aug 30, 2008 4:42 am
snaggletooth:

[quote=MISS JONES]Crazy that McCain picked a women and Obama picked an old dude… Personally, I see McCain in the white house!

Miss J

  What besides ANWAR drilling will Palin exactly do?   Not saying I know much about it, but couldn't McCain have picked someone with better economic policies?  I realize he's trying to win the women's vote, but...[/quote]

Palin has been my preference for a long time now and McCain's pick is incredibly smart.

Who does she appeal to besides women, who ...ahem.... are more than 50% of the population?  What other voters is he going to pull into the fold.by choosing her?

NRA... lifetime member  Gun people

Union... her husband is a Steelworker's Union member. She is a former union member (don't know which one)... Gonna love her and him in the blue collar states.

Sportsmen and women. .. She is a former point guard in high school winning team. current hockey player.  Her hunky husband is a  3x champion snow mobile winner.  She currently plays hockey herself.    Brings in the NASCAR type voters.

Son in the military.  Need I say more?

Hubby has a commercial fishing business that she participates in and he is a blue collar oil man...not an executive ....in the off season

Hubby is a hawt hunk to boot!!.  Pulls in the gay vote  and women who would just like to have some eye candy.

Right to life...talking the talk and walking the walk.  Has a son with Down's Syndrome.  Could have had an abortion but chose not to.  Gets the Catholic and evangelical vote

She is against government spending and waste.  Canceled her own expensive security guards that were provided by the state and the expensive plane provided to previous governors.  Now you are talking small government conservatives

Outed a bunch of corrupt Republican politicians in Alaska who are now facing some severe penalties and prosecution.  Reform and rule of law

Has negotiated with Canada regarding the natural gas pipeline... Foreign policy experience..FTW

Not to mention all the really pissed off Hillary voters

It was a brilliant pick.  I'm surprised that McCain actually did it considering that he is such a boob.

I wasn't going to vote this year because I really don't like McCain and his liberal policies and cannot stand Obama.   First time in a very long time that I wouldn't have voted for President.  I am now going to vote and feel very very positive about having Palin on the ticket because she is a true conservative.







Aug 30, 2008 12:31 pm

The only negative I keep hearing is her thin resume when it comes to chief executive experience and she still has more than Obama in my opinion. I’ll admit to being shocked by the selection, but thus far, it’s looking like a very bold and very smart pick. It only remains to be seen how she handles the intense media scrutiny ,her debate with Biden, and this ‘‘Wootengate’’ thing that’s getting some attention. Apparently McCain’s people decided she’d do fine on all counts. I’m impressed by what I see so far…she appears to handle herself well and is easy on the eyes (sorry…man thing).

Aug 30, 2008 3:08 pm

I agree it has every appearance of brilliant pick for all the reasons listed by Babs.

I saw a clip late last night and can’t find it, showing Obama asked about Palin and he was fumbling around and had the look of a deer (moose) in the headlights.  He certainly did not get the “second coming of Christ” bounce off that production / speech Thursday night.

Dems calling this Quayle / Ferarro like.  Dems dead wrong on this one.  If we could let Joe Biden (career do nothing Senator) or the “O” (no record of accomplishment beyond beating Hillary and rising up from rough and tumble politics in Chiicago) be president…why not a hockey mom?  My wife is a hockey Mom and I’d go with Palin over all 3…

I’d love to be in the Friday strategy meeting with Obama / Biden…and by the way she has more experience and much more compelling life story than Obama.  We don’t need another do nothing Harvard grad in the WH.

Aug 31, 2008 1:15 am

Yeah, she’s got all the right stuff! To be mayor of Moosejaw or whatever back water town from which she rose up.  Past that, she’s not qualified. Folks, look at the mayor of your town. Would you want this person to be president? And even if you do, would they be qualified? It doesn’t matter that they are good people, good looking and down to earth. What matters is, can they do the job?

  I agree the down to earth hockey mom/blue collar every woman thing is very attractive. But think a moment about wedge issues. Wedge issues are distractions designed to get voters to vote against their best interests. You know, like a president who will ship all a state's jobs overseas, but still gets that state's voters to vote for him using something like gay marriage,  flag burning, or another issue. People vote for him and lose their jobs as a result. It's slight of hand politics. Very smart, but deceptive. It's as if McCain's veep pick is a wedge issue unto herself. People are focused on everything she is, Hockey mom MILF, frontier woman, and not on the most important issue, which is, what she is not-which is she's qualified to run this country. Voting for her would be a vote against our best interests in that she could assend to the presidency a week after McCain takes office. We would then have a hockey mom whose resume includes running a state less complex than most counties in NJ, NY, IL,CA, MI, PA, MD,MA, and FL. To me that's putting our lives at stake. or at the very least, the future of this country.   We can't afford another mistake at the top.       Just because she shops at Wal-mart isn't a reason to put our lives in her hands.    
Aug 31, 2008 1:29 am

[quote=BondGuy]Yeah, she’s got all the right stuff! To be mayor of Moosejaw or whatever back water town from which she rose up.  Past that, she’s not qualified. Folks, look at the mayor of your town. Would you want this person to be president? And even if you do, would they be qualified? It doesn’t matter that they are good people, good looking and down to earth. What matters is, can they do the job?

  I agree the down to earth hockey mom/blue collar every woman thing is very attractive. But think a moment about wedge issues. Wedge issues are distractions designed to get voters to vote against their best interests. You know, like a president who will ship all a state's jobs overseas, but still gets that state's voters to vote for him using something like gay marriage,  flag burning, or another issue. People vote for him and lose their jobs as a result. It's slight of hand politics. Very smart, but deceptive. It's as if McCain's veep pick is a wedge issue unto herself. People are focused on everything she is, Hockey mom MILF, frontier woman, and not on the most important issue, which is, what she is not-which is she's qualified to run this country. Voting for her would be a vote against our best interests in that she could assend to the presidency a week after McCain takes office. We would then have a hockey mom whose resume includes running a state less complex than most counties in NJ, NY, IL,CA, MI, PA, MD,MA, and FL. To me that's putting our lives at stake. or at the very least, the future of this country.   We can't afford another mistake at the top.       Just because she shops at Wal-mart isn't a reason to put our lives in her hands.    [/quote]   I agree BG.  A lot of people are happy with her as VP.  I don't get it.  Your slight of hand comment makes sense to me.   One of the Republicans and McCain's biggest selling points against Obama/Biden was Obama's inexperience.  I think Palin as VP is more inexperienced than Obama as President.   Below are the talking points I received from a client of mine "in the know" in the Senate.  One would think the talking points for possible VP would be a little more comprehensive and might include some decent international policy success:  

TALKING POINTS: GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN <?: PREFIX = O />

  Governor Sarah Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president.  She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has seen approval ratings of over 80 percent.

  ·          She has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources.

  ·          She leads a state that matters to every one of us -- Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent.

  ·          She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending.  And she put a stop to the bridge to nowhere that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

  ·         In Alaska, she challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill.

  ·          As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington.

In choosing Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain put Washington on notice that he is serious about shaking up the status quo.

What we're seeing is a maverick who has shaken up Washington picking as his teammate a maverick governor who has shaken up her own state.

What it's going to take to change Washington is a team of Mavericks who have a record of accomplishment in shaking up the status quo.

Aug 31, 2008 2:22 am

My question is, if Sarah Palin is not qualified, how is Barak Obama qualified?  You can say that Obama has an experienced mentor, but at this point, so does Palin and she’s not in the #1 position.  I’m all for a spirited debate, and I expect one, but I’m most concerned about the decided lack of executive experience in one of our presidential candidates.

Aug 31, 2008 2:42 am

BG-

What makes you so comfortable about Obama experience versus Palin?  Please be specific. 

Rugby

Aug 31, 2008 1:27 pm

I can agree with Indy. Palin doesn't have the experience. However; it is the VP spot and not the President.

I felt exactally like Babs; this election wasn't exciting me until this announcement. I JUST LIKE Palin. And her likability jumps off the screen when you hear her speak, unlike H. Clinton, who was completely qualified.

The Republicans just nailed it (and I didn't vote for Bush).  
Aug 31, 2008 1:36 pm
    We can start with something that is often mentioned as so important on this site; education. Obama graduated from Columbia with a degree in political science and earned a law degree from harvard where he graduated magna cum laude.   Palin earned a degree in jounalism from University of Idaho.   However, using George Bush's C minus college record as a guide, Palin's lightweight education credentials will probably work in her favor.   While Obama was busy leading a community service organzation, serving as a law profeesor, and then as a Illinios State Senator, Palin was busy running a snowmobile business with her husband and being a part time fisherman. The more I write about her, the more impressed i become!   Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996. By the way, Illinois has a population of almost 13,000,000 people. Obama was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Obama serves on the Foreign relations committee. He also serves on the committees for health , education,labor, and pensions as well as the committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the committee for Veterans' Affairs. You might note that on his recent overseas trip he received a Presidential welcome where ever he went. There is no question he has the right stuff to repair our damaged foreign policys and restore our more severely damaged image. At this point in his presidential campaign, when compared to either George Bush or Bill Clinton on the eve of their first push for president, he has more foreign policy/foreign relations experience than both of them put together.   Palin was elected mayor of a small town of 5 to 8,000 people depending on sources, and then found her way to the Governor's office where she presides over a state with a population of 600,000. She has used the "But she's hot" view of her to cover for her lack of cred for most of her life including her ride to the governors office.   The truth is we don't know enough about her yet. We only know what the repub spin machine is putting out.   Still, there is enough to draw some conclusions. Chief among what is known is this: The repub right is big on hearth and family. The family values conservative right woman are supposed to put nurture above ambition. Woman,  are supposed to put family above all else. Here we have a woman who is being nominated for sainthood by the anti abortion right  for her decision to have a downs syndrome child. Something, I agree was a brave decision. Yet, now she going to leave that child for large swaths of time to run for the second highest office in the country. Clearly she is putting that child second to her own ambition. If elected, the requirements of the office will put that child as well as her entire family second. She is saying one thing and doing another. The hypocracy is glaring.   Then there is this about McCain: he has spent the last 2 months harping that Obama is ill equipped to face the challenges that face America today. Then what does he do? He picks a running mate that is obviously ill equipped to run the country.   Obama's experience can be debated. As mentioned, today he carries more foreign policy experience than either did Clinton or Bush prior to their first terms. And, he made a wise choice of running mate. Someone who helps him greatly on foriegn policy. That choice was presidential.  Or at least showed great leadership. By the way, I'm not  Biden fan. I think he's a JO. Back on McCain, considering his words downing Obama's lack of cred, his choice makes no sense. Not a presidential choice. In fact a dangerous choice that shows lack of judgement.   So with the republicans we have A woman telling us she puts her family first while clearly putting them second and a man who tell us we need experienced leaders while picking an inexpereinced person for a top leadership position. Since i don't own "Republican For Dummys," as the convention gets started this week, should I listen to what they say or watch what they do? Clearly, there is a vast expanse between the two.   Palin has no business being on the ticket, but she's hot!           This is not a debate between who is more qualified, Palin or Obama. Obama won't even mention Palin's name.
Aug 31, 2008 3:43 pm

This pick will certainly not sway entrenched Obama supporters like you…undecided and independents is what the election is about  gong forward.

This will be a great argument in the next few months leading up to the election and it will be fun to debate.  Obama on his way to make history just got a real curveball in obtaining women and blue collar voters that are scratching their heads about his experience, background, heritage, preacher, associations…
In hindsight he should have picked a women (HRC or perhaps a woman Gov. with executive experience of a state with an acceptable population level).  To say that by picking Biden was a good call it and it was presidential etc…etc…is tough to buy.  It was a political pick, just as McCain picking Palin…Biden is a crackpot who has been on the wrong sides of every vote for his too long tenure in Washington.  He is however, older, white, and has foreign policy experience.
Does the country need the status quo?  (2) senators, Biden - Obama is looking a little like same old, same old…luckily for the Dem. ticket, Obama has only been there for a short while and has spent most of his time campaigning for the POTUS.  

An interesting dynamic is developing and the “Change” Obama supporters want the change, but want it with all the trappings of the status quo:   Harvard educations, career politicians, political hierarchies, political machines and the candidates that they produce. 

Ask any blue collar worker in OH, PA, LA who they identify with…Sarah Palin and her husband/family or Barack and Michelle Obama?   The Obama’s with their Princeton, Columbia, Harvard degrees…and jobs obtained in non-profit sector,  community organizing, state senator…Michelle’s 300k yr. job as a non-profit hospital admin???  I’m surprised BG, having run your own business yourself and as a lover of motorized toys I thought you would be more impressed with the Palins.

This will be a fascinating election.  Status quo, who is really for change, race, gender etc…Tim Russert must be smiling in heaven.

Sep 1, 2008 2:43 pm
  Ice,you're not coming off very moderator like in this post. Did I hit a nerve?     [quote=iceco1d][quote=BondGuy]     We can start with something that is often mentioned as so important on this site; education. Obama graduated from Columbia with a degree in political science and earned a law degree from harvard where he graduated magna cum laude.   Great.  If that doesn't scream "typical politician" then I don't know what else does.  Poli Sci major w/ a law degree?  Come on!  Talk about "same old, same old!" Point missed! His degrees show a level of accomplishment. That they are tough degrees to earn and he earned at least one with distinction tells us he is a doer who can acheive goals at a high level. Remember, he is interviewing for a job, we have on make judgements on the exibits we can see. No different than if he we were interviewing him for a job in our practice. What does his education tell us about the man?   His degrees will help him greatly in DC, where, by knowing how the system works(he has a degree in that) will better enable him to accomplish his goals.   Speaking of education and "magna cum laude."  Everytime someone comes on this site talking about their GPA and their education..well, I don't need to tell you how they are greeted.  Why is it that all of a sudden, GPA and an Ivy League degree make you qualified to be President?   It doesn't. However, if before you stood two candidates for a position in your practice, both otherwise equalty qualified would gpa or school choice enter into your hiring decision? Again, this shows a level of accomplishment.   Palin earned a degree in jounalism from University of Idaho.   Is there a problem with the field of Journalism?  Or is the University of Idaho NOT a competent school?    I'm sure UoI is a fine school. Does it matter?  Unless Palin writes her own speeches her degree is useless in DC. Her degree is useless practically everywhere. She found that out, used it and her good looks for a short time, and then moved on.   I went to a state school for my bachelor's and master's degrees.  I have plenty of friends that went to private schools.  I have some friends that even went to Ivy league schools.  I feel "outclassed" by exactly ZERO of them.    Yet to an interviewer you'd be out classed by everyone of them.   Once again, why, all of a sudden, does a diploma from an "elite" school, or a high GPA, make you qualified for the position of "Commander in Chief?"   However, using George Bush's C minus college record as a guide, Palin's lightweight education credentials will probably work in her favor.   George Bush has an MBA from Harvard...once again, why does the school matter?  In fact, at state schools, if you fail, you fail.  There is no ass kissing.  You either do the work, or you fail out.  More retards "slip through the cracks" at private schools than anywhere else in life, simply because their daddy may have built the new wing on the library, or paid for the renovation of the auditorium.    Ice, one look at this country and you see what happens when we have a life long underacheiver as Prez. Obama wasn't a laggart who was kept in school by a rich daddy. Implying he was makes you come off uninformed.   While Obama was busy leading a community service organzation, serving as a law profeesor, and then as a Illinios State Senator, Palin was busy running a snowmobile business with her husband and being a part time fisherman. The more I write about her, the more impressed i become!   That is an obvious belittlement of Palin.  So what?  How many of US are leaders in a community service organization?  Whoopty freakin' doo.  A law professor?  Awesome.  I know plenty of professor, including law profs, that I wouldn't trust to watch my house for the weekend, let alone run the country.  And an "Illinois State Senator?"  Really.  I know my local state Senator, and my local State Rep...and neither of them are qualified in any way to run the country.  They lobby for money to build monuments in our district.  Or clean up the local parks.  Not negotiate with Iran.    Not a beliitlement of Palin. Only the facts about her resume. She ran what would equate to in the lower 48 states, a lawn mower repair business. A small mom and pop business. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact it's quintessential Alaska. But as a business, even when compared to other powersports dealers/servicers she was small. But again, not the point, which you once again missed.   Barak used his education to help others, not himself. He worked to better peoples lives and he worked in a working class environment to do it.   All of the things you listed for Obama a) Are on the resume of every god damn politician in Washington, and b) Look real fancy when you say/type them, but not all that relevant to the job of President. Actually a degree in Politcal Science is very relevant.   By the way, since when did running a small business become something that should be shameful?    Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996.   Once again, that's a completely different job than President.  I live in Pennsylvania.  My local State Senator was a CUSTODIAL SUPERVISOR at a local power plant, prior to getting elected.  Awesome.  Maybe he should run too?   And again with the reading comprehension issues. The relevancy of Obama's state senate experience is in it's educational value to run a government. He understands how to get things done in a legislative arena. He's done it for years. Being prez isn't just about having a vision, it's about acheiving the vision. Unfortunately, with our system of government, that means playing politics. I don't like it either, but it is the way it is.   By the way, Illinois has a population of almost 13,000,000 people. Obama was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Obama serves on the Foreign relations committee. He also serves on the committees for health , education,labor, and pensions as well as the committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the committee for Veterans' Affairs.   So we are glorifying committees now?  Once again, when did we start citing these as positives?  Sounds like career politics to me..."business as usual."   To those of who understand the relevancy it's very important.   You might note that on his recent overseas trip he received a Presidential welcome where ever he went.   Did you expect him to visit locations where he would receive a hostile reception?   At least one of his stops wasn't a German market. Ice, what does presidential reception mean? The places he went, tens of thousands of people turned out ot cheer him. Why do you suppose that is?   There is no question he has the right stuff to repair our damaged foreign policys and restore our more severely damaged image.   I have plenty of doubts about it.  Moreover, his ineptitude WILL be "front and center" if elected.  Palin's only MIGHT BE "front and center" if McCain wins.  And even then, not certainly for a full presidential term.   At this point in his presidential campaign, when compared to either George Bush or Bill Clinton on the eve of their first push for president, he has more foreign policy/foreign relations experience than both of them put together.   That is a flat out lie, and you know it.    I don't like being called a liar. Especially by someone who can't keep up with the debate. But, i'll listen. Ice, tell me exactly what was George Bush's and Bill Clinton's foriegn policy/ relations experience  prior to taking office? And in the words of Rugby, be specific. And I will add, good luck in your search!   Palin was elected mayor of a small town of 5 to 8,000 people depending on sources, and then found her way to the Governor's office where she presides over a state with a population of 600,000.   Where did Obama start his political career?  Directly to State senator? Yes I doubt it.  And even if he did, that's a moot point.  Most politicians start out as a town/city councilman/woman, mayor, etc.    Why knock someone for starting at ground zero?    So what about Alaska's population?  The situation of that state presents numerous unique challenges...just because it's small, I'm sure it's no "cake walk."  Environmental and energy concerns are paramount.  Supporting a working infrastructure throughout [inhabited parts of] the USA's largest state, on a limited budget?  Basically bordering 2 foreign countries?  Most diverse climate profile of the country?  Historically high prices.  And I'm sure plenty of other challenges.    Relatively speaking it is a cakewalk. Alaska politics could appropriatly be described as Bush League. My county has a larger population than Alaska. My state has 12 times it's population and only a small fraction of its land mass. One doesn't govern land, one governs people.     She has used the "But she's hot" view of her to cover for her lack of cred for most of her life including her ride to the governors office.   I don't think she's ever used the words "I'm hot" to further her political career.  You can blame the media for that one, not her.   I don't know that she's ever used those words. However, her looks are a wedge issue.   The truth is we don't know enough about her yet. We only know what the repub spin machine is putting out.   That's all we know about ANY politician.  We don't know shit about politicians.  Their job is to be the person that they think will garner the most votes.    Still, there is enough to draw some conclusions. Chief among what is known is this: The repub right is big on hearth and family. The family values conservative right woman are supposed to put nurture above ambition.   Sexist much?   Ice, not my view, but that of the party you want to keep in the Whitehouse. Personally i disagree with the view that woman should stay home and take care of the babies. However, for the conservative right to push Palin on us as the woman of the year smacks of Hypocracy in light of their family first agenda. Which is well known.   Another smack of hypacracy is the white conservative male republican powerbase coming out in support of Palin after spending much of the last year, while in anti Hillary mode, telling us a woman has no business in the Whitehouse.   Woman,  are supposed to put family above all else   x2   . Here we have a woman who is being nominated for sainthood   I must have missed that proposal?   by the anti abortion right  for her decision to have a downs syndrome child. Something, I agree was a brave decision. Yet, now she going to leave that child for large swaths of time to run for the second highest office in the country. Clearly she is putting that child second to her own ambition.   Give me a break.  It is no more or less "dishonorable" or "wrong" for her to dedicate 4 years of her life to the office of Vice President than it is for Obama to do so and put his family on the "back burner" as you are implying.    Again you are missing the point, which is the hypocracy of the party and of Palin herself if she pushes family values. it is the party that pushes woman belong at home with the family.   Her child has downs syndrome, not terminal cancer in its final stages.   She's so busy being a governnor/veep candidate caring for the baby is not her problem. Cold, yes, true? But that's how it reads Ice.   I know a woman with a downs syndrome child that has to work 2 jobs (65+ hours minimum per week) to support her family; that makes her no less of a mother.    If elected, the requirements of the office will put that child as well as her entire family second. She is saying one thing and doing another. The hypocracy is glaring.   Give me a break.  This hypocracy in this conversation is the only thing that is glaring.    Obama is the candidate for the Middle Class?  Yea, if I were a 3rd shift factory worker, I'm sure I could really relate to a guy with a Harvard Law degree...and I'm sure he knows "what it's like" to live in "Middle Class America."  Give me a break.   Should we elect a third shift factory worker for president?   Oh yea, 35 years ago, he ate grasshoppers for dinner in Kenya.  Awesome.   Who's belittlinging now?   Then there is this about McCain: he has spent the last 2 months harping that Obama is ill equipped to face the challenges that face America today. Then what does he do? He picks a running mate that is obviously ill equipped to run the country.   She won't be running the country.  He will.   Until he bites the big one. Then what? We'll have a snowmobile repair woman running the country. But she's hot!   Obama's experience can be debated. As mentioned, today he carries more foreign policy experience than either did Clinton or Bush prior to their first terms.   BG, that's just a first-class lie man.  And you know it.    Assume I'm from Missouri   And, he made a wise choice of running mate. Someone who helps him greatly on foriegn policy.   I thought he had plenty of foreign policy experience on his own?    That choice was presidential.  Or at least showed great leadership. By the way, I'm not  Biden fan. I think he's a JO. Back on McCain, considering his words downing Obama's lack of cred, his choice makes no sense. Not a presidential choice. In fact a dangerous choice that shows lack of judgement.   Neither Palin or Obama are as experienced as a "typical" VP or Pres candidate.  I'd rather have the less-experienced candiate as my VP than the leader of the free world...if we are using "on paper" "experience" as a requisite.   So with the republicans we have A woman telling us she puts her family first while clearly putting them second and a man who tell us we need experienced leaders while picking an inexpereinced person for a top leadership position. Since i don't own "Republican For Dummys," as the convention gets started this week, should I listen to what they say or watch what they do? Clearly, there is a vast expanse between the two.   I'd probably continue to ignore the same faults in your preferred candidate and continue to attempt to belittle and focus on the faults of the opposing party.  Actually, BG, in this case, perhaps you should just campaign for president?  Your post sounds like typical politics 101 to me.   Hey, i'm just talking here, you have no idea who my preferred candidate is.   Palin has no business being on the ticket, but she's hot!   Neither does Obama, and he's not!  (well, maybe women think he is, I dunno).      This is not a debate between who is more qualified, Palin or Obama. Obama won't even mention Palin's name.   He's so cool.  I think it would be trendy to have a black president!  Oh shit, that's the exact reason he's on the ticket, I forgot.   [/quote] [/quote]
Sep 1, 2008 2:53 pm
Rugby:

This pick will certainly not sway entrenched Obama supporters like you…undecided and independents is what the election is about  gong forward.

This will be a great argument in the next few months leading up to the election and it will be fun to debate.  Obama on his way to make history just got a real curveball in obtaining women and blue collar voters that are scratching their heads about his experience, background, heritage, preacher, associations…
In hindsight he should have picked a women (HRC or perhaps a woman Gov. with executive experience of a state with an acceptable population level).  To say that by picking Biden was a good call it and it was presidential etc…etc…is tough to buy.  It was a political pick, just as McCain picking Palin…Biden is a crackpot who has been on the wrong sides of every vote for his too long tenure in Washington.  He is however, older, white, and has foreign policy experience.
Does the country need the status quo?  (2) senators, Biden - Obama is looking a little like same old, same old…luckily for the Dem. ticket, Obama has only been there for a short while and has spent most of his time campaigning for the POTUS.  

An interesting dynamic is developing and the “Change” Obama supporters want the change, but want it with all the trappings of the status quo:   Harvard educations, career politicians, political hierarchies, political machines and the candidates that they produce. 

Ask any blue collar worker in OH, PA, LA who they identify with…Sarah Palin and her husband/family or Barack and Michelle Obama?   The Obama’s with their Princeton, Columbia, Harvard degrees…and jobs obtained in non-profit sector,  community organizing, state senator…Michelle’s 300k yr. job as a non-profit hospital admin???  I’m surprised BG, having run your own business yourself and as a lover of motorized toys I thought you would be more impressed with the Palins.

This will be a fascinating election.  Status quo, who is really for change, race, gender etc…Tim Russert must be smiling in heaven.

  Entrenched Obama supporter? me? Far from it. I just come off as such by speaking the truth.   I'm a McCain guy from way back. Drank the cool-aid, got the T shirt. Problem is he's got the repub party on his back. While down here at ground level we are suffering, things are just fine at party central. They want to maintain the staus quo. Painting their party as one for the everyman is a joke, but they're giving it a shot.   And yes a vote for Obama will increase my taxes. Happy about that? Nope, but I can afford it. So, for now i'll watch and see how things play out. How will i vote? For now i'm undecided. I will say though, that McCain's veep pick may have sealed the deal for me. We'll see. One thing that keeps me from Obama is Biden. I really don't like the guy.
Sep 1, 2008 3:41 pm

[/quote]

  Entrenched Obama supporter? me? Far from it. I just come off as such by speaking the truth.   I'm a McCain guy from way back. Drank the cool-aid, got the T shirt. Problem is he's got the repub party on his back. While down here at ground level we are suffering, things are just fine at party central. They want to maintain the staus quo. Painting their party as one for the everyman is a joke, but they're giving it a shot.   And yes a vote for Obama will increase my taxes. Happy about that? Nope, but I can afford it. So, for now i'll watch and see how things play out. How will i vote? For now i'm undecided. I will say though, that McCain's veep pick may have sealed the deal for me. We'll see. One thing that keeps me from Obama is Biden. I really don't like the guy.[/quote]

You are undecided?  I guess I am as well and am leaning one way.     Obama came out today and said alot of people will be waiting until October to choose.  I think he is right and we should all wait until the debates to get a sense how both of these tickets are going to changes things in D.C.  The specifics of "change" from both of these campaigns should decide this election.  Obama's speech last week did not sell me on that he is the guy to do this.  Alot of promises....how do you do it though?  McCain-Palin are tossing rhetoric as well.

Perhaps the debate of resumes, experience, education credentials of both sides is a futile and useless exercise.  These are our choices and one of them is a better pick for the country regardless of the path they took to ticket. 

The poll numbers are not showing the Obama bounce he should have gotten out of the convention, although he may have proven he is presidential material.  Let the debates of both side's ideas and how they implement change decide who we vote for...The interesting development is that voters are hungry for specifics and voter detection of rhetoric and BS will not get you elected. 
Sep 1, 2008 9:52 pm

Rugby, for the most part agree with you.

  However, when you speak of how both candidates will change things in DC you've got to remember that Mccain wasn't talking change until he saw Obama's polling numbers. Now, he too is a "Change" candidate. Change is playing big on mainstreet this election season. Gee, I wonder why?   McCain has the far tougher road in this regard. His party, or at least it's leaders and backroom players are just fine with the way things are.  So McCain has to be a consumate politician, talk change but not PO the party fathers.   Where does Palin stand on creationism? If she believes the earth is more than 10,000 years old, it wouldn't necessarily be a point in her favor, but at least it wouldn't be a point against her. And, on that count,  I'll give McCain a gold star for not picking Huckabee  
Sep 1, 2008 11:37 pm

A few random (and at times, partisan) thoughts after catching up from my mini-vacation…

  1.  It's neither truth nor a lie that Obama has more foreign policy experience than the last two presidents...it's simply a matter of perspective and opinion.  I do think that it's a long stretch to say he has even close to the amount that his opponent has.   2.  Biden does have some baggage...I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.  His 1988 presidential candidacy was undone by an admitted charge of plagiarism and pretty much lying about his academic success and scholarships (he graduated 76th of 85).  Here's the skinny on Joe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ...see 1988 campaign section for what I reference.   3.  Hats off to Obama for stating that a child's pregnancy is off limits...and thumbs down to the blogs that tried to make an issue of it.   4.  It's fairly obvious to me after hearing her, that governor Palin is a very intelligent, well-spoken lady.  It's presumptuous to conclude that she is unfit for the office of president.  It's easy and partisan to say that running Alaska is a piece of cake, but it's apparent that she's taken the task seriously and the early results appear promising.   5.  Palin has been involved in politics/public service since being elected to her city council in 1992.  Source is the weekend WSJ page A7.  That's hardly just running a lawn mower repair business.   6.  McCain's pick is certainly in line with his maverick reputation.  Sure, most GOP politicos are playing nice at the moment, but there's little doubt many of them would have preferred a "safe" selection.  There are plenty of rumors that McCain overruled several advisors in his own campaign in picking Palin.   7.  Of course, Obama was well-received in Europe.  He is the anti-war candidate, a view that is shared with great enthusiasm by most Europeans.  The way things are now playing out in Iraq, I doubt if either candidate will need to leave many troops there for much longer anyway.  I'm just not sure that I'm ready for Europeans, who have their own issues, telling us who our president should be.   8.  In times like this, I miss Mike Butler...
Sep 1, 2008 11:52 pm

Just to make this post not so serious----

You know the thing that I thought was most interesting with BG's post?! The comment that Sarah Palin was HOT. Sorry, but I just don't get it. I think she is fantastic and I wouldn't change her looks, but I don't in any way see her as a sex symbol. I mean, Paris Hilton is hot. Jessica Alba is hot. But Sarah Palin?   BG's top 5 Women List:   1) Sarah Palin 2) Martha Stewart 3) The Lady with the crazy, big, black glasses in the Old Navy Commercial. 4) Hil. Clinton 5) Barbara Walters    
Sep 2, 2008 12:26 am

paris hilton aint even remotely hot.  plenty slutty and stupid, but not even worth looking at twice.

Sep 2, 2008 12:58 am

We don’t get enough of the inane partisan political polemics on TV and the radio without getting it here, too?  

Sep 2, 2008 1:27 am

…and yet you read and posted to this thread…

Sep 2, 2008 2:00 am

Posted, yes.  Read the whole thread, no.  My stomach couldn’t handle it.

You’re right about the main point, though, Indyone - you guys can prattle on all you want about this, as is your right.  It’s up to me to ignore it.  I’ll try to do better at that.

Sep 2, 2008 2:35 am

Fair enough.  While many minds here will probably go unchanged as a result of political threads, I like the exchange of information/propaganda and want to be an informed voter. Thus, I welcome the debate.

On a separate note, a reporter on one of the networks just referred to the New Orleans mayor as Mayor Nager (and then quickly corrected himself)...wonder what he was thinking...
Sep 2, 2008 12:34 pm

[quote=Indyone]A few random (and at times, partisan) thoughts after catching up from my mini-vacation…

 
2.  Biden does have some baggage...I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.  His 1988 presidential candidacy was undone by an admitted charge of plagiarism and pretty much lying about his academic success and scholarships (he graduated 76th of 85).  Here's the skinny on Joe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ...see 1988 campaign section for what I reference.  [/quote]

This was the smarter of the (2) VP picks according to BG?  I can't see it.   Also, Bill Clinton highest praise of Obama was that "he hit it out of the park with this pick" in his speech last week?  Tough to craft defensive talking points on Biden after reading his bio.  Can't believe he would even be considered as a candidate after his crash and burn in the late 80s.  This smells like a some sort of trap for Obama and it really is tough to defend Biden's selection as a smart move for Obama.  A underachieving, plagiarist, career politician a heartbeat away from the highest office?

Maybe the Clintons set him up for failure with this one.
Sep 2, 2008 1:39 pm

Interesting selection for John McCain even with the recently released situation on her personal family situation. I do agree that Obama made not only the right political choice as well as the right personal choice that discussions on her family situation are " off limits ".

As for the Democrats claiming her lack of Leadership roles....she was/is the Governor of Alaska. Biden and McCain have extensive leadership roles in Washington. If leadership is the issue....Obama would be the LEAST qualified to become President. On that note , it appears that Canadians will be heading to the Polls in October to either re-elect the Conservatives or bring back the Liberals. The same issues taxation and the economy versus environment and increasing taxes.
Sep 2, 2008 3:06 pm

[quote=Indyone]A few random (and at times, partisan) thoughts after catching up from my mini-vacation…

  1.  It's neither truth nor a lie that Obama has more foreign policy experience than the last two presidents...it's simply a matter of perspective and opinion.  I do think that it's a long stretch to say he has even close to the amount that his opponent has.   Agree, that McCain has more FP exp than does Obama. I like McCain, he is a good man, and truth be told would make a good president. That said, my comments about Clinton/Bush's FP exp is not opinion or pov, it's fact. You can dispute that if you like, but you'd be wrong.   2.  Biden does have some baggage...I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.  His 1988 presidential candidacy was undone by an admitted charge of plagiarism and pretty much lying about his academic success and scholarships (he graduated 76th of 85).  Here's the skinny on Joe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden ...see 1988 campaign section for what I reference.   As said i'm not a Biden fan, but not because of this. The speech plagiarism was a minor gaff in which he didn't cite the a source that he had cited many times before while giving essentially the same campaign speech. The thing was blown out of proportion, which is what happens during campaigns. As for the law school thing. Yeah, somewhat problematic. However, that the highest court in his state gave him a pass tells me that we have to give him the benefit of a doubt on that one. Not enough evidence to convict. Note that the repubs aren't using it.   3.  Hats off to Obama for stating that a child's pregnancy is off limits...and thumbs down to the blogs that tried to make an issue of it.   Agree, taking the high road, by both candidates is refreshing. Any bets as to how long it lasts?   4.  It's fairly obvious to me after hearing her, that governor Palin is a very intelligent, well-spoken lady.  It's presumptuous to conclude that she is unfit for the office of president.  It's easy and partisan to say that running Alaska is a piece of cake, but it's apparent that she's taken the task seriously and the early results appear promising.   The better question to ask is "Is she most highly qualified candidate the republicans could come up with?" Even if we limit the choice to women, that's not the case. The republican party is chock full of articulate, smart, and qualified female candidates. McCain, vetted Palin, then after interviewing her for 15 minutes selected her. By the way, against advice of some of his handlers. Why pass over far more qualified candidates?       5.  Palin has been involved in politics/public service since being elected to her city council in 1992.  Source is the weekend WSJ page A7.  That's hardly just running a lawn mower repair business.   Indy come on, city council? 8000 people! Her local government experience is a joke when used as a qualifier. The biggest problem her town faced was whether or not there would be enough snow for the annual snow mobile races. Like most Alaska towns they've got more cash than they can spend and not enough people to give it to.   Compare that to my town of 80,000 people, where my wife was on town council for ten years. During her tenure the town council didn't raise taxes. That's ten years without a tax increase. Services were increased, parks were built, and community service programs flourished. Our town attracted residents and businesses in droves, built a 20 million dollar library that is the envy of city librarys.  Under her tenure her policies brought large corporations to our town including the American headquarters of a major auto manufacturer. Her tenure saw the lowest office/retail vacancy rate in the town's history. This was all done as the state and county reduced their financial aid to our town by 50% over those ten years. Using this as a qualifier, a town with a large population, large budget, large payroll, and yearly reduced outside help my wife and her fellow council members are more qualified for Veep than Palin. Yet, none is qualified for veep. Still I'd vote for my wife in a second and she is hot!!!!!!!!     6.  McCain's pick is certainly in line with his maverick reputation.  Sure, most GOP politicos are playing nice at the moment, but there's little doubt many of them would have preferred a "safe" selection.  There are plenty of rumors that McCain overruled several advisors in his own campaign in picking Palin.   He should have listened to them. Apparently there is more smoke coming from Palin's legislative investigation and McCain has sent investigators back to Alaska. Personally, I hope this doesn't blow up, but after a 15 minute interview...   7.  Of course, Obama was well-received in Europe.  He is the anti-war candidate, a view that is shared with great enthusiasm by most Europeans.  The way things are now playing out in Iraq, I doubt if either candidate will need to leave many troops there for much longer anyway.  I'm just not sure that I'm ready for Europeans, who have their own issues, telling us who our president should be.   The point wasn't that they loved Obama. The point is just how damaged our image is. By the way, the Europeans told us before the Iraq invasion that our government was lying to us. So, while i agree the election is our decision to make, don't write off what the rest of the world thinks or says. The planet ain't as big as it use to be.   8.  In times like this, I miss Mike Butler...   Yeah, me too![/quote]
Sep 2, 2008 3:08 pm

[quote=iceco1d][quote=BondGuy]

  Did I hit a nerve?  [/quote]   Not until your last post you didn't.  [/quote]   Still waiting for proof of Bush/Clinton pre 1st term FR experience. Get back to me when you've got something to say.
Sep 2, 2008 3:14 pm

[quote=lady_trader]

Just to make this post not so serious----

You know the thing that I thought was most interesting with BG's post?! The comment that Sarah Palin was HOT. Sorry, but I just don't get it. I think she is fantastic and I wouldn't change her looks, but I don't in any way see her as a sex symbol. I mean, Paris Hilton is hot. Jessica Alba is hot. But Sarah Palin?   BG's top 5 Women List:   1) Sarah Palin 2) Martha Stewart 3) The Lady with the crazy, big, black glasses in the Old Navy Commercial. Margan faichild? 4) Hil. Clinton 5) Barbara Walters    [/quote]   They are all accomplished women. All but Clinton unqualified for executive office.   Just so you know, the hot comment, not mine. That's the book on Palin. Her looks have always been an issue. That I repeat it here is only to make a point, that it is a wedge issue. However, feel free to shoot the messenger.
Sep 2, 2008 5:57 pm

[quote=iceco1d][quote=BondGuy][quote=iceco1d][quote=BondGuy]

  Did I hit a nerve?  [/quote]   Not until your last post you didn't.  [/quote]   Still waiting for proof of Bush/Clinton pre 1st term FR experience. Get back to me when you've got something to say.[/quote]   Sorry BG,   I'm not going to participate in a debate or converstaion where the counterparty feels they need to speak down to me in condescending fashion.   You can have this point, and all the rest for that matter.  [/quote]   Ice, not so fast there chief! You called me a liar. In fact you called me a liar twice. So, what's the deal here, you can dish it but not take it? How much more degrading can one get than calling someone a liar?   Ice, you were amped up in that post. That much was obvious to me. Thus my opening comment about hitting a nerve. And maybe you meant to say my comment wasn't true. Which could be consrtued as maybe I've got my facts wrong and you're calling me on it. But you didn't say that. You said that I was lying. You don't get a pass on that.   How did you expect me to react?   There are times I do have my facts wrong. And I don't mind being called on those mistakes. I've come back to this board more than once with my tail between my legs to apologize for something I got wrong, or to correct it. But i'm not going to let you or anyone question my integrity. In fact it is that integrity that allows me to admit my mistakes and lay them bare if need be.   That you come back to this thread with an attitude that you won't be talked down to after calling me a liar is insulting and quite frankly takes a lot of balls. A better way to go would have been to admit you were wrong and then apologize directly to me. Instead you come back with attitude.   As for the point, if you could have proved it you would have. You are wrong. Note how I'm able to say you are wrong without calling you names or questioning your integrity.   Good luck in your new moderator status.    
Sep 2, 2008 6:38 pm

Having read your rejoinder, BG, I decided against engaging in the ever-lengthening point/counterpoint posts (which I'm guessing get skimmed when they start getting so long).  I spent some time at lunch looking at various online news agencies and the concensus of most is that the daughter pregancy is a non-issue.  Trooper-gate may or may not get much play in the end, but I can tell you this based on what I've read thus far...the brother-in-law sounds like a loose cannon who should not be packing a gun and possessing law enforcement powers.  When all the facts are known, I'll predict that trooper-gate will not be a problem for Palin.  The spousal DUI from 20+ years ago is just typical dirt journalism as is the one time affiliation with the AIP.  I've yet to see anything of real substance and still some are already calling her Eagleton.  I call that wishful thinking.

In response to your question on whether or not she is the most qualified Republican my question is, most qualified for what?  I think she would make an excellent second in support of McCain.  She is an energetic reformer, and strong on energy policy.  Goodness knows, we need some help there.  Certainly, there are aspects of the VP job where perhaps she was not the strongest candidate, but that could probably be said for almost any candidate for the position.  You can discount her past experience, but the same concerns are valid for Obama, who has perhaps a bit more foreign policy experience, although he's been a virtual no-show in the senate the past two years.  Conversely, Palin, although she's not running for the position of president, has at least a similar advantage over Obama in executive experience that he might have over her in the area of foreign policy.  If Palin should assume the office of the president (which is a far cry less likely than Obama at this point), she would have a cabinet of advisors to aid her in governance and two powerful checks and balances in the legislative and judiciary branches.  Frankly, I'm getting well ahead of myself here.  If the medical profession can keep Dick Cheney ticking for the last 8 years, I suspect McCain will be good for at least four.  It's obvious to me that McCain is very pleased to have Palin on his team and if he's elected, I think he'll find her a very useful ally in the White House.  It is also my personal hope that if elected, he asks Mitt Romney to join him as an economic advisor.  That, in my mind, would make for a pretty effective combination.

Back to work...your turn...
Sep 2, 2008 6:42 pm

[quote=Indyone]

  It is also my personal hope that if elected, he asks Mitt Romney to join him as an economic advisor.  That, in my mind, would make for a pretty effective conbination.

Back to work...your turn...[/quote]   Read this over the weekend:  http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rip-reaganomics-revolution-1981-2011/story.aspx?guid=%7B9B24FFF5%2D8588%2D44AD%2DA59E%2D227DB7F1DCB5%7D   Secretary of Treasury is something we should all be concerned about, ya think?
Sep 3, 2008 3:01 am

[quote=iceco1d]OK, BondGuy,

  Now, I will admit something...YOU are getting under my skin.  A couple of points you may have missed:   #1 - I thought my original post came across as being an attack.  I APOLOGIZED BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED THE FIRST TIME, and LIKELY BEFORE YOU EVEN READ MY ORIGINAL POST.  I'm NOT going to apologize again, and at this point, I almost regret apologizing in the first place.  Maybe I am not the one that needs help with my reading comprehension.    Well, that could be debated. I did see your apology, but didn't take it as such. Why? Because apologies don't start with the word if. You attacked me along with calling me a liar, and there's some question in your mind that it is offensive? If? You're kidding me right?   #2 - I did not call YOU a liar.  You stated that Obama had more foreign policy experience than x, y, and z.  That is subjective, and that is YOUR opinion.  Perhaps it isn't a "lie" per se, but it is stating something as fact, when it indeed is not.    No longer conceding the point? Yet, still nothing to support you contention that bill and george had more pre first term FP EXP?   First, let's get something straight, you are wrong on this point. Way wrong. My statement on this point is not opinion, it's a fact. Read up and come back and we'll talk. When you find out who george's foreign policy mentor was, you'll want to throw up. So, to be clear, i didn't state opinion as fact.   Second, You did call me a liar twice in that post. Both on the same point. Apparently this one point brings out the knee jerk liar response from you. The first time i mentioned it you said "That is a flat out lie, and you know it" The second time you said "BG, that's just a first class lie man, and you know it. "   Tell me, in your world when you tell someone what they've said is a lie, isn't that calling that person a liar? In your world, when you tell that person they know they are lying, isn't that calling that person a liar? Because, i gotta tell ya ice, in my world it is. But, then again maybe it's my reading comprehesion problem?     I am not "calling you out" about having incorrect facts.  I called you out about something you stated as a fact, when it is not.   No, instead of calling me out you said  that I purposely lied.  And, what i stated it is a fact. Prove me wrong.   If I wanted to call YOU a name, I would have done so, directly, and frankly.  I did not.  If I said something like, "you are a jackass," now that would be name-calling.  But of course, that was only an example, not me actually saying it.    3.  It is pretty clear at this point, that you are pretty ruffled that someone suggested I would make a good moderator for this forum.  That's your problem.  I didn't nominate myself, and furthermore, no mention has been made that the moderator route is going to be explored any further.  In fact, I don't even recall posting that I would actually ACCEPT such a position on this forum.  So really, whatever your problem is with it, just let it go, it's ridiculous.    No ice, i could care less. Just that moderators are supposed to be neutral and you are far from it. You got amped up over a fairly benign polictical discussion. Then after your attack , i lightly pushed your buttons and you've come more unglued. Ice, feel free to PM other long term posters here as to my history, I took it easy on you.   Truthfully, I'm not pissed off at you. Just perplexed that you would call me a liar over a perceived misstated fact. Even if i were wrong on the fact, it wouldn't make me a liar.  I'd just be wrong on that fact. Gee, been there, got the Tee Shirt. In my opinion you needlessly attacked me and you are misinformed regarding the facts relevant to the point made in my orignal comments.   Personally, I don't see the moderator route working.   It's pretty clear politics is something you are deeply involved in - I'm sure most, if not all, of your FACTS are indeed correct.  Kudos.    By the way, just in case YOU missed it:   By the way, I didn't miss it. It wasn't an apology.   And you don't have to apologize. But before you go calling someone else a liar for stating a fact you are unaware of, read first, shoot second.   [quote=iceco1d]By the way,   I'm voting for McCain for pretty simple reasons:   1.  I like paying lower taxes and could give a flying f*ck about supporting losers on welfare, and other worthless government programs that I'll (along with the rest of the SUCCESSFUL, NON-LAZY, NON-LOSER population of the forum) NEVER see a benefit from.   2.  I think we should leave Iraq quickly, but not at the expense of being a pussyfoot.   3.  I am sick to death of Affirmative Action, and everything that resembles it.  I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I owned slaves and/or did my part to oppress minorities?  Obama is going to make that even worse...and at heart, I truly think he's racist.   4.  I don't hunt, but I own a few guns.  I'd like to retain that right.   That's about all, with MAJOR emphasis on #1.   [Edit:  I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy.  If my post came across as disrespectful, or with an attitude, I certainly apologize, as it wasn't my intent to be condescending.  I respect you a great deal, and appreciate your posts and industry knowledge.  I simply disagree with you on this [relatively unrelated] issue a great deal.][/quote]   What happened to, "if you would have just apologized directly to me...?"  I apologized to you before this even started.  Now, you can acknowledge my apology, admit you missed it, put your internet junk back in your pants, and we can move on, anytime you are ready.  [/quote]
Sep 3, 2008 4:14 am

BG, I think it’s going to be near impossible to find neutral moderators who care enough about this board to actively keep the few real problem trolls out of here.  Pretty much everyone here has opinions that they aren’t afraid to share and I wouldn’t have it any other way.  Certainly, political threads, in what’s probably the most interesting election in my lifetime, are going to bring out the passion.  I don’t like the idea of going without at least a few volunteer moderators to keep the after-hours foolishness in check.  An appropriate test here, at least in my mind, is can a moderator, much like a jurist, set aside personal beliefs and biases to deliver justice.  For example, let’s assume Iceco1d were a moderator here and came across your posts in this thread , which he obviously disagrees with.  As a moderator and participant, I would give him a pass on disagreeing with you, as long as he did it with some decorum.  Certainly, name-calling, slapping you down, deleting or modifying your posts and/or banning/suspending you would not be appropriate behavior to register his disapproval, although it would be reminiscent of the heavy-handed tactics of at least one moderator I’ve seen in another advisor forum.  We probably won’t see perfect moderators if we see any at all, but I’d prefer imperfect moderation to none at all.

  I'm all for freedom of speech here until it's abused at the expense of good participants.  That's where moderators, acting as jurists, could have a positive influence.
Sep 3, 2008 4:23 am

Whew…wish I would have seen all this prior to my last post…we even have red and blue for the respective parties…

  Maybe we should all back away from this thread for awhile...
Sep 3, 2008 4:39 am

[quote=Indyone]BG, I think it’s going to be near impossible to find neutral moderators who care enough about this board to actively keep the few real problem trolls out of here.  Pretty much everyone here has opinions that they aren’t afraid to share and I wouldn’t have it any other way.  Certainly, political threads, in what’s probably the most interesting election in my lifetime, are going to bring out the passion.  I don’t like the idea of going without at least a few volunteer moderators to keep the after-hours foolishness in check.  An appropriate test here, at least in my mind, is can a moderator, much like a jurist, set aside personal beliefs and biases to deliver justice.  For example, let’s assume Iceco1d were a moderator here and came across your posts in this thread , which he obviously disagrees with.  As a moderator and participant, I would give him a pass on disagreeing with you, as long as he did it with some decorum.  Certainly, name-calling, slapping you down, deleting or modifying your posts and/or banning/suspending you would not be appropriate behavior to register his disapproval, although it would be reminiscent of the heavy-handed tactics of at least one moderator I’ve seen in another advisor forum.  We probably won’t see perfect moderators if we see any at all, but I’d prefer imperfect moderation to none at all.

  I'm all for freedom of speech here until it's abused at the expense of good participants.  that's where moderators, acting as jurists, could have a positive influence.[/quote]

Political speech brings  out the worst in most of us.  In addition, the many colored fonts makes it difficult  to keep track of who spewed what. 

If you are talking about moderators on this forum, I think we have to distinguish between professional posts, where we talk about product and process.... and the general and lounge categories where everything goes...like this topic.   We might consider moderating the professional areas, while letting the other venues be a free for all shooting match where almost everything goes.  I think if the spirited arguments become too "personal" and vituperative,  that would be when the moderator should step in and slap the crap out of the offending posters.

On the other hand, if you are offended by the tone of some threads....don't look.  It never ceases to amaze me that people get theatrically offended by things that they could easily avoid
Sep 3, 2008 3:04 pm

[quote=iceco1d][quote=BondGuy][quote=iceco1d]OK, BondGuy,

  Now, I will admit something...YOU are getting under my skin.  A couple of points you may have missed:   #1 - I thought my original post came across as being an attack.  I APOLOGIZED BEFORE YOU EVEN POSTED THE FIRST TIME, and LIKELY BEFORE YOU EVEN READ MY ORIGINAL POST.  I'm NOT going to apologize again, and at this point, I almost regret apologizing in the first place.  Maybe I am not the one that needs help with my reading comprehension.    Well, that could be debated.   No BondGuy, it can't.   I did see your apology, but didn't take it as such.   You must be of limited mental capacity in that case.  Generally, when someone says, "I'm compelled to apologize" - that means, they apologize.    Why? Because apologies don't start with the word if.   Look above.  It didn't start with "if."  And you questioned my reading comprehension?    You attacked me along with calling me a liar, and there's some question in your mind that it is offensive? If? You're kidding me right?   No BondGuy, I'm not kidding you.  Your opinion is gospel.  I am going to call you a blow-hard egomaniac.  You love to hear yourself talk.  It's no surprise to me at all that you are involved in politics.    You ARE right, I would make a terrible moderator.  After a certain point, I don't have tolerance to deal with abosolute ignorance and arrogance complemented by incessent whining, moaning, and vocabulary manipulation.    I don't want to be a moderator...because I want to retain my ability to say, "BondGuy, you are being a first class asshole."   By the way, in case it isn't clear to you at this point, I rescind my apology AND the comment regarding having respect for you.  I have none.  You deserve none.    #2 - I did not call YOU a liar.  You stated that Obama had more foreign policy experience than x, y, and z.  That is subjective, and that is YOUR opinion.  Perhaps it isn't a "lie" per se, but it is stating something as fact, when it indeed is not.    No longer conceding the point? Yet, still nothing to support you contention that bill and george had more pre first term FP EXP?   No, I'm not.  But only to give you something else to bitch about.  I couldn't care less honestly.  Come over and debate about something industry-related and perhaps I'll participate.    First, let's get something straight, you are wrong on this point.   If you say so God.    Way wrong. My statement on this point is not opinion, it's a fact.   Obviously.    Read up and come back and we'll talk.   You aren't worthy of anymore of my discussion time.   When you find out who george's foreign policy mentor was, you'll want to throw up. So, to be clear, i didn't state opinion as fact.   Can I make it anymore clear to you that I don't care at this point?  Is that sinking through your skull yet?    Second, You did call me a liar twice in that post.   Ok.  Let's go with your position.  You are a liar.  A liar that loves to hear himself talk.  Things you say are gospel.  Bravo.   Both on the same point. Apparently this one point brings out the knee jerk liar response from you.   You know, the funny thing is, I don't even remember what you said, or I said.  I don't feel strongly about this.  I know you over-exemplified Obama's achievements, and did your best to belittle Palin's.  That was the point.    The first time i mentioned it you said "That is a flat out lie, and you know it" The second time you said "BG, that's just a first class lie man, and you know it. "   Yes, and now, I'm very simply saying, "BondGuy, you are a liar!"  Now there is no reason to split hairs.   Tell me, in your world when you tell someone what they've said is a lie, isn't that calling that person a liar? In your world, when you tell that person they know they are lying, isn't that calling that person a liar?   Absolutely.  A liar is a liar.  A blow-hard is a blow-hard.  A prick, is a prick.  I follow.   Because, i gotta tell ya ice, in my world it is. But, then again maybe it's my reading comprehesion problem?   You do have a reading comprehension problem.  You also have an ego problem.  Whoops!  Did I mention that twice?!    I am not "calling you out" about having incorrect facts.  I called you out about something you stated as a fact, when it is not.   No, instead of calling me out you said  that I purposely lied.  And, what i stated it is a fact. Prove me wrong.   If you are still talking about the FP issue, I don't personally believe it can be something that's proven. BUT, even if I did, I wouldn't bother looking up facts for this debate.  I don't care about the outcome of this conversation, and I don't plan on acknowledging further posts from you (though, I'm sure you'll find a way to engage me again - you are good at that.).   If I wanted to call YOU a name, I would have done so, directly, and frankly.  I did not.  If I said something like, "you are a jackass," now that would be name-calling.  But of course, that was only an example, not me actually saying it.    3.  It is pretty clear at this point, that you are pretty ruffled that someone suggested I would make a good moderator for this forum.  That's your problem.  I didn't nominate myself, and furthermore, no mention has been made that the moderator route is going to be explored any further.  In fact, I don't even recall posting that I would actually ACCEPT such a position on this forum.  So really, whatever your problem is with it, just let it go, it's ridiculous.    No ice, i could care less.   Doesn't sound like it.     Just that moderators are supposed to be neutral and you are far from it.   Moderators aren't supposed to be neutral.  They are supposed to carry out their moderation duties in a neutral fashion.    Humans aren't capable of true neutral behavior.   You got amped up over a fairly benign polictical discussion.   No, I seriously don't care.  I am AMP'd up over cowards like you that talk to no end on the internet.  I don't think I normally come across as a bad person, or a difficult one to get along with, but you made it your mission to piss me off.  You wouldn't even accept an advance apology.  Your wish is granted.  You are twisted.   Then after your attack , i lightly pushed your buttons and you've come more unglued. Ice, feel free to PM other long term posters here as to my history, I took it easy on you.   I don't have to contact long-term posters.  I've heard from several already - confirming my suspicion that this is just your typical behavior, and other people don't find it anymore tolerable than I do.
Unfortunately, against their advise, I was unable to keep my mouth shut while you ramble on with your b.s.    Truthfully, I'm not pissed off at you.   Truthfully.  I don't care.    Just perplexed that you would call me a liar over a perceived misstated fact.
Perplexed isn't even REMOTELY close to what you are.   Even if i were wrong on the fact, it wouldn't make me a liar.  I'd just be wrong on that fact.   Thank you, Captain Obvious!  BondGuy, are you this socially defunct in real life?    Gee, been there, got the Tee Shirt. In my opinion you needlessly attacked me and you are misinformed regarding the facts relevant to the point made in my orignal comments.   No BondGuy, NOW I'm attacking you.  Before, I thought I came off in a less-than-friendly-manner - NOW I am attacking you.    Personally, I don't see the moderator route working.   That's because you don't understand the term "moderation."  I bet if you were the only moderator, and it was your way, or the highway...you'd warm right up to moderation.   It's pretty clear politics is something you are deeply involved in - I'm sure most, if not all, of your FACTS are indeed correct.  Kudos.    By the way, just in case YOU missed it:   By the way, I didn't miss it. It wasn't an apology.   You are brain dead.  I'm sorry.  You are.  "I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy" - Seriously, get over yourself.    Here's a new one:  I regret apologizing to BondGuy, he is undeserving of an apology.    And you don't have to apologize. But before you go calling someone else a liar for stating a fact you are unaware of, read first, shoot second.   I'll refer to that...never.  BondGuy, my advice to you, would be to adjust your attitude when talking to real, live people...oh wait, I'm sure you do that already.   [quote=iceco1d]By the way,   I'm voting for McCain for pretty simple reasons:   1.  I like paying lower taxes and could give a flying f*ck about supporting losers on welfare, and other worthless government programs that I'll (along with the rest of the SUCCESSFUL, NON-LAZY, NON-LOSER population of the forum) NEVER see a benefit from.   2.  I think we should leave Iraq quickly, but not at the expense of being a pussyfoot.   3.  I am sick to death of Affirmative Action, and everything that resembles it.  I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I owned slaves and/or did my part to oppress minorities?  Obama is going to make that even worse...and at heart, I truly think he's racist.   4.  I don't hunt, but I own a few guns.  I'd like to retain that right.   That's about all, with MAJOR emphasis on #1.   [Edit:  I'm compelled to apologize, in advance, to BondGuy.  If my post came across as disrespectful, or with an attitude, I certainly apologize, as it wasn't my intent to be condescending.  I respect you a great deal, and appreciate your posts and industry knowledge.  I simply disagree with you on this [relatively unrelated] issue a great deal.][/quote]   What happened to, "if you would have just apologized directly to me...?"  I apologized to you before this even started.  Now, you can acknowledge my apology, admit you missed it, put your internet junk back in your pants, and we can move on, anytime you are ready.  [/quote] [/quote] [/quote]     Wow!   Personally, I like the red. I find it temper appropriate. 
Sep 3, 2008 3:19 pm

On the lighter side guys …after our respective elections , we WILL WAKE UP the next day and continue on. May I respectfully suggest before even more is said that we lighten up a bit Just one guy’s opinion.

Sep 3, 2008 4:10 pm

[quote=Indyone]

Having read your rejoinder, BG, I decided against engaging in the ever-lengthening point/counterpoint posts (which I'm guessing get skimmed when they start getting so long).  I spent some time at lunch looking at various online news agencies and the concensus of most is that the daughter pregancy is a non-issue.  Trooper-gate may or may not get much play in the end, but I can tell you this based on what I've read thus far...the brother-in-law sounds like a loose cannon who should not be packing a gun and possessing law enforcement powers.  When all the facts are known, I'll predict that trooper-gate will not be a problem for Palin.  The spousal DUI from 20+ years ago is just typical dirt journalism as is the one time affiliation with the AIP.  I've yet to see anything of real substance and still some are already calling her Eagleton.  I call that wishful thinking.

In response to your question on whether or not she is the most qualified Republican my question is, most qualified for what?  I think she would make an excellent second in support of McCain.  She is an energetic reformer, and strong on energy policy.  Goodness knows, we need some help there.  Certainly, there are aspects of the VP job where perhaps she was not the strongest candidate, but that could probably be said for almost any candidate for the position.  You can discount her past experience, but the same concerns are valid for Obama, who has perhaps a bit more foreign policy experience, although he's been a virtual no-show in the senate the past two years.  Conversely, Palin, although she's not running for the position of president, has at least a similar advantage over Obama in executive experience that he might have over her in the area of foreign policy.  If Palin should assume the office of the president (which is a far cry less likely than Obama at this point), she would have a cabinet of advisors to aid her in governance and two powerful checks and balances in the legislative and judiciary branches.  Frankly, I'm getting well ahead of myself here.  If the medical profession can keep Dick Cheney ticking for the last 8 years, I suspect McCain will be good for at least four.  It's obvious to me that McCain is very pleased to have Palin on his team and if he's elected, I think he'll find her a very useful ally in the White House.  It is also my personal hope that if elected, he asks Mitt Romney to join him as an economic advisor.  That, in my mind, would make for a pretty effective combination.

Back to work...your turn...[/quote]   I'm an independent. But if I was a republican I'd be mad as hell over Palin's veep run. Only because she is not the most qualified woman candidate in the repub party. Olympia Snowe the senator from Maine comes to mind as just one example.   Let's look at the past weekend:   McCain usurps Obama's convention bounce with a surprise veep pick. Brilliant!   Immediately, the news cycle turns negative & is dominated not by McCain's message or brilliance, but by republican after republican defending Palin, who like everyone has some baggage. The entire weekend was dominated by a negative news cycle. Not good! Ah, what is the repub message?   McCain was so secretive about his pick, wanting to kick Obama's butt, that he didn't inform key members of his own campaign. Thus there is, at this point, no narrative on Palin. The narrative guys were kept out of the loop. Thus the inconsistant response to legitimate questions surrounding her qualifcations. This was exemplified on CNN where McCain canceled an appearance on Larry King Live after a McCain top aide got caught off guard by a legit question. Apparently Mccain is miffed that the CNN anchor wouldn't let the aide off the hook and the aide clearly looked ridiculous. This is not good. Turns out that the question asked by CNN has a very positive answer for Palin. However, the McCain camp was unaware of that answer, which is scary and shows how unprepared they are. This will iron out, but half-assed is the only way the non faithful can view this. In other words bungled. We've had eight years of bungled, and now we've got it again? There is no excuse for a campaign not to know the published public policy facts about a vetted candidate.   The book on Palin is that she is excellent when scripted, but shakey when adlib.  Look for her to be electrifying tonite.   One note is that she has a tell when caught off guard. When asked a question to which she doesn't know the answer, she pauses and smiles, or cocks her head or purses her lips. Men interpret this as mild flirtation and as such go easy on her. Woman know she's a deer in the headlights and don't buy into it. Let's watch for this next week as she gets out on her own.   Palin has never been tested by a relentless press. One national columnist, who as a reporter covered an Alaskan Governor's race said what surprised him most, after trudging for weeks with one of the major candidates, was that not once did he see another reporter. If this was the case for Palin, well, she's not in Moosejaw anymore. It will be interesting to see how see does when not on script and with a press who are not members of her fan club.   Trooper-gate  - She is the only governor of Alaska who has been the target of an investigation. When the investigation was first announce she said bring it and that she has nothing to hide. She then hired a private attorney and is refusing to release somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 emails. Hmmm? One Alaskan source says that her refusal stems not from fear of criminal incrimination, but for her public image. Apparently, according to these sources, privately she is a petty and vindictive person and that comes out in these emails. Again, time will tell.   On a personal note on this thread what bothers me is that McCain supporters here have immediately embraced her. This I don't get. None of you, none of us, know her. How can you embrace someone you know nothing about? How reckless is that? This person could be president in a heartbeat. She may prove out to be the best thing that's ever happened to this country, but right now we know next to nothing about her.   I'll listen to what she has to say, but for me her being a creationist is a deal killer. It would take a lot of love for me to overcome that objection to someone who rejects known science. This from an oil and gas energy Governor who rejects that it took million of years for that oil and gas to form. To me this makes as much sense as someone who believes that the earth is flat. Her creationism beliefs make her an excellent VP candidate - for the 1860s.                  
Sep 3, 2008 5:08 pm

BG-

Alot of statements got lost in some of these line for line rebuttals in this thread.  One was that you think HRC is one of the few qualfied women to be POTUS.

It is hard to believe you are an independent especially given your vast knowledge of what is wrong with Palin and the constant lengthy knock down points on her and the Repubs.   On the other hand you dismiss the shortcoming of the dem. ticket with a simple statement that "Biden is a jackass."

You would like to see Hillary in the WH and we are to believe you are independent and an objective commentator?  Your lengthy negative posts on Palin make you appear “in the tank” for the dem. ticket.  Nothing wrong with that, but coupled with your positive viewpoint of Hillary, calling yourself independent seems to be a stretch.

If you really are independent, why not let the election play out further ( i.e. hear Palin and Biden in debate on issues) before jumping on one side?  Even better, how about McCain/Obama debating issues?


Sep 3, 2008 5:42 pm

Claim #1 (Palin was a member of the AIP) is debunked…and serious doubt of claim #2 (she supported Pat Buchanan’s presidential run) is raised by a news organization that is clearly not pro-Republican…

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/   I'll stand by my prediction that much of the media's attempt to undercut her candidacy will eventually be exposed as, at a minimum, inaccuarate and hasty conclusions, which have the potential to backfire among the electorate.   It's also interesting that the book on Palin is that she's very good when scripted but shaky when ad-libbing.  I don't doubt this as it's true for many politicians when faced with the spectacle of national media coverage.  It's also precisely the impression that I've had of Obama for some time.  His speeches are among the best of his generation, but in a town hall-type setting, such as the recent forum at Saddleback with Rick Warren, he struggled at times for answers, although I don't recall any gaffes to the degree of "hoping to eventually visit all 57 states" (paraphrase mine).  I won't say that he always comes off weak when ad-libbing, but I've noticed several examples when it seems as if he's struggling to find an answer, being careful to not say anything that will later bite him in the butt.   I've not set any decision in stone regarding Sarah Palin's candidacy, but I'll admit that my first and second impressions are positive, despite the media hatchet job we all knew she was going to face almost as soon as she was announced.  Again, to their credit, the Democratic ticket has remained above the fray and refused to take the bait lobbed at them by several reporters.  My guess is, as long as the polling margin remains at least mostly in place (6-8 points), they'll stay the course.  If the race gets tight...who knows...politics can be a rough business...
Sep 3, 2008 7:03 pm

Rugby,

  I said Clinton was qualified. Where did I say I'd vote for her?   There is plenty from the dem platfrom that i'm not on board with. Bigger government, higher taxes, no nuclear power, nimby. I weight that against pre-emptive war, secret government and Real ID. I also weight it against eight years of of lies and bungled government, an economy in the shit hole, and a record deficit that only higher taxes and a strong economy will erase. From whom do you suggest we take those higher taxes?   Did i say something  negative about Palin? As the lone non member of the Sarah Palin fan club here on RR forums I merely point out the truth about the stranger many of you have embraced without knowing for the second highest office in the land. That you take it as negative isn't my fault. That it is negative isn't my fault. I didn't create the investigation into her past. Nor the investgation of wrong doing. And, I'm not responsible for her creationist views. Though I believe many here are on board with that anyway.   Note that i didn't mention any of the trash that's circulating about her, AIP, baby is really her daughter's etc. I did mention some things to watch for. And I offered a plausable non criminal reason for her legally shielding emails sought by investigators. Additionally, past creationism i didn't mention any of the religious commentary circulating about her.   I stand by my statements that her executive experience is bush league. Now let's see how it plays on a national stage.   The truth is, McCain in picking her threw a hail mary pass. Without someone like her, to energize his campaign, he was finished. It will either make it a race or blow up in his face. Point to John for having some balls. Now all he has to do is convince the 200 million plus americans who will benefit from Obama's tax policies that he's their guy.   And again, in case you missed it, I predict that tonight Palin will wow the crowd. Will she wow america?   As for your thinking i'm not independent, of course you would think that. I've spent a lot of bandwidth here downing McCain's judgement in picking Palin. That doesn't make me a democrat. It makes me a thinking person. Then again, perhaps you are so far right you don't recognize the center when you see it? I don't know you well enough to make that judgement. Try some far left sites and you'll find I'm far from the left. Not that it matters.
Sep 3, 2008 8:03 pm

Let’s not forget among all this, that there are infinite reasons why certain, apparently “qualified” candidates, are not considered for the VP role.  Some don’t want it, some have checkered pasts that we will never know about (most likely case), and some have sketchy voting records in Congress or elsewhere.  So, often times, it comes down to the best of the mediocre, not the best of the best.  Also, there is so much jockying and strategy involved, that often times the VP candidate is selected for reasons we can’t begin to imagine.  I think it is reasonable to assume that Palin MAY have been selected for what will happen in 4 years if the McCain ticket wins…“talk amongst yaselves”

Sep 3, 2008 8:59 pm

[quote=BondGuy]Rugby,


As for your thinking i’m not independent, of course you would think that. I’ve spent a lot of bandwidth here downing McCain’s judgement in picking Palin. That doesn’t make me a democrat. It makes me a thinking person. Then again, perhaps you are so far right you don’t recognize the center when you see it? I don’t know you well enough to make that judgement. Try some far left sites and you’ll find I’m far from the left. Not that it matters. [/quote]

BG-  If you were a thinking person you would give equal bandwidth to the vetting of Biden and the dems.  How about some positives on Palin to go with all of the negatives?  Unfortunately, you are coming across as partisan and close minded. 

I’m guessing you have visited a fair share of far left sites to help craft some of the fiction you have posted here.
Sep 3, 2008 11:31 pm

If I were a thinking person? Nice!

  For days before i got on to this thread the boys here were doing  a pretty good job of downing Palin themselves. What with the hittin it comments and links to GILF Tee shirt websites. So, I guess i'm confused as to just what's getting under your skin about my comments. Several here participated in sexist comments and you give them a pass? There were racist comments as well regarding Obama that no one got called on.  You didn't call any of them on their comments. Why? Are you a racist as well? Or a sexist?   The thread turned to Palin. i didn't turn it there. I merely followed. I figured the bar had been set low by the sexist/GILF crowd and that i could come in with some facts to try to raise the conversation a bit. Little did i know sexist/GILF OK, facts out of bounds. Apparently here, telling posters that Palin is the Governor I'd like to F**k isn't a problem, but talking about her real baggage in a non offensive way is. My mistake.   And you call me the non thinking person?        
Sep 4, 2008 3:12 am

Just for grins, I’m going to start marking the RCP poll average so we can watch the direction of the race between now and election day.

  As of 9/3/2008 - Obama 48.8% - McCain 43.0 - Obama+5.8%
Sep 4, 2008 3:25 am

S\Will be interesting to see the polls tomorrow .

She really killed it tonight.
Sep 4, 2008 3:29 pm

Hockey Mom Scores - Washington post

  Palin's First Punch A solid Hit - LA Times   Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party -  NYT   A Hockey Mom Finds Her Voice - The Philadelphia Inquirer   Then there is this:   Palin's using the Bridge to nowhere as an example of her fiscal conservatism isn't quite true. She was for it until the federal government pulled the funding. She wanted it but only if she didn't have to pay for it. - Fox News (of all places!)   Pentecostalism obsured in Palin's biography - Associated Press   Palin had her youngest child after a prenatal showed he had Down syndrome. But she doesn't believe other woman should be able to make their own choice. Prenancy is indeed private. Decisions are to be discussed and determined in a family. But the party meeting in St. Paul Minnesota would put decisions about prenancy in the hands of the government... - Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Ellen Goodman   A number of business and political leaders in Alaska said noone from the McCain camp spoke to them before she was selected - Philadelphia Inquirer   McCain has made his opposition to federal earmanrks a cornerstone of his candidacy. But as mayor of Wallisa..., Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure $27 million in other federal earmarks. - Philadelphia inquirer   The speech that Gov Sarah Palin gave was well delivered, but was written by George Bush's speech writer and sounds like exactly the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George for the last eight years - The Obama campaign   Why is this important? Because it doesn't matter how she played to the crowd in St. Paul. What matters is how she plays in places she needs to win to become veep.     Me: If you look a Pennsylvania it's a red state that is blue on it's southeastern and south western corners. According to the local ABC affiliate 6ABC, located in Philadelphia,  the speech was a hohum typical stump speech, well delivered.   My opinion: The barracuda did a fine job! McCain has his attack dog. A Pit Bull with lipstick!   I though Rudy was better   Huckabee, showed why he's alikable person but got his facts wrong with the Palin got more votes for mayor than Biden got in his run for president. The numbers are: 1996 palin won 651 votes, 1999 she won 909 votes, versus Biden getting 2378 with his fifth place Iowa finish. Biden went on to get over 79,000 votes in other states after he dropped out. I will addd, everyone of them a wrong vote!   Romney was embarrassing.   However, all in all the losers bracket did it's job.   Absent from all speeches any mention of the B word. B as in Bush. Why bring the crowd down? Also absent, any mention of issues which polling clearly shows the repubs losing on all points. Turns out you can't control the WH for eight years, the congress for 6 out of the last 8, and the Supreme court for 7 out of the last 8, totally screw up foreign policy, get us into a war, and eff up the economy, and then claim you are not to blame. So why remind people of all those accomplishments?   Listening to all the speeches of what they will do if elected I kept thinking, but you've got the white house now, why wait?   McCain is a good man and would make a good president.   It should be a good race.          
Sep 4, 2008 4:00 pm

Rudy did get lost in the shuffle.  I looked at him and Fred Thompson and thought, if they’d delivered that well during the campaign, they might have made the ticket.  Someone said that they were so far behind schedule last night that they were feeding Rudy’s teleprompter whole paragraphs at a time and he had to do a lot of ad-libbing to keep up.  If that’s so, it makes his time at the podium that much more impressive…I didn’t notice him missing a beat.

  Two questions come to mind after last night.  One, which you've already referenced is how will the candidates do with answering off the cuff?  My best guess is that McCain and Biden will be more polished than the two younger candidates, but I doubt if any of the candidates at this point will leave us with many serious gaffes.  The second question is...how hard will McCain have to work tonight to not be upstaged by his veep's performance last night?  Delivering speeches is where the younger candidates are shining and the pit bull with lipstick may have left McCain with a hard act to follow.   I'll try to remember to put up the national poll numbers from time to time, but if you're a political junkie, like I'm becoming, a good bi-partisan site where I pull much of my political intelligence is Real Clear Politics.  Here's their link:   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/   If you're not watching, listening and reading, you shouldn't be voting.
Sep 4, 2008 4:09 pm

[quote=Indyone]

If you're not watching, listening and reading, you shouldn't be voting.[/quote]   Amen to that!
Sep 4, 2008 4:33 pm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

That is an excellent site, thanks for the link.  The polling numbers are interesting, especially in the battleground states.

I’m not getting too caught up in the polling numbers, as their track record was just horrible the last election.  I’m sure they made some adjustments, but they seem to be all over the map at this point and still too many undecided out there.

Look for the sentiment to swing to one ticket just days or a week before the election.  I personally think what will trigger it is the performance and sound bites in debate (Obama & McCain).  (Reagan with his words and confidence in '80 versus Carter; Nixon sweating and pale versus Kennedy etc…)  Should be a barn burner and super exciting to watch.  4 Scenarios at this point-

1)  Obama eeks it out against McCain  (wins a few battlegrounds and does well down the stretch)

2)  McCain eeks it out against Obama (no Palin McCain gaffes, Ohio, PA, Florida give it to him)

3)  McCain-Palin win in landslide, country at least off the coasts not voting for Obama due to race, experience issue, etc.; he can’t close the deal/connect with middle America like he couldn’t against Hillary.  Obama debate gaffe.

4)  Obama wins in landslide.  MCCain-Palin blow up.  Obama connects to middle America (blue collar) and MCain screws up royally.

I could see 1,2,3 happening.  #4 I find it difficult to see happening primarily due to race (not fair, but a reality?), unanswered questions about Obama (Ayers, Rev. Wright), and because of many of the points Palin outlined in her speech last night.

Sep 5, 2008 1:44 pm

Sooner or later McCain is going to have to stop attacking Obama and start talking issues. Polling clearly indicates the repubs dead in the starting gate on that count. Economy in the shithole with them in power to blame. Being bogged down in Iraq and having the six foot seven diabetic who attacked us still walking around isn’t helping much either.

  Though you can't put much faith in a convention speech to the home team, McCain tried to distance himself last night. However, while he is a maverick, he is also a member of the entrenched elite who have maintained the status quo. So, now he's done with that?    Obama's appeal to blue collar america is in his promise to help them. While the John McCains of the world are getting richer these people are struggling to make ends meet, are losing their jobs, and in some cases losing their homes. Can a guy who owns six, or is it seven, homes connect with them?   McCain also may not be who he says he is. Last night he spent  alot of time telling us how he has always put country first. I'll give you he is a good man. However, in his ambition to win the oval office he contridicted those country first words with his pick of Sarah Palin. Palin was picked, clearly, to connect with the republican social converative base who were unexcited about his candidacy. They are now raving about his brilliance. Yet, she has zero foreign policy experience, next to zero domestic expereince and is a contradiction herself in that her anti pork fiscal conservatism is newly found. As mayor and again as governor she had little problem spending federal earmarks. In fact she sought them with zeal. So she's fine with wasting other peoples money. I'll give you that she is a fabulous speaker. So, in her pick for veep, McCain did not put country first, he put himself first. This is how it reads to those not in the fold. Actions speak louder than words.   Next week out of the glare of the lights of St paul should be interesting.  
Sep 5, 2008 3:28 pm

RCP Average polling this morning:

Obama - 47.2% - McCain - 43.4% - Obama +3.8%   As expected, the race tightens back up with the Republican convention counter-bounce.  I would expect it to tighten further as the convention is not yet all factored in.   We'll have to disagree with Palin not being a country first choice.  In McCain's mind, he's better for the country than Obama and the VP choice will probably not have a significant effect on policy if he's elected president, other than possibly opening up ANWR if Palin can influence his thoughts in that area.  McCain is doing what he thinks is necessary to prevent an Obama presidency, which he likely views as a very bad thing for the country.   All the arguments about Palin's lack of experience stick to Obama as well and again, he's running for the #1 spot on the ticket, putting that glaring inexperience at the top.  The more that is made of Palin's relative lack of experience, the more Obama's campaign opens their man up to the same criticism.   As expected, McCain's speech, which while not a disaster, certainly did not excite and inspire like his veep's did.  As has been said many times, McCain should do better off the cuff than he does with a prepared speech.   Rush Limbaugh said something to the effect last night that he sees some unfortunate event causing Biden to bow out of the campaign opening up the door for Hillary to join the ticket and stem the momentum that the Palin pick is giving to McCain.  That's clearly one of the most outrageous statements that I've seen from the far right blogs this campaign season...
Sep 5, 2008 9:57 pm

At this stage the Palin pick is being received very well.  The Obama camp is adjusting to the “rock star” label being moved from him to her.  Interesting that her speech drew more TV viewers than his acceptance speech in Denver.

Her lack of “experience” is not really a negative thus far and is instead drawing attention to Obama’s resume (i.e.):

-  What does a “community Organizer” actually do?

-  Why did he compare his experience of running a big budget campaign to her running a 12 mil. a year town budget with 50 employees?  Do any of you put your job hunt as experience on your resume?  Not the best comparison, but you may get my point…his experience is thin…That can’t play well and is appears to be hurting him.

-  Obama comments today that he has been at this for 19 months, and Palin 4 days and if she wants to be treated as one of the guys…All of this focus on Palin, his experience etc…is not helping him win over the voters he needs to send him to the WH.   He should avoid talking about her AT ALL.  Rock star persona sticks on her at least through the election.  Likely much longer.

My dem. friends all mention ethics legislation as his experience and qualifications.  That is the one talking point I keep hearing over and over.  What else?  Leader of the Harvard law review is a little too early in his career for me BG.  What has he done lately?  Campaigning for prez, writing books, playing the part of a big time politician…?  IMO, status quo with a fresh face.

Sep 6, 2008 12:38 am
BondGuy:

Sooner or later McCain is going to have to stop attacking Obama and start talking issues.

Are you describing Obama, or McCain?  It sounds to me like you have the two of them confused.

 Yet, she has zero foreign policy experience, next to zero domestic expereince …So she’s fine with wasting other peoples money. I’ll give you that she is a fabulous speaker. So, in her pick for veep,

In a similar vein, can’t we pretty much use the same words as above to describe Obama’s track record and lack of executive experience?
 
Sep 6, 2008 1:28 pm

Hyman, the experience thing is so, well, last week. The new new thing is CHANGE! Try to keep up.

  I can't blame you if you fell asleep during John's speech, but just so you know,  the messege was change. His campajgn managers took one look at the election map and realized that experience, in itself, was a non starter. They need to first connect with Obama's change messege and then push the experience gap. This will give Obama's change supporters a no gap bridge to cross over to McCain's camp.   Of course there is one problem with this:   "We are all Georgians"   Remember McCain saying this? You can google it. He said it recently and prominately in support of the republic of Georgia. He said it on advice from his senior foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann. Turns out that Randy is a lobbyist. A lobbyist who's firm took $200,000 from the Georgian government this past spring to represent them in DC. Of course the McCain camp says there is no connection. Isn't that what politicians always say? I'd say that was money well spent. What do you think?   Considering how many lobbyist are working for McCain on his campaign including his campaign mamager, long time republican insider and lobbyist Rick Davis, his change messege is laughable. The messege, as stated above, is merely a sleight of hand campaign tactic to draw off Obama's change supporters. The coasts are already figuring this out, leaving the question; is the middle of the country gullible enough to buy into it? Based on 04, my guess is yes. Never under estimate the gullibillity of the heartland. Good people, who take people at their word. Even those they shouldn't.   Hyman, think for a moment about this: McCain is employing DC insiders, lobbyist, and Bush admin advisors in all the key roles within his campaign. Yet, he says it's a new day DC and all these people are out on their asses come day one of his administration. Do you really believe that will happen?   It's a new day yet "We are all Georgians." A $200,000 sound bite.   Smart campaigning, but sleight of hand. This doesn't play well with those who are tired of the subterfuge.   As for the John not talking issues, his campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters that this campaign is not about issues. Well, when you've effed up for eight years what else are you going to say?   Agree though, Obama needs to sharpen his messege and stop parsing his coomments.  
Sep 6, 2008 3:05 pm

"The coasts are already figuring this out, leaving the question; is the middle of the country gullible enough to buy into it? Based on 04, my guess is yes. Never under estimate the gullibillity of the heartland. Good people, who take people at their word. Even those they shouldn’t."



From someone in the heartland, these are offensive and divisive words, my friend. They sound just like Obama did in San Francisco ealier, and that, more than anything will be the reason he struggles in the flyover states (and yes, we find that term offensive also). Without being racist, sexist, etc., we folks in the heartland think there are plenty of idiots on the coasts also. I don’t believe those folks smashing windows this week were from Minnesota.

Sep 6, 2008 4:13 pm

Any argument that McCain is a crooked politician (i.e. Georgian lobbyist connection) is deeply flawed. 

If we are now indeed moving from last week’s “experience” argument to the “change” argument…Like Obama is ill advised to go after Palin regarding experience; he really cannot afford to take on McCain in the “judgment” and “shady politician” argument.  Why?  A few reasons:

1)  Tony Rezko, convicted felon slumlord (linked to him through his time as a “community organizer”, financial backer to get him going on this wonderful journey he has been on.

2)  Rev. Wright.  Need we see say more about judgment?

3)  The William Ayers connection.  This one needs more light shed on it.  Too bad for the Repubs. that the Media couldn’t put as much into finding out about this association  as they did the Palin baby story.  I have a feeling more will come out about this.   If not, this is still a large knock on the judgment of Obama.

Like Obama is in a tough spot on experience issue and VP issue…Their camp is also dead in the water on shady connections, politician stereotypes, character, judgment, arguments when comparing to McCain.

I agree that this about CHANGE.  Obama’s challenge is how he can convince voters that he is the best candidate to initiate change and to minimize everything else…My guess it will prove very difficult for him to accomplish when he has not differentiated himself in other areas in any extraordinary way.  While the election should be about change, can he hold the voters focus there and then sell the voters on his specific changes?   I can’t see enough people buying into him…Lets see though…If he is that special, maybe he can get it done.  The worst part if he loses is that wench Hillary will be back on the scene in 4 short years.

Sep 6, 2008 4:21 pm

As for the John not talking issues, his campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters that this campaign is not about issues. Well, when you’ve effed up for eight years what else are you going to say?

You know it really isn't about the issues.  People are tired of hearing the same tired old talking points (aka lies) being repeated over and over and over by people who don't know WTF they are even talking about.  Pie in the sky.  Tax/punish the rich. Everything for free.  Nothing turns me off of a candidate or his appointed mouthpiece more than answering a question with a pre prepared script that has nothing to do with the question.  They are only out there to parrot and squawk their mantras not engage in serious discussions.   None of us out here in the real world believe anything they say.

Character and honesty are what more people are interested in.  General overall goals and themes that we think the candidates actually believe and will really be able to attempt to implement, rather than beating us over the head with the same old same old points with everyone using the exact same words.  They must have little hand books and practice together like a synchronized swimming team....  All together now,  Sarah Palin hasn't got the experience to be President on day one..... All together now....We can't drill our way out of this oil crisis.    All together now......   The mere fact that Palin is completely outside of the mold the the left liberal elites consider proper for a woman  and that she thumbs her nose at them is enough for me to think that she IS ready.   Nevermind that she has been a Mayor and Governor....not nearly as impressive as working within the corrupt Chicago political machine to get some toilets working in slums that the Democrats created by their very own policies.   As to the education thingy that BG thinks is so important.  If you went to an ivy league school that somehow makes you better than a person who went to a lesser (low class) school?    It's all about getting a degree to be able to make executive decisions, is it?   Well, somebody better tell that to Bill Gates.  I guess he isn't ready to run one of the most profitable and influential companies in the world.  He should step down!!
Sep 6, 2008 8:54 pm

[quote=BondGuy]Hyman, the experience thing is so, well, last week. The new new thing is CHANGE! Try to keep up.

  I can't blame you if you fell asleep during John's speech, but just so you know,  the messege was change. His campajgn managers took one look at the election map and realized that experience, in itself, was a non starter. They need to first connect with Obama's change messege and then push the experience gap. This will give Obama's change supporters a no gap bridge to cross over to McCain's camp.   Of course there is one problem with this:   "We are all Georgians"   Remember McCain saying this? You can google it. He said it recently and prominately in support of the republic of Georgia. He said it on advice from his senior foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann. Turns out that Randy is a lobbyist. A lobbyist who's firm took $200,000 from the Georgian government this past spring to represent them in DC. Of course the McCain camp says there is no connection. Isn't that what politicians always say? I'd say that was money well spent. What do you think?   Considering how many lobbyist are working for McCain on his campaign including his campaign mamager, long time republican insider and lobbyist Rick Davis, his change messege is laughable. The messege, as stated above, is merely a sleight of hand campaign tactic to draw off Obama's change supporters. The coasts are already figuring this out, leaving the question; is the middle of the country gullible enough to buy into it? Based on 04, my guess is yes. Never under estimate the gullibillity of the heartland. Good people, who take people at their word. Even those they shouldn't.   Hyman, think for a moment about this: McCain is employing DC insiders, lobbyist, and Bush admin advisors in all the key roles within his campaign. Yet, he says it's a new day DC and all these people are out on their asses come day one of his administration. Do you really believe that will happen?   It's a new day yet "We are all Georgians." A $200,000 sound bite.   Smart campaigning, but sleight of hand. This doesn't play well with those who are tired of the subterfuge.   As for the John not talking issues, his campaign manager Rick Davis told reporters that this campaign is not about issues. Well, when you've effed up for eight years what else are you going to say?   Agree though, Obama needs to sharpen his messege and stop parsing his coomments.  [/quote]

Agreed that it is hard to swallow McCain's talk about 'change' when he has so many insiders trying to ride on his coattails.

But the guy was strong enough to resist torture in the Hanoi Hilton, so who's to say he can't fight off the attempts of DC insiders to co-opt his rise to power.  Maybe he is using them to get elected, but they have underestimated his strength of will.

I find Obama to be an intelligent man and one of the best speakers I've ever seen.  Yet, here's what I've learned about him that makes him a complete non-starter when I try to consider with an open mind giving him my "change" vote:

1.)  He has already confirmed that he intends to raise my taxes, and is playing the old traditional democratic card of demonizing the rich.  I've never once seen a situation where ANY economy was helped by a higher tax burden.  Furthermore, it is those "evil rich" who are often the entrepreneurs who have started companies and provided jobs to those poor working class folks Mr. Obama has sworn to serve.   Ironic, really, considering that he's made millions from two books that he wrote while working as a government employee.

2.) Related to #1, he's exhibited a fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic of economic theories and principles  whenever I've seen him speak on the subject.

3.) His lack of experience is a major concern to me.  From what I know of his career, he does not have any significant "executive" experience where he has been responsible for leading folks to acheive a concrete goal.  Furthermore, in his limited time in the legistlature(on both a state and local level) he has not authored a significant piece of legislation, nor led any significant initiatives.  What has he actually done other than write books and campaign for the presidency?

4.) I am especially concerned about his lack of experience(and apparent lack of savvy) when it comes to international affairs.  He has publicly stated that, as the head of the most powerful democracy in the free world, he would be willing to meet with the president of IRAN and the leader of the Palestinian Authority with NO PRECONDITIONS.  These are people who see a willingness to negotiate on their terms as a sign of weakness.  If Obama were to do this as President, it would be very hurtful to our image in the Middle East, and would send a signal to other hostile countries and terrorist groups that we were being led by an administration that was weak and naive when it came to protecting our country.

5.)  I find his connections to Rev. Wright to be troubling.  More so when he tried to deny ever knowing that Rev. Wright had such hateful and divisive views about his own mother country.  How could Obama be a member of that congregation for over a decade, be a friend of Rev Wright, and not know that Rev. Wright hold those radical viewpoints?  It calls Mr. Obama's very credibility into question IMHO.

In summary, I will say again that I think he is a great man with profoundly good intentions.  I also respect his place in history.

But for the reasons outlined above, I just can't trust him.  McCain is far from perfect, but I'll sleep a lot better with him in the White House than Mr. Obama.
Sep 6, 2008 9:02 pm

[quote=BondGuy]Hyman, the experience thing is so, well, last week. The new new thing is CHANGE! Try to keep up.

  I can't blame you if you fell asleep during John's speech, but just so you know,  the messege was change.[/quote]

Agreed as well that when it comes to delivering a prepared speech, McCain doesn't measure up to Obama.  But that's only a small part of the job they're competing for.....
Sep 6, 2008 9:47 pm
  I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.     >From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 

 

Sep 7, 2008 3:57 am

[quote=Primo]

  I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.     >From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 [/quote]

I'll get back to most of you with some thoughts on your posts, but let me take this piece of trash first.   Here in America anyone can say whatever they want. They can even email it to as many people as they wish and the can post it on forums like this one. Obviously Primo isn't an Obama fan and when he got this email he was so happy to get the goods on Obama he sends it here to alert us to the real Obama.   Of course(and you know this is coming) none of it is true. The statements are either completely made up, twisted to another menaing or taken out of context.   For example the statement about whites, Obama never said it. The statement about standing with Muslims: in context  that he would never inter them as we did the Japanese in WW2.   The first tip off should come from the fact that the originator of this email trash wasn't smart enough to even get the title of Obama's book right. The correct title of the book is  Dreams From My Father. The actual quotes come from places like "The American Conservative" Big surprise there!   Factcheck.org, and snopes completely debunk this email as completetly untrue. It is untrue ,read the books if you don't trust Factcheck.org     Here's the problem: I'm gonna give Primo the benefit of a doubt here and say he wouldn't have posted this here if he knew it was untrue.   I don't know where Primo lives, but that's the gullibility I speak of.   How many of you read that post and believed it to be true? How many of you thought it could be partially true. Primo thought it was true and  I'd bet he's not alone.   How many non thinkers out there do you suppose will see an email like this and use it as a basis for their vote? The bogus Pledge of Alligiance email helped defeat Obama in the Ohio primary.   In an informed thinking society emails such as this would pose no threat. Informed, thinking?  That ain't us folks.   People the only thing at stake is our future. I'm only saying, regardless of who you are for or against, think.
Sep 7, 2008 2:18 pm

Indy, gullible: offensive and devisive words?

  Gullibily is not a negative. It's one who is easily duped or deceived.  That's the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you at your word? I don't see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That's your problem.   To clear it up in the context of my post here's what i meant; For those who voted for Bush in 2004, let's start with this question; If you knew then what you know today about George Bush, the lies, the deceit, all the rest, would you have voted for him?   Most people answer that question no.   Most people today are not happy about the direction Bush has taken us and had they known then what they know today they most likely would not have voted for him in 2004. Here's the point: The Bush negatives were in the public domain in 2004. There for anyone who wanted to see them. However, the 04 Bush campaign was in itself so deceptive that many people were deceived into voting him to a second term. The heartland is awash in red on that count. Can i blame them for falling for the deceit? yes and no.   I'll give you that it may be unfair to call the only heartland gullible when I live in a repulican congresssional district that went for Bush in 04. Especially when i have neighbors tell me how discusted they are with Bush/cheney and they quote something they don't like. Mostly it's the war, but almost all of what i hear was out there before 04. They too were duped.    You said it best yourself "If you're not watching, listening and reading you shouldn't be voting."  
Sep 7, 2008 2:36 pm

[quote=BondGuy][quote=Primo]

  I thinnk Obama's own words speak for themselves.     >From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

 From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

 From Dreams of My Father:  'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

 From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

  >From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

 [/quote]

I'll get back to most of you with some thoughts on your posts, but let me take this piece of trash first.   Here in America anyone can say whatever they want. They can even email it to as many people as they wish and the can post it on forums like this one. Obviously Primo isn't an Obama fan and when he got this email he was so happy to get the goods on Obama he sends it here to alert us to the real Obama.   Of course(and you know this is coming) none of it is true. The statements are either completely made up, twisted to another menaing or taken out of context.   For example the statement about whites, Obama never said it. The statement about standing with Muslims: in context  that he would never inter them as we did the Japanese in WW2.   The first tip off should come from the fact that the originator of this email trash wasn't smart enough to even get the title of Obama's book right. The correct title of the book is  Dreams From My Father. The actual quotes come from places like "The American Conservative" Big surprise there!   Factcheck.org, and snopes completely debunk this email as completetly untrue. It is untrue ,read the books if you don't trust Factcheck.org     Here's the problem: I'm gonna give Primo the benefit of a doubt here and say he wouldn't have posted this here if he knew it was untrue.   I don't know where Primo lives, but that's the gullibility I speak of.   How many of you read that post and believed it to be true? How many of you thought it could be partially true. Primo thought it was true and  I'd bet he's not alone.   How many non thinkers out there do you suppose will see an email like this and use it as a basis for their vote? The bogus Pledge of Alligiance email helped defeat Obama in the Ohio primary.   In an informed thinking society emails such as this would pose no threat. Informed, thinking?  That ain't us folks.   People the only thing at stake is our future. I'm only saying, regardless of who you are for or against, think. [/quote]   At first I felt bad BG that you put that much effort in to responding to obviously false statements.  To use your own words, the wrong title of the book was the first clue.  You suggested that I "think", I suggest you do the same.  Then I went to factcheck.org and realized you basically copied their text in your post.  Now I am back to being amused.  Ironically, I posted the email to see who would bite on it.  Who would take it at face value and run with it.  In other words, who doesn't "think".
Sep 7, 2008 2:54 pm

Hyman, did you vote for Bush in 2000?

  If so was his foreign policy experience a front burner issue with you then as it is for you with Obama today? Even if it was, you did you still vote for Bush?   Pre first term Bush had zero foreign policy experience. This isn't  atop secret or some left wing tin foil diatribe. Nor is it as some RR posters put it, a first class lie, or fiction. Bush freely admits to this. Read Bob Woodward's book 'State of Denial" if you are interested in learning the details of Bush's early FP mentoring.   So the question is: if it wasn't an issue then, why is it an issue now?   The answer is it shouldn't be an issue at all. Many presidents come to office with no foreign policy expereince. The question shouldn't be are they qualified on day one. Because, clearly, most aren't. Clinton and Bush are two modern day examples. The question should be, do they have the capacity to grow into the job based on their experiences and character?   It is only an issue because Mccain has made it an issue in this campaign. He can't run on the iisues because he is a clear loser on the the issues. So, first he ran on experience and now he's running on change.   Hyman, back in 2000, if you voted for Bush, was his minister a front burner issue for then as it is for you today with obama?   I'm gonna guess no. And that's as it should be.   I too respect Mccain's military history but we're past that now. it's what is he going to do to lead this country?   As for the economy, It is Obama who has hit the nail square on the head. it is the Mccain campaign that is adjusting to counter Obama's very effective with working guy message.   Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element. Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn't play well in factory towns.            
Sep 7, 2008 5:31 pm

Anyone else get the impression that Bond Guy is a complete elitist snob that you wouldn’t invite to a back yard barbeque if your life depended on it?  

Gullibily is not a negative. It’s one who is easily duped or deceived.
 That’s the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not
discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you
at your word? I don’t see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do
then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That’s your problem.

He can’t understand why his words are offensive to those of us who live in small town America.  Sure, everyone likes being called gullible and condescended to by people like Bond Guy.  Being told that your values are just a result of some sort of mental defect. Keep it up.  Keep insulting people and that’s a sure fire way to win them to your side.  Hope you don’t use this tactic with your clients. 

Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national
spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element.
Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity
Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn’t play well in factory
towns.

Ah yes… the old class warfare bullshit that the left always tries to play. I know no such thing about her outfit as I don’t read Vanity Fair, who would?  First of all, as a woman I thought that Cindy McCain looked rather nice if a bit overdressed.  I preferred Sarah Palin’s more understated style.

However, what plays well in factory towns is the fact that Cindy’s family got their wealth the good old fashioned way by working their asses off: starting a small business with one beer truck and building it into a success story that is the dream of those poor gullible dopes (as Bond Guy would put it) who live in the factory towns.   Clue for you…people are not resentful of such stories but instead take hope that they too might be able to achieve the same success.

Try again.  This is the crap that the left keeps trying to float, but it won’t work because you have no connection to or understanding of what Mid America or small town America is about.

Here is a story to illustrate the snobbish disconnection of city vs the rest of the country.  Snobs like Obama vs ordinary working people like Palin.  I live in a rural/agricultural/resort area.  Recently had some relatives come to visit from the Big City.  At a local function I introduced them to one of my clients who was wearing jeans, beaten up cowboy hat and had just come from a ‘roping competition’.  My relatives were cold and not in the least interested in talking to him and after he left made fun of him.   Little did they know he is a multi multi millionare who owns large amounts of the Big City they came from and has controlling interests in several industrial center complexes throughout the State as well as homes in places they could only hope to visit.   My client built his wealth based on a small plumbing business in the Big City that he inherited from his father.  He lives here in bumfuck rural America because he wants to and he likes the people who live here and holds the same values.   They were standing in the midst of millionares and people who can afford to own $80,000 horse trailers for their $100,000 roping horses and enjoy doing what they like.   BUT…because they didn’t have the designer sun glasses, perfectly coifed hair and had some dirt
on their boots they passed them over like they were trailer trash. See yourself in this scenario anywhere BG?

Sep 7, 2008 6:28 pm

Bond Guy…I suggest you read something other than the Daily Kos for your talking points.  The dress that Cindy McCain wore wasn’t 300K.  Granted she was wearing some kick ass jewelry which she owns and paid for through her business income.  No one gives Angelena Jolie grief for her expensive expensive outfits…or for her mothering skills for all the children she has accumulated either.

When Cindy McCain made her first appearance at the Republican National
Convention, she was wearing a buttercup-yellow shirt dress with a
flipped-up collar by Seventh Avenue designer Oscar de la Renta. As is
the current fashion, the dress looked as though the designer had found
some inspiration in the early 1960s world of “Mad Men.” It was
feminine, reserved and lovely. Ballpark price for a de la Renta dress:
$3,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090501027.html?nav=rss_print/style

How much do you pay for one of your good business suits and accessories?  Rolex?

Sep 7, 2008 6:36 pm

Looney, it is only wrong to be wealthy if your are not a Democrat.  I would like to see a Democrat put their money where their mouth is.  Maybe send a few extra bucks to the IRS each year to do their part.   

Sep 7, 2008 10:45 pm

Primo, are you saying that you posted the email knowing it was false?

  I gave you the benefit of a doubt that you posted it thinking it was true? We all do that from time to time. An honest mistake. From an integrity POV, that's the better outcome. Lest we never trust anything you post here in the future.   After rereading my post I apologize to you about the thinker comment. In the last three lines of that post i was talking about people in general, not you. After rereading it though, I don't blame you if you're pissed at me. I can see how it reads. Just to be clear, i wasn't calling you a non thinker.
Sep 7, 2008 11:02 pm

I’m not upset in the least, and yes I was aware it was false before I posted it.  I assumed it was so blatantly obvious that only a “non-thinker” (to use your own term) would run with it.  Sometimes I have been criticized for my subtlety.

Sep 7, 2008 11:48 pm
babbling looney:

Anyone else get the impression that Bond Guy is a complete elitist snob that you wouldn’t invite to a back yard barbeque if your life depended on it?  

Gullibily is not a negative. It’s one who is easily duped or deceived.  That’s the personality trait of a trusting person. Does this not discribe the personality of the american heartland?People who take you at your word? I don’t see it as offensive or devisive, and if you do then you are reading in an alternative meaning. That’s your problem.

He can’t understand why his words are offensive to those of us who live in small town America.  Sure, everyone likes being called gullible and condescended to by people like Bond Guy.  Being told that your values are just a result of some sort of mental defect. Keep it up.  Keep insulting people and that’s a sure fire way to win them to your side.  Hope you don’t use this tactic with your clients. 

Not advising your wife to leave the bling at home while in the national spotlight  of a presidential convention shows an out of touch element. Cindy, as you know by now was wearing an outfit estimated by Vanity Fair to be worth $300,000. Hyman, that doesn’t play well in factory towns.

Ah yes… the old class warfare bullshit that the left always tries to play. I know no such thing about her outfit as I don’t read Vanity Fair, who would?  First of all, as a woman I thought that Cindy McCain looked rather nice if a bit overdressed.  I preferred Sarah Palin’s more understated style.

However, what plays well in factory towns is the fact that Cindy’s family got their wealth the good old fashioned way by working their asses off: starting a small business with one beer truck and building it into a success story that is the dream of those poor gullible dopes (as Bond Guy would put it) who live in the factory towns.   Clue for you…people are not resentful of such stories but instead take hope that they too might be able to achieve the same success.

Try again.  This is the crap that the left keeps trying to float, but it won’t work because you have no connection to or understanding of what Mid America or small town America is about.

Here is a story to illustrate the snobbish disconnection of city vs the rest of the country.  Snobs like Obama vs ordinary working people like Palin.  I live in a rural/agricultural/resort area.  Recently had some relatives come to visit from the Big City.  At a local function I introduced them to one of my clients who was wearing jeans, beaten up cowboy hat and had just come from a ‘roping competition’.  My relatives were cold and not in the least interested in talking to him and after he left made fun of him.   Little did they know he is a multi multi millionare who owns large amounts of the Big City they came from and has controlling interests in several industrial center complexes throughout the State as well as homes in places they could only hope to visit.   My client built his wealth based on a small plumbing business in the Big City that he inherited from his father.  He lives here in bumfuck rural America because he wants to and he likes the people who live here and holds the same values.   They were standing in the midst of millionares and people who can afford to own $80,000 horse trailers for their $100,000 roping horses and enjoy doing what they like.   BUT…because they didn’t have the designer sun glasses, perfectly coifed hair and had some dirt on their boots they passed them over like they were trailer trash. See yourself in this scenario anywhere BG?

  Oh, i see you're confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn't. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant.   The people i put down in that post are the deceivers. To clear that up for you they would be the 2004 Bush campaign leaders. These are the people who duped good people into giving them a second term. people including my neighbors and coworkers. Average people who didn't bother to inform themselves and just voted the party line. People like you babs. People like you who wouldn't give Bush another term today because of all that has happened, voted for him then. You voted for him then even though almost all the negatives were in the public domain at that time. There to see for anyone who bothered to look. But you didn't look. You took Bush at his word. Things could have been different.   To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. That's the deception. The heartland voted overwelmingly for Bush in 04. They were the deceived, the innocent, the naive, the trustful. Maybe in your book that's a mental defect, in mine it is far from it.   Apparently, you've read many things into that post that i never said. I live in a town, not a big city. I wasn't putting small town america down. That you've connected alternative meanings to the word gullible is more than a little scary.   Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting. Sarah Palin may turn out to be the best thing that's ever happened to this country, but that's not the point. McCain could have appointed a bucket of shit to run with him for office and you'd have embraced it as well. You keep making the same mistake.   You are the problem babs. Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.   lastly, the cindy Mccain thing, I got it from fox news. They are the ones concerned that McCain may come off as out of touch. You can google it. It checks out. What was she thinking wearing an outfit that cost as much as nice house?        
Sep 7, 2008 11:59 pm

Primo, whew, you scared me there for a minute.

  Unfortunately i don't think we can assume people won't buy into things like this. i've got two clients who sent me that email and fully believed it to be true.    On another forum one poster keeps using Obama's middle name yet says he's not anti muslim, just trying to be factually correct. Yet, he doesn't use Mccain's middle name.   Politics, it's ugly.          
Sep 8, 2008 12:34 am

Here’s an interesting article on Biden.  Its a little easier to follow than the McCain shady connection to Georgian lobbyist that BG presented:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09072008/postopinion/editorials/special_interest_joe_127959.htm

That Obama…he’ll sure clean up Washington. Bill Clinton told us he hit it out of the park with the Biden pick.  

Notice the polls pulling even or putting McCain ahead.

Sep 8, 2008 12:37 am

To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.

    www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml   It was a lie?
Sep 8, 2008 12:46 am
www.cfr.org/publication/9551

Exactly how many people to you have to kill with a weapon for it to be considered a WMD?

Sep 8, 2008 12:51 am

primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That’s the lie.                        

  No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.   Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.
Sep 8, 2008 12:52 am

People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by.

  Wasn't Bush handed a recession when he took office?  Who was responsible for that?  The economic problems center on one issue.  Bush is a RINO when is comes to spending.  Tax conservative, liberal spender.  This absolutely does not work.  You must be consistent.
Sep 8, 2008 12:55 am

[quote=BondGuy]primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That’s the lie.                        

  No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.   Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.[/quote]   Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall. 
Sep 8, 2008 1:02 am

The Center for Public Integrity found that the Bush admin made 935 false statements about the alleged threat to the united States posed by iraq. While some left over remnents of weaponized WMDs were found most U.N.weapons inspectors are satisfied that work on such WMDs ceased in 1991. Addtionally, the ISG found there to be no WMDs in iraq and that iraq's nuclear program had ceased in 1991.

Again, we were lied to. But believe what you will.

Sep 8, 2008 1:04 am

[quote=Primo]People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by.

  Wasn't Bush handed a recession when he took office?  Who was responsible for that?  The economic problems center on one issue.  Bush is a RINO when is comes to spending.  Tax conservative, liberal spender.  This absolutely does not work.  You must be consistent.[/quote]   as was Clinton. But nether was handed the problem we find ourselves in today.   What's a rino?
Sep 8, 2008 1:06 am

republican in name only

Sep 8, 2008 1:11 am

[quote=Primo][quote=BondGuy]primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That’s the lie.                        

  No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.   Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.[/quote]   Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall.  [/quote]   primo, i agree with you the guy was a bad guy and would be up to no good the first chance he got. But that yellowcake isn't the reason we invaded iraq. We were told he had WMDS when in fact he didn't. That's the lie.   Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them too?    
Sep 8, 2008 1:16 am

But nether was handed the problem we find ourselves in today…you mean like a terrorist attack that changed the American people forever.  That could have been averted had the previous administration been a shade more concerned with foriegn affairs?   Look, I feel Bush has been a terrrible President.  He spent way too much on entitlement programs, IMO we went into Iraq as much for oil as national security (of course one could argue that they are one in the same), and he has lost the confidence of the American people.  However, he has accomplished a number of good things.  People are acting like his presidency has been an unqualified disaster from start to end, and that is simply not true.

Sep 8, 2008 1:22 am

[quote=BondGuy][quote=Primo][quote=BondGuy]primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That’s the lie.                        

  No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.   Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.[/quote]   Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall.  [/quote]   primo, i agree with you the guy was a bad guy and would be up to no good the first chance he got. But that yellowcake isn't the reason we invaded iraq. We were told he had WMDS when in fact he didn't. That's the lie.   Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them too?    [/quote]   We were told our intelligence suggested presence of WMD's.  Of course we were not allowed in (might bit suspicious) so we did not know for sure.  Was this shaped for the American public?  Yep.  Of course if that bothers you, you should not vote for a politician ever again.  Also, the decision to go in had a bit of support from the left, who had access to the same raw intelligence as the President.   So when we went in, we only found the guns, but no bullets.  Let's also ignore the state support of terrorists, but of course terrorists would never be so bold as to attack us.
Sep 8, 2008 1:27 am

Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them

    For mining it?  In the words of BHO, that is a devise comment.
Sep 8, 2008 3:52 am

[quote=BondGuy]

  To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. [/quote]

The Iraq invasion was based on a lie?

I've seen this argument put forth by the left so many times, yet with no evidence.  Are you telling me that Bush was able to either deceive Colin Powell, or to persuade him to knowingly present false information to the UN Security Council?

Was the UN Security Council also gullible, considering that they were fooled by these alleged lies?

What about the British and Israeli intelligence services, who provided information supporting the viewpoint that Saddam Hussein had WMD's?  Were they also participating in a huge global ruse?

Is it that hard to believe that these weapons were not smuggled across a porous border to Syria, a country which is also no friend of the US?  Or perhaps they were buried somewhere in the desert, still not found?

Did you know that many, if not most, in Hussein's own government thought that Hussein controlled a stock of WMD's?
Sep 8, 2008 4:13 am

9-7-2008 - Obama 45.7% - McCain 46.7% - McCain +1.0%

  Goodbye lead.  Obama peaked too early, IMO.  The McCain +10% in USA/Gallup is probably faulty, although the momentum has clearly shifted, no doubt causing Obama's campaign to scramble.  After the last two elections, I put more faith in the Rasmussen polls than any others.   Many folks I've talked politics with tell me that yes, given the decided lack of an attractive candidiate on the Dem side, they would have still voted red in 2004, even after seeing a less than effective 2nd term at times.  One old fellow reminded me that we haven't been successfully attacked by terrorists here since 9-11-2001 and he credits Bush's offensives for that, telling me that if left alone after 9-11, terrorists would have likely attacked us more than once since 2001.  While there is no way to measure a non-attack, I concede that he had a point in the matter.  I also agreed with him that John Kerry was probably the worst candidate for president in my voting lifetime (starting with the Reagan years).
Sep 8, 2008 3:53 pm

Oh, i see you’re confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn’t. But don’t let that get in the way of a good rant

  I understand the meaning of the word gullible.  I also understand the intent behind your use of the word. You mean it as belittling insult.  Prick has a dictionary meaning.  So does the word ass. If I call you a prick or an ass be assured I don't intend the meaning to be the  ones found in the dictionary.   To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.   A lot of things are inconceivable to you evidently.  You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.  I voted for Bush because the alternative was Kerry.  The lie that the Iraq War was predicated on lies is just another tired old talking point from the left.   Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.  I suggest you get a new handbook.  There is a new game in town.   Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.

Really?  Are you sure you are an actual financial advisor?  High GDP growth.  Coming off of record unemployment to 6.1% which is still a low figure historically. You need to refresh yourself on the economic cycle. Do you think things always go up?  How old are you?  30 or less?  If you can't remember the Carter years I suggest you get a history book and read a bit.  Are things rosy in the economy? Of course not. We are in a downward economic cycle right now and inflation is a problem. The weakness in the financial markets is also a huge problem but can be solved.  How about instead of setting your hair on fire and point blame at people for what is a natural and repetitive economic swing you try to guide your clients through it.   The economic policies proposed by your boyfriend Obama will positively throw us into a depression instead of the mild recession that we are in at this time.

My millionaire "roping horse" clients (as you so snidely say) are those who create jobs.  They create wealth, industry and pay through the nose for the welfare state that Obama wants to expand. 

Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting.   You have no idea what I know or don't know about Palin. I've been hoping that she would be selected as McCain's VP for many months now.  What is disconcerting is that you can't accept that people have the ability to make judgements that don't jive with your world view.  Instead you call people gullible, uninformed and basically stupid because they don't accept your superior views.   The attitudes of people like you, Bond Guy, is why the Republicans will win this time.  The snide, condescending, negative comments. The disrespect of the middle class, working class, small business owner and values of small town America.  Don't think that people don't see this and resent it. Despite our gullibility we know when we are being insulted and taken for fools.  I know,  you find it inconceivable.  
Sep 8, 2008 5:39 pm
Apologies up front to all for taking this one point for point.   [quote=HymanRoth] [quote=BondGuy]   To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. [/quote]

The Iraq invasion was based on a lie?   Show me the WMDs? Where are they? No WMDs!  Bush built his case for war on the fact that iraq had Biowarfare WMDs ready to use and was ACTIVELY working on producing a nuclear weapon. Yet nada? At first it would be easy to give Bush a pass and say he relied on faulty intelligence, but the fact is the intell advisors had the info right. The info they had right was that any intell telling us Iraq had these weapons or was working on them COULD NOT be trusted. They advised and then warned Bush not to use the info in speeches to the American people and more importantly not to act on it. Bush decided to ignore that advice and used the info in speeches. Most prominately  the "sixteen words" in his state of the union address. More concisely, Bush manipulated the intell to bang the drum for war.

I've seen this argument put forth by the left so many times, yet with no evidence.  Are you telling me that Bush was able to either deceive Colin Powell, or to persuade him to knowingly present false information to the UN Security Council?   You might want to check with Colin Powell on that. Powell was very uncomfortable about going before the UN and the world with shakey intel we were using to make the case. he was, according to his aides, told to fall on his sword if necessary by cheney. Cheney also told him that as the most popular figure in the Bush admin he could afford to lose some  points in the pols. Powell negotiated with Bush/cheney that taking the case before the UN was his price to "sell" the case for war. later the ISG as well as a US Senate investigation found that a key documents used by Powell to make his case for war were inaccurate.   Decieve, no, persuade yes. Knowingly, no, not on Powell's part.

To be clear, the lie is Bush telling the country he had irrefutable proof that iraq had WMDs when he knew he had no such proof. Not only no proof but top intel aides telling him not to act on the shakey intell they did have. By the way that still goes down as an intel failure.

Powell views his role in the drumbeat for war as a blot on his record. He said in an interview that it was painful and is painful. You tell me Hyman, do you think he believes he was duped?

Was the UN Security Council also gullible, considering that they were fooled by these alleged lies?   The reason Powell was the front man, was he was the most trusted Bush admin figure. His job was to "sell" the plan. The plan was based upon forged documents and inaccurate documents. He did a good job of selling it.

What about the British and Israeli intelligence services, who provided information supporting the viewpoint that Saddam Hussein had WMD's?  Were they also participating in a huge global ruse?   Global ruse? That's not what was happening. The Brits vetting of the documents in question came to a no decision. In other words they didn't know if they could trust the documents or not. Yet,   shortly after his speech, a British TV station found  one of the British intel documents that Powell used prominately in his presentation was not only based on old material, it was plagiarized. So it goes for British intel, outwitted by a TV station.

Is it that hard to believe that these weapons were not smuggled across a porous border to Syria, a country which is also no friend of the US?  Or perhaps they were buried somewhere in the desert, still not found?   ISG has found no evidence that this is the case. One would have to ask how the most watched nation in the world could have done this under the noses of our intell satellites. Then again...   yes,  in light of the ISG report it would be hard to believe.
Did you know that many, if not most, in Hussein's own government thought that Hussein controlled a stock of WMD's?   yes, Bush admin relied on many defectors for intel. The white house ignored the agenda's of these sources against advice of senior intel.

To sum it up, no WMDs. Bush manipulated, and ignored the intel he had to bulid his case for war.

Read the findings of the ISG. This is not some left wing diatribe.
[/quote]
Sep 8, 2008 5:46 pm

I  see Keith Olbermann got booted from his MSNBC political desk…after finishing dead last on RNC coverage…good riddance…

  BG, it's time to own the gullible comment for what it was.  When I look up gullible, I get synonyms such as naive, simple, silly, foolish, and unsophisticated.  None of those are flattering in my world, and you might as well have called the entire middle of the country stupid.   ...and no, my "misunderstanding" of your point is not my problem, it's Obama's problem.  That's probably one of the more serious verbal faux paus he's made in his campaign and will not likely soon be forgotten.  That you verbalized the same thoughts and feelings about middle America tells me that this attitude is prevalent in coastal metro politics, and I'm sorry, it IS divisive.  That's not opinion - it's fact.  It would be like someone labeling coastal folks as tree-hugging, latte-sipping, window-smashing, bed-wetting liberals, but only meaning it in the kindest, most flattering sense of the language.  Doesn't that feel just a wee bit divisive to you?
Sep 8, 2008 6:15 pm

Interesting times in politics. The Conservatives have called an election for 14/Oct/08. Prior to calling the election the Conservatives were in a minority government position with the Liberals constantly making threats to defeat the Conservatives on a Confidence Motion. Up until recently the Conservatives ( your Republicans ) and the Liberals ( your Democrats ) in a virtual tie. The lastest polling shows a huge upsurge for the Conservatives which if it holds mean a Majority Government. By the way…IT’S ABOUT THE ECONOMY with other issues way behind.

If your polls to the South are correct it appears that the Republicans may be elected .....the democrats may have peaked too early. On a final note.....FIRE OLBERMANN he is not anything more than a flunky for the Democrats.
Sep 8, 2008 6:48 pm

[quote=babbling looney]Oh, i see you’re confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn’t. But don’t let that get in the way of a good rant

  I understand the meaning of the word gullible.  I also understand the intent behind your use of the word. You mean it as belittling insult.  Prick has a dictionary meaning.  So does the word ass. If I call you a prick or an ass be assured I don't intend the meaning to be the  ones found in the dictionary.   To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.   A lot of things are inconceivable to you evidently.  You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.  I voted for Bush because the alternative was Kerry.  The lie that the Iraq War was predicated on lies is just another tired old talking point from the left.   Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.  I suggest you get a new handbook.  There is a new game in town.   Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.

Really?  Are you sure you are an actual financial advisor?  High GDP growth.  Coming off of record unemployment to 6.1% which is still a low figure historically. You need to refresh yourself on the economic cycle. Do you think things always go up?  How old are you?  30 or less?  If you can't remember the Carter years I suggest you get a history book and read a bit.  Are things rosy in the economy? Of course not. We are in a downward economic cycle right now and inflation is a problem. The weakness in the financial markets is also a huge problem but can be solved.  How about instead of setting your hair on fire and point blame at people for what is a natural and repetitive economic swing you try to guide your clients through it.   The economic policies proposed by your boyfriend Obama will positively throw us into a depression instead of the mild recession that we are in at this time.

My millionaire "roping horse" clients (as you so snidely say) are those who create jobs.  They create wealth, industry and pay through the nose for the welfare state that Obama wants to expand. 

Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting.   You have no idea what I know or don't know about Palin. I've been hoping that she would be selected as McCain's VP for many months now.  What is disconcerting is that you can't accept that people have the ability to make judgements that don't jive with your world view.  Instead you call people gullible, uninformed and basically stupid because they don't accept your superior views.   The attitudes of people like you, Bond Guy, is why the Republicans will win this time.  The snide, condescending, negative comments. The disrespect of the middle class, working class, small business owner and values of small town America.  Don't think that people don't see this and resent it. Despite our gullibility we know when we are being insulted and taken for fools.  I know,  you find it inconceivable.   [/quote]   Babs, thank you for putting so much time and effort into your response. Could you please show me where I used the word inconceivable in another post? I may have used it ,but I can't find it.   Somehow you've co-opted the word stupid as a synonym for the word gullible. And it has really set you off. Gee, i don't know what to do here. Telling you that you are wrong and well, I come off as condesending. Yet, here  you've prosed an entire diatribe based on a word comprehension mistake on your part. You've even got me looking down on small town america. I can't find anything i said that could be twisted to that. Well, by a logical person.   babs, you are free to conduct your hate bondguy campaign. I can't stop you from hating me. i can't stop you from twisting my words. And i can't stop you from PMing other forum members to spread the hate. But i'm not the one you need to worry about.    
Sep 8, 2008 8:13 pm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1984d88-7cd5-11dd-8d59-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

For your edification and reflection.
Sep 8, 2008 8:49 pm

[quote=Indyone]I  see Keith Olbermann got booted from his MSNBC political desk…after finishing dead last on RNC coverage…good riddance…

  BG, it's time to own the gullible comment for what it was.  When I look up gullible, I get synonyms such as naive, simple, silly, foolish, and unsophisticated.  None of those are flattering in my world, and you might as well have called the entire middle of the country stupid.   ...and no, my "misunderstanding" of your point is not my problem, it's Obama's problem.  That's probably one of the more serious verbal faux paus he's made in his campaign and will not likely soon be forgotten.  That you verbalized the same thoughts and feelings about middle America tells me that this attitude is prevalent in coastal metro politics, and I'm sorry, it IS divisive.  That's not opinion - it's fact.  It would be like someone labeling coastal folks as tree-hugging, latte-sipping, window-smashing, bed-wetting liberals, but only meaning it in the kindest, most flattering sense of the language.  Doesn't that feel just a wee bit divisive to you?[/quote]       I find it diificult to believe that you've read the actual transcript of the San fran speech and Obama's rebuttal speech delivered the following day in  a small town in Indiana. If you have, why post this?   have you have been sucked in by the misinformation machine that is presidential politics? Obama said nothing offensive about small town america. Quite the contrary. However, what the misinformation machines, both hillary's and John's, twisted Obama's words to mean is offensive to small town america. Obama delivered a speech that shows a real understanding of what's going on in small town america.     It was predicted that, that comment would cost obama the dem nomination. So, as a campaign ploy the twisting of meaning didn't work. Small town america was able to see through the dirty campaign tactics. Whew hoo!   Now McCain is giving the same tactic a spin. No surprise there considering the number of Bush people on McCain's payroll. Apparently, for as many times as I'm hearing it, it's playing well with his base. People like you. Still, it is what it is: a lie.    
Sep 8, 2008 8:55 pm

Obama said nothing offensive about small town america

  None so blind as those who will not see.
Sep 8, 2008 9:14 pm

And Bond Guy …Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  

Sep 8, 2008 9:29 pm

[quote=norway401]And Bond Guy …Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  [/quote]

Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his “intellectual comments” (“Clinging to guns and religon”).  

I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can’t be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?

Sep 8, 2008 9:37 pm

Ruby …my point exactly. He was heralded as so unique , so new and so anti-establishment ( Washington ) and now we find out he is JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. Am I surprised not at all…the love affair was bound to end. He was or is the Media Star but at some point the hard questions get asked and then??? Rezco , Wright et al .

Sep 8, 2008 9:46 pm

To be fair, the investment advisor field is predominantly Republican, or independent with a leaning toward Republican.  Frankly, traditional Republican platform items, such as small government and low taxes fit very nicely into our personal and professional needs, and those of most of our clients.  The fact that BG is defending a candidate that in some respects runs counter to his economic best interest tells me that he believes passionately in other non-financial planks of the platform.

  He's not real happy with me at the moment (and to a degree the feeling is mutual).  We'll just have to agree to disagree on several things here.  For what it's worth, I still make sure I read his posts when I see them, as the non-political ones have often given valuable insight to me.
Sep 8, 2008 10:54 pm

For what it’s worth, I still make sure I read his posts when I see them, as the non-political ones have often given valuable insight to me.

  As will I.
Sep 8, 2008 11:21 pm
Rugby:

[quote=norway401]And Bond Guy …Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  [/quote]

Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his “intellectual comments” (“Clinging to guns and religon”).  

I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can’t be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?

  This is laughable. Gee, no support for obama over here at RRR Forums? That would be Republican Registered Rep forums. More closely, it should be social conservative registered rep forums. That aptly discribes most of the crowd that's posting on this thread.   That i am willing to vote against my own self interest should tell you all you need to know about me. Most of you come across as not  open minded enough to fathom the thought. While a vote for Obama may not be in my best interest on one score, money, it's in the best interest of my children, many of my friends and even my sales assistant financially to vote him in. But that's not the main reason i would vote for Obama.   Here's something about the group here that I don't get and i'm sure you can help me out on this point. Many of you being the social conservatives that you are also, no doubt, very religious. Do i have that right? The two aren't mutually exclusive but mostly go hand in hand? Religion is important to most of you?   Ok, here's my question: How do those of you who are religious square the war with God? I ask this because in my mind you can't say you believe in God and be for the war. I'm not a gleeming example of Christian values, but i'm pretty sure when Jesus said love your enemies he didn't mean kill them. Yeah, it's a bumper sticker, but still, true? Yet, religious social conservatives are among those who voted Bush to a second term. And with Palin on the ticket they are on board to vote for McCain, who will extend the war for as long as he judges necessary. How does a regilious social conservative square that up? How can you vote for extending the killing?   There are what, one hundred thousand people dead because of this war? How can that be right with God? Yet, with one hundred thousand people dead because of this war all most of you can do is run around whining about your taxes and post misinformation about the man who will stop the killing.    Any of you out there on RRR thinking past your own self interest?   Obama says he's going to stop the killing. That's all I need to know. I don't care what he does to my taxes.
Sep 9, 2008 12:00 am

Obama says he’s going to stop the killing

  Obama is not going to stop the killing, he is just going to kill much younger people who have not learned to use a gun yet, or breathe for that matter.
Sep 9, 2008 12:16 am

primo, for six of the past eight years you've had a republican congress, republican senate and a republican white house. Yet Roe v Wade still stands. You can't pin the abortion debate on Obama.

How do you square doing your personal part in the killing of 100,000 people with being a christian?
Sep 9, 2008 12:18 am

Alot easier than killing partial birth abortion legislation would make me feel.  Of course, the Bible does not tell of any wars there.

Sep 9, 2008 12:25 am
BondGuy:

[quote=Rugby] [quote=norway401]And Bond Guy …Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  [/quote]

Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his “intellectual comments” (“Clinging to guns and religon”).  

I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can’t be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?

  This is laughable. Gee, no support for obama over here at RRR Forums? That would be Republican Registered Rep forums. More closely, it should be social conservative registered rep forums. That aptly discribes most of the crowd that's posting on this thread.   That i am willing to vote against my own self interest should tell you all you need to know about me. Most of you come across as not  open minded enough to fathom the thought. While a vote for Obama may not be in my best interest on one score, money, it's in the best interest of my children, many of my friends and even my sales assistant financially to vote him in. But that's not the main reason i would vote for Obama.   A vote for Obama is against EVERYONE'S best interests.  His economic policy proposals are sheer disaster for your children, and everyone else.  If he enacts his punitive tax and restrictive commerce/trade policies we will be heading into a deep deep recession if not an actual depression.   Here's something about the group here that I don't get and i'm sure you can help me out on this point. Many of you being the social conservatives that you are also, no doubt, very religious. Do i have that right? The two aren't mutually exclusive but mostly go hand in hand? Religion is important to most of you?   Speaking for myself....no.     Ok, here's my question: How do those of you who are religious square the war with God? I ask this because in my mind you can't say you believe in God and be for the war. I'm not a gleeming example of Christian values, but i'm pretty sure when Jesus said love your enemies he didn't mean kill them. Yeah, it's a bumper sticker, but still, true? Yet, religious social conservatives are among those who voted Bush to a second term. And with Palin on the ticket they are on board to vote for McCain, who will extend the war for as long as he judges necessary. How does a regilious social conservative square that up? How can you vote for extending the killing?   Because by winning we eliminate future killings.  You know the breaking the eggs to make the omlete theory.  And lest you get snippy back at me... I have young relatives who have been and are in the military in the Middle East.   There are what, one hundred thousand people dead because of this war?  Baloney.    How can that be right with God?  I don't know how Got thinks... He destroyed entire cities just to prove a point.  Sodom and Gomorah.  Yet, with one hundred thousand people dead because of this war all most of you can do is run around whining about your taxes and post misinformation about the man who will stop the killing.   Any of you out there on RRR thinking past your own self interest?   It's in my own self interest and in the best interest of the entire US to have a strong economy, safe and secured borders and to crush the radical terrorists who want to destroy our country, not to mention our very lives.  Obama will not do this.   Obama says he's going to stop the killing. That's all I need to know. I don't care what he does to my taxes.   Bull.... Obama is proposing to go into Afghanisan and and attack Pakistan, a country with nukes.  How is this stopping the killing?  Oh.....I know....just moving it to a place that has been blessed by the Democrat party and leftists who can't stand the idea that we are actually winning in Iraq.    Yeah.  That's better   You should care what he does to your taxes when it is in the aim to further a communist/socialist agenda.  Your children will not thank you when they are drones to the State.[/quote]
Sep 9, 2008 1:58 am

Obama really has you hook line and sinker that he would be better for your children, friends, etc…If I recall at the start of the thread I thought you were a Repub. or Indy leaning towards Obama.  Maybe the resurgence of McCain has solidified your views.

Now maybe you are coming across that you think that you are made of a higher moral fiber than 99.9% of people on this thread.  Basically, you are throwing out alot of your beliefs on Bush on to McCain.  Don’t forgot who controls the Congress or what Bush has been faced with early in his presidency.  To be perfectly honest with you, much of what you have written here lately seems a bit “crackpot”.  That coupled with your absolute blinders on anything negative about Obama hurts you political credibility on the Rush Limbaugh Registered Rep Forum here.

You may however be a completely acceptable replacement for Keith Olberman on MSNBC.  You are a valuable contributor, and perhaps some of us are guilty of goading you and are out numbering you…I do think though you are overstating the level of hard right voters on here.  Lets not forget that Obama has received a TON of money from wall street and financial industry.  The board of FNM & FRE are loaded with DEMs and former Clinton admin. people.   Notice Obama was not playing Robin Hood related to the bailout today.  Strange for a reformist to not have anything harsh to say about the people who at the helm of these financial  catastrophies that will be the burden of our children.

I think you would be sorely disappointed in his ability or willingness to save the day.  Nothing he has said or done in his life or this campaign would make you think he is different.
 

Sep 9, 2008 3:07 pm

BG …I will be the first to admit my Conservative Bias ( Republican in U.S. ) versus the Liberals ( Democrats in the U.S. ). In Canada we do not register our Party affiliation as you do in the U.S. I do admit at points in my voting history at either the Federal or Provincial level I have voted for both Conservatives and Liberals.

All the above being said .....and I hope you are just very passionate about your Democratic Party and do not actually hold that everything that they say is RIGHT whilst the Republicans are the always WRONG But let us be fair and intellectually honest Politicans in most part are about being Elected and being faithful to the Party first and foremost.
Sep 9, 2008 4:18 pm

This thread is a “task that’s from God”.

Sep 9, 2008 4:20 pm

[quote=Primo]Obama says he’s going to stop the killing

  Obama is not going to stop the killing, he is just going to kill much younger people who have not learned to use a gun yet, or breathe for that matter.[/quote]   Take responsibility for your own actions rather than accuse others. Obama can't get pregnant.
Sep 9, 2008 5:57 pm

A week ago I was striper fishing in Little Egg Inlet. I was fishing as my brother jockeyed 'Pole Dancer" in the 8 foot swell and fast outgoing tide. The NE wind against the tide was piling the water up and my brother had his work cut out for him trying to keep us on the fish. Probably would have been better to surf fish, but we were too dumb to figure that out  before hand. The guys on the beach were catching fish. We were getting a salt water bath.

  As I looked down at the water it was obvious that we were moving very fast. Yet as I looked up at the shoreline a quarter mile away I  could see we weren't moving at all. The boat speed was perfectly balanced against the outgoing tide. Was I moving or standing still? Standing still. Yet depending on one's POV that wouldn't be obvious. To everyone on board we felt we were moving. To anyone watching us from the beach, we were a still picture. Bobbing, but standing in place.   And so it goes here. To dyed in the wool republicans I suppose I do look in the tank for Obama. That would be the micro, on board the boat looking down at the water view. However, pan out to the macro view from the beach and I'm not so in the tank as many of you would think. In fact I'm not in the tank at all. I've just made an informed decision. No doubt one which you will belittle because in differs from yours.   Spending days as the sole contrary opinion here and it would be easy to draw the conclusion that I'm blind to any Obama flaws. I assure you I'm not. I've read the positions and major policies of both candidates. In fact I'm closer to McCain on many issues, like right to life. He's pro life with exceptions for rape incest and medical emerg, just as I am. He's pandering by saying no exceptions which I don't hold against him. He's gotta do what he's gotta do. I'll be surprised, if elected, he holds to that position.   And the tax thing that many of you go on about I just don't get. Based on the income splits  I've seen from both campaigns, and based on what I know of production levels around here, many of you are better off under Obama. Still the tax rant goes on?   After reading and listening to both candidates I've decided to go with Obama. The overwelming reason is the war. I was antiwar before it became invogue. And I got flamed right here on this very forum for speaking out against the war. Yet, much of what I said has come to pass. This is a key issue for me. I have a problem with many aspects of the war. So, I'm voting for the guy who will get us out as quickly as possible and refocus our attention where it should have been to begin with, Bin laden.   My decision to go for Obama also has something to do with John picking Caribou Barbi as his running mate. I know that many of you hold views similar to hers but  she's an extremist. Extremist don't get my vote.  And yes, I kid the candidate with one of the many colorful nicknames floating around cyberspace.   If it makes any of you feel any better I'm voting republican for my congressman on the next cycle. And I voted republican for mayor on the current cycle. Hey, maybe someday he'll run for Veep! We can only hope!                
Sep 9, 2008 9:16 pm

[quote=Indyone]Just for grins, I’m going to start marking the RCP poll average so we can watch the direction of the race between now and election day.

  As of 9/3/2008 - Obama 48.8% - McCain 43.0 - Obama+5.8%[/quote]   9/9/2008 - Obama 45.6% - McCain 48.4% - McCain+2.8%   That's a pretty nice convention bounce in six days, although if you take out the two Gallup polls, it's very close.  Rasmussen, which I trust over all other pollers, has it 48-48.   The real interesting thing to me is the direction of some of the state polls out today.  Florida has gone to a dead heat, but Obama is only +1 in Michigan, +3 in Wisconsin, and +4 in Washington, while McCain has widened to +7 in Ohio.   Caribou Barbie..., but I'm still going to cancel out your vote.  I don't think that either candidate will keep our troops in Iraq for long, but I can see the need for a police force there temporarily until the Iraqi's are ready for the full hand-off.  We're not there to commit genocide...we're there to fill in the police force gap until the Iraqi's get sufficient numbers and training to keep the animals corraled.
Sep 9, 2008 9:29 pm

Indy …my opinion from Canada. You are correct either/or they want out of Iraq as soon as possible without leaving a complete void and appear they left the Iraqi Government and people in a Civil War. With that in mind , the U.S. is moving more troops in to Afganastan to shore up the increase in Taliban activities. The Canadians are in Kandahar and being hit with increasing casualties and our European Allies ( Germany and France ) frankly are refusing to take up combat roles. Thus the U.S. as recently announced increase in troops to this area. With the Pakistan Government being led by Mr. 10% ( Benazir’s widower ) I don’t think we in the West can expect much from him unless of course he can take/skim 10% off for himself.

Sep 13, 2008 9:00 am

Something to think about…

  Isn't this interesting that there have been several comments about Palin's appearance, like "But she is hot" and " Caribou Barbie". Would we have these same comments if she was a man?  Would similiar comments about Obama on his race ever be tolerated? (Quite honestly, I like Obama. I gave "The Audacity of Hope" as Christmas gifts last year.)   About a month before this announcement, Sarah Palin was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo on off-shore drilling. (Below is the video link.)  This video just made me PUMPED. This is an intelligent woman discussing how her state can contribute a domestic (partial) solution to our oil problem with consideration to our environment.  Let's get away from giving money to war lords and terrorists and instead make jobs for Americans and give money to Americans who own these natural resources!   Oil and taxes are the main issues for me, which is why I like the McCain-Palin ticket.   http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836304396&play=1
Sep 13, 2008 1:50 pm

Oil and taxes?

  Palin is for drilling in ANWR and Mccain is against it. McCain is quoted as saying that the reserves to be gotten in ANWR are "not that impactful." McCain respects yields to state's rights. if voters want drilling OK, if not OK as well.   On taxes, neither candidate has the money to pay for their plan. Still. Mccain will use any savings in the budget to give cuts to the rich and to the oil companies.  Obama will use any savings to give tax cuts to the middle class and working poor.   Butttttttt. here's the rub. For most of us, there isn't much of difference tax wise, in the plans. At least not enough to be a deciding factor. That's not true for all of us but still, rather than blankly buying into one plan and not the other, better to see how they would affect you, and then decide.  By the way LT, I'm speaking generally here.   On another front McCain?palin are getting called on the noe debunked claims that she is an earmark fighting fiscal conservative. Taking in the most federal money per dollar sent to DC of any state in the country, $1.84/$1.00 debunks that claim and squarely makes Alaska a welfare state. Apparently, Palin has never met an earmark she didn't like. Plus the truth about the bridge to nowhere has come out.   Of course the truth doesn't matter. One commentator put it well when he quoted mark Twain;" A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to its shoes on."   Hopefully, the campaign will return to issues and get off the personalities binge its been on for the past two weeks.   As for the hot and caribou comments, my only suggestion if they offend you is to not watch SNL, Leno. Letterman, Colbert, Mahr, and Daily. Watching them and you will see that there is plenty of teasing on all sides.  Alaskans even tease that she's hot. Haven't you seen the Coldest State Hottest Governor Tee shirts? LT you keep trying to make an issue out of a non issue.
Sep 13, 2008 1:59 pm

Taxes, one issue not being given much press is Obama is going to raise taxes on every individual tax payer in this country.  Anybody know how?  There is actually two answers.  Flame away.

Sep 13, 2008 6:55 pm

I said this before: The librarian glasses, coifed hair and past-the-knee skirts just do not equal sex symbol. However, if you call her "hot", it just discredits her.

     
Sep 13, 2008 10:27 pm
Primo:

Taxes, one issue not being given much press is Obama is going to raise taxes on every individual tax payer in this country.  Anybody know how?  There is actually two answers.  Flame away.

  Do you mean even more than how much Bush has buried us with the iraq war?
Sep 13, 2008 10:38 pm

You can tell you are an Obama fan, you even duck questions with similar flair.  One of Obama’s big talking points is how he understands the common man, he will stand up for the middle class.  What he doesn’t say is how letting Bush’s tax cuts (OMG he did something good??!!) will increase taxes across the board.  He also is very quiet on the fact that raising corporate taxes is just a indirect tax hike on the middle class.   You see, corporations will just respond to a tax hike the same way as they always have, they will cut expenses (jobs) and raise prices.  A tax hike on corporate America will just get passed along, all the while the democrat masses will smile say “thank you, may I have another”.  XOM payed more in federal taxes in 2006 than the bottom 50% (# of people) of individual filers.  THEY PAID AS MUCH TAX AS HALF OF THIS COUNTRY!!  But they should pay more.  Even though they have an 8% ROE.  They should pay more.  Do you think XOM is going to let their ROE go down to 7 or 6% or are they going to cut jobs and/or raise taxes?  Think about it.

Sep 13, 2008 10:50 pm
On taxes, neither candidate has the money to pay for their plan. Still. Mccain will use any savings in the budget to give cuts to the rich and to the oil companies.  Obama will use any savings to give tax cuts to the middle class and working poor.   I swear to God, there is no way that you can possibly be a financial advisor expressing thoughts like these.  Have you zero concept of economics?  I suggest you read some Milton Friedman (Free to Chose) or Friedrich Hayek (Road to Serfdom).    Do you just repeat the Democrat talking points or do you ever think about what you are saying, especially in light of what you are supposed to be doing for a living?
Sep 14, 2008 1:18 pm

[quote=lady_trader]

I said this before: The librarian glasses, coifed hair and past-the-knee skirts just do not equal sex symbol. However, if you call her "hot", it just discredits her.

     [/quote]   On this very thread posters called Palin a GILF and asked if Mccain was "Hittin it" yet you said nothing.   Yet, post the politcal take on such sexist comments and you're all over it. Ok for posters to say she's the Governor I'd Like to F**k, but not Ok to talk about such thinking as a wedge issue in the election?   On this very thread posters have posted info calling Obama a racist and Muslim who will side with Muslims. Yet you said nothing. Tell me, in your view, what's worse, Palin being called hot, or Obama being called a Muslim racist?   Just so you know, these types of comments discredit the source not the target. So Palin is not being discredited.        
Sep 14, 2008 1:24 pm

[quote=babbling looney]

On taxes, neither candidate has the money to pay for their plan. Still. Mccain will use any savings in the budget to give cuts to the rich and to the oil companies.  Obama will use any savings to give tax cuts to the middle class and working poor.   I swear to God, there is no way that you can possibly be a financial advisor expressing thoughts like these.  Have you zero concept of economics?  I suggest you read some Milton Friedman (Free to Chose) or Friedrich Hayek (Road to Serfdom).    Do you just repeat the Democrat talking points or do you ever think about what you are saying, especially in light of what you are supposed to be doing for a living?[/quote]   Ah, these aren't thoughts, these are facts taken form each campaign. But leave it to you to take a benign recounting of each candidate's tax position and turn it into a personal attack.    
Sep 14, 2008 1:47 pm
Primo:

You can tell you are an Obama fan, you even duck questions with similar flair.  One of Obama’s big talking points is how he understands the common man, he will stand up for the middle class.  What he doesn’t say is how letting Bush’s tax cuts (OMG he did something good??!!) will increase taxes across the board.  He also is very quiet on the fact that raising corporate taxes is just a indirect tax hike on the middle class.   You see, corporations will just respond to a tax hike the same way as they always have, they will cut expenses (jobs) and raise prices.  A tax hike on corporate America will just get passed along, all the while the democrat masses will smile say “thank you, may I have another”.  XOM payed more in federal taxes in 2006 than the bottom 50% (# of people) of individual filers.  THEY PAID AS MUCH TAX AS HALF OF THIS COUNTRY!!  But they should pay more.  Even though they have an 8% ROE.  They should pay more.  Do you think XOM is going to let their ROE go down to 7 or 6% or are they going to cut jobs and/or raise taxes?  Think about it.

  Primo, that's an old tired argument. Show me a time in history where increasing corp tax has lead to the job loss and the inflation that you speak of?   On an intellectual level I agree with you. However, on mainstreet  it just doesn't translate to the bottom line.   If the governmet came to you and said we have money to give away, we can give it directly to you, or we can give it to corporations that will cut prices, who would you rather we give it to? There is only one correct answer to that question and we both know that.   Think about this: IF XOM has to produce X to acheive it's profit goals and it takes Y employees to acheive that goal, are they going to cut those employees? Nope. XOM is not going to cut anything that will adversly affect the bottom line. They will find other ways to close the gap. Employees won't get cut unless demand slackens causing a production cut or technology advances allowing personel cuts.   Again, show me I'm wrong?   Those who can, do, those who can't teach. There is a reason Economics teachers teach.   By the way, Greenspan has come out against Mccain's economic plan, including his tax package.   Mccain, early in his primary campaign said one of his weakest areas was on the economy and that he was going to read Greenspan's book, The Age Of Turbulence as part of his education. According to the AP, he needs to reread it.   Lastly, I'm in McCains camp, mostly, on the tax isssue, just not my deciding issue. And again, most here will do at least as well under Obama as McCain.
Sep 14, 2008 2:04 pm

BG-

How do you feel about Biden’s ties to the credit card industry?  He really went to bat for common folk in the bankruptcy legislation he spearheaded on behalf of the credit card companies.  (I smell an AD on this, but he may prove he can implode on his own without having to highlight it).   How about his ties to lobbyists and trial lawyers in asbestos cases?

Obama really showed us he is for “CHANGE” with this inspired pick.  Bill Clinton told us he “hit it out of the park” with the Biden pick.  He just didn’t say it was for Hillary in 2012. 

Hard to trust Obama’s pick on the VEEP when he chooses a bafoon insider that has done nothing outside of Washington his whole career for the  “heartbeat away”  “change” batting circle.

At least Caribou Barbie is an outsider who has a diverse resume, with some reformist, “change” attributes and accomplishments.    

Sep 14, 2008 2:10 pm

[quote=BondGuy]

By the way, Greenspan has come out against Mccain's economic plan, including his tax package.   [/quote]

Yes he has... you forgot to add that he also said it requires budget cuts.  (Read- reform, trimming back government). 

What did Greenie say about Obama's tax plan?  Do you know?  Lets take this with the grain of salt, as the man sleeps with Obama NBC cheerleader, Andrea Mitchell.  And by the way, Bernanke, Bush, Paulson are not 100% responsible for this financial mess we are in.  You don't think Greenspan and Clinton have any blood on their hands for this mess?  
Sep 14, 2008 3:14 pm

BG, nice that you ducked letting the Bush tax cuts expire.  That will raise taxes on the middle class.   Period.  Secondly, using the XOM example, lets say the government raises their taxes by 1MMM.  Do you honestly believe they are just going to pay it?  Or will they cut expenses and/or raise prices?  We live in a consumer society.  Raising taxes on the wealthy just gets passed along to the less wealthy through higher prices on goods and services.  There is no argument there.  At the end of the day, the top 2% of earners in this country account for 22% of taxable income and carry 39% of the tax burden.  Plus with the economy in the toilet as Obama states on a daily basis, is raising taxes really the best solution?  I thought he was about change, and new ideas, making things better.  Until he says something that is different from the Leftist playbook, I think he is just another socialist who gives a hell of a speech.

Sep 14, 2008 8:32 pm
BondGuy:

Show me a time in history where increasing corp tax has lead to the job loss and the inflation that you speak of?

  1976-1979, Carter. From what I can see, Obama is running for Carter's second term, both in economics and foreign policy terms.   Not that I'm very concerned at this point, as I see it this discussion is academic, as the McCain lead will only be getting larger from here on out and the landslide happens in November.
Sep 15, 2008 7:13 am

Honestly, I had to look up what the heck a GILF was. Ice said the "hitting it" comment, but did defend her in this post.

As for Ferris's comments; I am on auto-ignore. In addition, I noticed the Muslim posters took care of that issue. Ice's comments that he believed that Obama was racist, was something I partly agree with, (and I like Obama and own both his books). Obama is too classy of a  guy, and he would not say anything racist, or comment on Palin's daughter. However, why the long-term relationship with Rev. Wright? In addition, there was an article that came out where Rev. Wright was a guest speaker at Maya Angelou's birthday party and Rev. Wright walked on stage and 1,000 mostly black audiance members gave him a standing ovation. Rev. Wright is a wacko! Yet, if he wasn't on a political stage and had to disown Wright, he would still be a personal associate of Obama's.

Actually, I do have to credit your comment about the taxation not being so different between candidates, to me going out and seeing his revised numbers. Here they are: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm?postversion=2008061111   I am not sure this year if I fall into the $410 worse under Obama or the $1591 worse under Obama. I drive a Saturn, carpool, clip coupons and just spent 2 days this weekend doing my own landscaping, so I do think it is significant. In addition, neither my husband nor I come from money, so the "marginal taxation rates" have always seemed unfair to me.   There is a statistic out there that 70% of all lottery winners will be bankrupt in 2 years. So, on a grand scale, would giving more money to people who make less money really work? Now, there are definately people out there who do not make money because of circumstances like illness, etc, but realistically there are a lot of people who just do not put value in working hard.
Sep 15, 2008 7:25 pm

McCain could quite possibly be a worse public speaker than Bush:

  http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/did-mccain-economy-gaffe-prompt/story.aspx?guid=%7BAB97BD36%2D9F9C%2D4239%2DABC9%2D6B9E89D5C194%7D&dist=hplatest   Bush just makes up words and looks like a deer caught in the headlights.  McCain has actually been saying non-factual things.   If money can be made on Bush-isms, maybe it's a time for McCain-isms.   Besides saying today the economy was fundamentally strong, he said Palin sold the AK jet on Ebay...for a profit!  Not only was it not sold on Ebay, there was no profit.   Someone needs to keep this guy on the speeches written for him...do not let him ad lib.     FTR, I am still undecided.
Sep 16, 2008 12:30 am

McCain wants to lower taxes for corporations and the rich thus letting the benefit of those cuts trickle down to everyone else. Pretty much it? Yep, that's it. Yet, eight years of tax cuts for the rich and tax breaks for corporations hasn't worked. So,  four more years will turn the trick? Is that it? We need four more years of the same? And you get pissed at me when I call you gullible?

Sonny -  if you work for a wire the working poor may include your sales assistant. If that assistant is the a single parent sole wage earner only drawing the wage the company pays him/her. But you already know this right? And if not him/her, then the receptionist or wire room operator. These are people you work with who don't make $300K a year like you. Some don't make one tenth of that. Yet, they do pay taxes. They are the working poor.   Thanks for the econ 101. It really has cleared this up for me. Do something for me? Tell me why it hasn't worked for the past eight years? Tell me why inflation is higher under Bush than it was under Clinton? With all that tax savings getting passed on to the consumer shouldn't prices be lower or have increased at a lower rate?   See, sonny here's the way I see it: You've been feeding on the same bullshit for so long you don't even know it's bullshit anymore. Sure, in the text book model taxes get passed along the supply chain. Except that's not the way it works on main street. The tax savings don't even make into the pricing model. Those savings get pocketed. How else to explain record earnings and higher inflation under Bush. Yeah, the corporations have  made out, and the rich need a truck to bank all the dough, but everyone else? Everyone else is getting screwed.   Primo - I gotta tell you using XOM as an example of good corporate stewardship, Priceless! I need you to do something for me as well. Take a ride to the other side of town. You know, the side of town where people make a living using their hands and earn money by the hour. Tell them that with all the money being passed down to them by the rich that they really need to stop whining about higher prices. They, like me, obviously don't get it. Well, go straighten them out. Let me know how that works out for you. And tell me, if the pass down theory is what our economy needs, why did we just hand out checks to the middle class and working poor to stimulate the economy?   Ice - good clarification! I'm ordering my GILF Tee Shirt in XXL as I'm as sure it will shrink as I am that it will be OK with LT   Rug - I don't like Biden but barbie is an extremist. Of course she does have all that Foreign policy experience what with Russia being only two hundred miles from her state. yeah, that works. And trying to pin today's mess on Clinton. yeah that works too, for the repub cool-aid drinkers.   grey - So wrong I don't know what to say. grey do you remember anything having to do with oil back in the 70's that could have caused an economic problem?   LT - what Muslims answered?
Sep 16, 2008 12:52 am
Primo - I gotta tell you using XOM as an example of good corporate stewardship, Priceless! I need you to do something for me as well. Take a ride to the other side of town. You know, the side of town where people make a living using their hands and earn money by the hour. Tell them that with all the money being passed down to them by the rich that they really need to stop whining about higher prices. They, like me, obviously don't get it. Well, go straighten them out. Let me know how that works out for you. And tell me, if the pass down theory is what our economy needs, why did we just hand out checks to the middle class and working poor to stimulate the economy?     You want me to go talk to the guys who work for XOM or very similar companies and explain that higher taxes on XOM means less pay raises, job cuts, and higher gas prices.  They already know.  Also Bush cut taxes for everyone, but Bush does not control the spending.  My memory of government tells me that congress holds the checkbook.   BTW, Obama voted yes for the bridge to nowhere, must have been one of the few days he decided to take a side instead of voting present.
Sep 16, 2008 11:04 am

[quote=BondGuy]McCain wants to lower taxes for corporations and the rich thus letting the benefit of those cuts trickle down to everyone else. Pretty much it? Yep, that’s it. Yet, eight years of tax cuts for the rich and tax breaks for corporations hasn’t worked. So,  four more years will turn the trick? Is that it? We need four more years of the same? And you get pissed at me when I call you gullible?[/quote]

Bar Stool Economics by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. <p><b><span style="font-size: 18pt;"></span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: navy;"><b> </b></span><span style="color: navy;">Suppose

that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes
to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:



The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.



So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you
are all such good customers, he said, 'I’m going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'


‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’



‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’



The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.



The next night the tenth man didn’t
show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But
when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.
They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!



And that, boys and girls,
journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The
people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking
overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia



For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


Sep 16, 2008 3:29 pm

Great post, Morphius.I don’t know how more clearly the taxation issue could be framed than with this example.

  ...and yet, we want to pay the people at the bottom to drink.  The war in Iraq is a temporary issue.  Welfare and income redistribution seem to go on forever...
Sep 16, 2008 3:48 pm

I’m pro lower taxes if the damn Republicans would have stopped spending so much. Problem has been they lowered taxes, but spent like drunk monkeys at a Lehman bros Chrismas bash at Fuld penthouse.  You can’t have it both ways…prudent/conservative spending with a fair tax for all.  Flat tax would be a great thing, but we know the powers to be wouldn’t be able to slam the rich every 4 years.

Lets face it...your rich cause you want to be...and your poor because you want to be...
Sep 16, 2008 4:50 pm

Morph, this has been around for a long time. At least pre 2001. You should know Kamerschen denies writing it. We’ve used the predecessor to this piece, which has ten men eating dinner, as a seminar handout for almost ten years. We don’t attribute it as the author is unknown. Still it’s a good piece to get the point of how our progressive tax system works across. And for those who would use it, it’s a hit at the Rotary Club but a flop down at the Iron Workers union hall. We found that out the hard way. Go figure!

Sep 16, 2008 7:58 pm

Of course he denies writing it…I wrote it!  Or at least I’ll take credit if no one else wants to!

Sep 16, 2008 8:51 pm
BondGuy:

Morph, this has been around for a long time. At least pre 2001. You should know Kamerschen denies writing it. We’ve used the predecessor to this piece, which has ten men eating dinner, as a seminar handout for almost ten years. We don’t attribute it as the author is unknown. Still it’s a good piece to get the point of how our progressive tax system works across. And for those who would use it, it’s a hit at the Rotary Club but a flop down at the Iron Workers union hall. We found that out the hard way. Go figure!

  Yeah, it's an oldie of unknown authorship for sure, but the classics are usually worth pulling out of cold storage and repeating.
Sep 17, 2008 5:14 am

[quote=bspears]I’m pro lower taxes if the damn Republicans would have stopped spending so much[/quote]

Check your facts here Spears, the Republicans have tried to reduce spending, it’s the Dems that want to "tax and spend"



As a side note I REALLY RESPECT BondGuy’s opinion but I cannot see how anyone that makes over $200k a year can vote for Obama…he has repeatedly said that he wants to take from the rich and give to the poor, how much more Socialist can you get?

Sep 18, 2008 3:52 pm

Today’s RCP average:

  McCain - 45.3% - Obama 47.0% - Obama +1.7%   We've swung back to where we were before we had the conventions.  America might actually be ready to elect an empty suit after all...
Sep 19, 2008 2:00 am

Dems: Tax & Spend and the Reps: Borrow & Spend…its the spending that needs to be controlled.



Obama ran for a year and a half on CHANGE and then he selects Biden, a life-long Washington politician. That’s not change, that’s the same Washington politics, only worse.

Sep 19, 2008 12:40 pm

[quote=skeedaddy2]Dems: Tax & Spend and the Reps: Borrow & Spend…its the spending that needs to be controlled.



Obama ran for a year and a half on CHANGE and then he selects Biden, a life-long Washington politician. That’s not change, that’s the same Washington politics, only worse. [/quote]

Here is another one.  Obama ratcheting up his “economic”, “lobbyist” and “Washington insiders” arguments against McCain.  Have a look at this Ad.  Look up Johnson and Raines,  their history and current roles on the Obama campaign.  Unbelievable.  Change we need?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myj9UMrbwxY
 

Sep 19, 2008 9:20 pm

From the beginning McCain has pushed Obama's inexperience. What, with only 170 days in the Senate before launching his campaign? But, now according to McCain Obama in that short time period has managed to be responsible for the banking mess and Wall Street's failures. Hey, only in politics.

By the way, I can see the moon from my backyard, can i be an Astrophysicist?   Let's have a Caribo barbie answer watch. If anyone sees or hears Sarah answer a question post it here. Clarifications to straight forward questions about the Bush Doctrine don't count.
Sep 20, 2008 1:46 am
Rugby:

[quote=skeedaddy2]Dems: Tax & Spend and the Reps: Borrow & Spend…its the spending that needs to be controlled.

Obama ran for a year and a half on CHANGE and then he selects Biden, a life-long Washington politician. That’s not change, that’s the same Washington politics, only worse. [/quote]

Here is another one.  Obama ratcheting up his “economic”, “lobbyist” and “Washington insiders” arguments against McCain.  Have a look at this Ad.  Look up Johnson and Raines,  their history and current roles on the Obama campaign.  Unbelievable.  Change we need?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myj9UMrbwxY
 

  If you wrote this story people would laugh at you. The "change" candidate with the paper thin resume, who has  advisors that are long time Washington insiders and who helped drive FNMA into the dirt (another who bombed the Pentagon, but that's another story)  and he selects the ultimate Senate lifer to be his running mate. If that's "change" I have a "money market alternative" I'd like to interest you in.
Sep 20, 2008 1:48 am

[quote=BondGuy]

Let's have a Caribo barbie answer watch. If anyone sees or hears Sarah answer a question post it here. [/quote]  

Only if we can have an "Obama coherent answer without a teleprompter" or “Biden goes 30 minutes without a gaffe, stolen speech or plagiarized speech” watch as well.

Sep 20, 2008 1:49 am

I read an article today of Obama criticizing McCains comments on the Fed and Treasury.  Said we cannot give into fear.  IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, he said we don’t need 8 more years of the same.  Fear anyone? 

Sep 20, 2008 2:40 am

[quote=greyhairedbrker][quote=BondGuy]

Let's have a Caribo barbie answer watch. If anyone sees or hears Sarah answer a question post it here. [/quote]  

Only if we can have an "Obama coherent answer without a teleprompter" or “Biden goes 30 minutes without a gaffe, stolen speech or plagiarized speech” watch as well.

[/quote]

How about a "Obama questionable / unsavory friends and associates come out of the woodwork watch"?

Charles Manson pen pal?  Plays golf with O.J.?   etc....Whats the big deal?  Not as bad as calling Frank Raines for some advice on the mortgage industry or putting Credit Card Industry Joe on the ticket. 
Sep 21, 2008 1:53 pm

Even though Pailin, the no nonsense, tight wad, won't waste your money veep candidate stopped the bridge to nowhere( yeah right), apparently the 25 million dollar access road to the bridge, known locally as the road to nowhere, got built. Locals say it will be handy for ATVers and hunters. Does anyone here know whether they wasted their own money or was it our they wasted? Oh yeah, getting back $1.84 for every dollar they send to DC they don't have any of their own money. Alaska- The ultimate welfare state. That can't sit well with the real republicans among you.

Even watching Palin friendly TV like Hannity and Combs, She doesn't answer questions. She's likable, but where's the beef? Best yet, at town meeting with McCain a questioner asked specifically what qualified her to be VP? She danced around the question with a non specific non answer for about a minute. Paraphrasing here she ended with "and if anyone wants to know specifically what qualifies me to be VP well then ask away, we can play stump the candidate." Ah, hmm, The questioner did ask specifcally what qualifies her. Yet no answer. But she had that winning smile and down home affect going for her.   The love affair is over folks. McCain dominates the debates or its over for him.   Lastly, many of you have criticized Obama for being an elitist. Which is right wing speak for being smart. This past week, not a bad week to have a smart leader, dontcha think?        
Sep 21, 2008 2:23 pm

Have you considered that the questions being posed to Palin may be above her pay grade?

Sep 21, 2008 2:36 pm
Primo:

Have you considered that the questions being posed to Palin may be above her pay grade?

  Primo, I don't expect her to be able to answer questions beyond her knowledge. However, the qualification question asked was a softball question and she didn't answer it. She should know her own qualifications. So, tell us what they are.   On the ABC interview, also many non answer answers. But more glaring the gaff on the Bush Doctrine question. Now honestly, many people on the street wouldn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, but there is no excuse for someone running for the second highest office in the land to not to know. Most of the people on this site know what it is and have an opinion on it, which is all Gibson asked.
Sep 21, 2008 4:02 pm

[quote=BondGuy]


  The love affair is over folks. McCain dominates the debates or its over for him.   [/quote]

BG-  A a little cocky, perhaps?  Obama has a good week without adding anything substantive to the debate of this week's events .  On the morning news shows, they're talking about how how both candidates are marginalized due to what cong. /treasury faced with in coming weeks.

That said, either cand. is not in a position that it is his election to lose.  Undecided are paying close attention and will still decide the election.  IMO-  The biggest question in their minds is where's the beef on Obama.  Your McCain dominates debates or its over analysis is a little out there. 

If you are hoping for a Obama win you should hope for a Obama to close the deal himself  with the undecided voters and voters that are skeptical.   This is something he had difficulty with against HRC in swing states.  They're not going to give him the benefit of the doubt without him really separating himself from MCCain.  He certainly has not done that to date and the cirumstances and timing may prove difficult for him. 
Sep 21, 2008 5:50 pm

Like it or not the republicans own this mess we find ourselves in. And to some extent that is unfair because there is plenty of blame to go around including the american people them selves. This mess has been building for over 20 years. Now we've hit the wall. How it plays on Wall Street is that better leadership from the Admin a year ago could have averted the collison with ground we got this past week. How it plays on Main Street is that the Republicans are in the white house and  they are to blame. For this week at least, all Obama had to do was show up. That's all he did and his numbers are up.

Sep 21, 2008 8:30 pm

I think it’s pretty interesting getting to hear what’s being said deep in the Democratic bunker.

 <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The current banking/mortgage crisis “belongs” to the GOP (don’t ask Barney Frank or Chris Dodd or any of Obama’s friends who made millions at Fannie Mae how that’s true), the supporters of the guy who votes “present” and dodges questions with paygrade comments thinks McCain’s VP doesn’t answer questions with sufficient detail and now the guy that’s been dodging town hall appearances with Mccain and is now reading his stump speeches from a teleprompter has it sown up unless McCain dominates the coming debates. I think people who believe that kind of stuff don’t read electoral college maps very often.

BTW, “elitist”  doesn’t mean “smart”, it means the kind of person who asks farmers if they know the price of arugala at the local Whole Foods and dismisses people in flyover country as “bitter” when he’s meeting with wealthy contributors behind closed doors.
Sep 22, 2008 5:47 pm

9/22 Obama 47.4% - McCain 45.4% - Obama +2.0%

  Obama +8 on electoral votes.  One fairly small state flips and the election goes the other way.  Problem for McCain is, most of the small states are already his.
Sep 22, 2008 6:32 pm

[quote=Indyone]9/22 Obama 47.4% - McCain 45.4% - Obama +2.0%

  Obama +8 on electoral votes.  One fairly small state flips and the election goes the other way.  Problem for McCain is, most of the small states are already his.[/quote]

Polls are so close and the electoral college scenarios could go in multiple directions from here.  Watch it play out much differently than the current analysis.  (red, blue, toss up bad calls).  Just a lot of noise from the pollsters and predictors.  I have a hunch that they will look silly on Nov 5th.  Not so much that they have bad data....just too many undecided voters and some complex (monumental) situations unfolding.

Case in point, oil is up $25 a BBL to $129 as I type this.  Ouch! Did Paulson and gang consider the impact on the $ and commodities?  What say Obama and McCain?  How is this and all the other issues viewed in Ohio in respects to the candidates?  I'm not sure how this plays out or who will come out on top.  All TBD....


Sep 23, 2008 2:17 pm

Oil was a short squeeze. Ultimately meaningless.

Sep 23, 2008 5:47 pm
BondGuy:

Oil was a short squeeze. Ultimately meaningless.

  ...a few idiots holding short on the last day of the contract spawn another round of client anxiety.  I'm glad they got their @sses handed to them.
Sep 23, 2008 7:05 pm
Indyone:

[quote=BondGuy]Oil was a short squeeze. Ultimately meaningless.

  ...a few idiots holding short on the last day of the contract spawn another round of client anxiety.  I'm glad they got their @sses handed to them.[/quote]   I concur. What were they thinking? Idiot trade
Sep 25, 2008 6:34 pm

McCain - Not looking too presidential lately.

  Think what you will about his decision to suspend his campaign, he looked tired and spooked during his press conference yesterday.   All of you still in his camp?
Sep 25, 2008 9:36 pm

[quote=BondGuy]McCain - Not looking too presidential lately.

  Think what you will about his decision to suspend his campaign, he looked tired and spooked during his press conference yesterday.   All of you still in his camp?[/quote]

I've decided to go with your guy, BG.  Why not go for the guy who ducks his job's responsibilties.  Besides, that 700bil debate, figure it out thing... looks like a real pain in the ass to deal with.  Dodd and Frank look like their up to the task and could do a fine job on Dem's behalf.  That whole save the economy deal, how to pay for it...blah blah blah...no friggin' fun.

Real Presidential of Obama to hole up in a hotel boning up on his foreign policy stances while Rome burns.  What's up with that?  The guy is at least living up to his prior work history with his approach on the crisis...voting present in state legislature, run for prez as soon as elected U.S. Senator...Write (2) memoirs about  ???.  He is paid as a U.S. Senator to figure out and vote on this mess and oh yea that little thing that he he has a 40/60 chance of bring Prez. and has to deal with what passes as legislation.

You are a funny guy.  
Sep 25, 2008 10:16 pm

Rugby, I didn’t know anyone here was a member of the “sky is falling” coalition. My mistake.

  I'll take your fear into account on future posts.   I am confused on one count: Yesterday,  republican after republican used their face time with Paulson  to voice opposition to the plan and to further say they wouldn't support the plan. Many said a plan wasn't needed at all or at least not one so hastily constructed. So, to use  your words Rugby, as Rome was burning, why so many republicans opposed to putting the fire out? And this is Bush's plan, right? So the repubs ought to love it. You voted for Bush didn't you?   Vote for whom ever you like this time round. Going by your track record you've got a history of voting for screw ups. So why not again? Personally, I can't vote for a candidate who lets us see him sweat. Yeah, it's OK to be scared and uncertain, but don't let me see that in you. Putin sees that, and we are dead in a showdown. McCain was clearly upset yesterday. That or he put on a good act. Thank God he's got Barbie. At least there's at least one candidate with a set of balls on that ticket.
Sep 25, 2008 10:56 pm

Let’s face it.  Adding McCain and Obama to the mix of those in Washington trying to solve this problem will just make it worse.  Every Senator and Congressman has their own opinion.  We really don’t need two more.  Neither of them even knows what to do, so why expect them to help?

  So you might say, "Well they're running for president, they should help".  No.  Just keep them in the loop with everything that's going on between the President, Treasury, and the Fed.  That's what the President does.  Stays in the loop and makes the executive decision.  We don't need to hear the opinions of two more people that like to hear themselves talk. 
Sep 26, 2008 12:04 am

Fear?  Lets us see him sweat?  These are strange new talking points you and your camp have on McCain.

Shouldn’t be too effective against a candidate that flew multiple combat missions in Vietnam firing missiles into hostile fire.  Meanwhile, the closest your guy came to firing anything was a stapler into a telephone pole in Chicago. 

As far as Repubs. for and against Paulson’s plan…is it too confusing to you that this is not a party line issue?  I think this new show (short haired chick) on MSBC has gotten you all confused causing you to make these irrational posts.

Oh yea…and McCain is afraid to debate Obama.  He wants to delay the debate for a few days to stay in Washington until legislation complete.  Before you reply, ask yourself why Obama turned down McCain multiple times to have (10) weekly town hall debates leading up to the debate.  In your mind he must of been bluffing.  One more thing, McCain doesn’t prepare for a debate he shows up…kind of refreshing don’t you think?  Not fearful…although you’ll be looking for the sweat on the brow…


Sep 26, 2008 2:13 pm

Rugs, are you being overly defensive, or do you have a reading comprehension problem? Where did I mention the debates?

  Irrational? Rugs in your post above to me you try to justify McCain's emergency DROP EVERYTHING trip to Washington by equating the situation to Rome burning. Yet to justify the repubs stalling on the bailout you admonish Snags not to panick and to take a deep breath. The repubs need to slow things down.   If that sounds more than a little schitzo, it's because it is. Rugs, you can't have a candidate who is yelling fire, while meanwhile down on the ground those he would have put out the fire stand around with their hands in their pockets. You can't have it both ways.   This plan was a done deal before McCain showed up and stuck a stick in the spokes.   Down 9% in the pols before he announced his suspension his move was pure desperation. Time to ride into DC on the white horse and save the day. But, a funny thing happened on the horse ride to DC, the day was saved without him. But whoa, not so fast, McCain gets there and the entire deal falls apart. Now to save face, the repubs are saying there was no deal. Belive that? Ok, suspend reality. This is politics at its worst. It should be the final nail in McCain's candidacy. Then again, guys like you voted Bush in for two terms. Some people just eat an extra bowl of stupid every morning.   If anyone believes that it is even possible to suspend a presidential campaign well then, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.    
Sep 26, 2008 3:02 pm

[quote=BondGuy]Rugs, are you being overly defensive, or do you have a reading comprehension problem? Where did I mention the debates?

 You didn't.  I figured you were would be going there at some point.  My bad for getting ahead of myself.
Irrational? Rugs in your post above to me you try to justify McCain's emergency DROP EVERYTHING trip to Washington by equating the situation to Rome burning. Yet to justify the repubs stalling on the bailout you admonish Snags not to panick and to take a deep breath. The repubs need to slow things down.   If that sounds more than a little schitzo, it's because it is. Rugs, you can't have a candidate who is yelling fire, while meanwhile down on the ground those he would have put out the fire stand around with their hands in their pockets. You can't have it both ways.   This plan was a done deal before McCain showed up and stuck a stick in the spokes.  Not true.  Deal would not have passed without Repub. support and Dems were reluctant to go along with repub. admin. plan when repubs. themselves were not.  Comprendo?  
Down 9% in the pols before he announced his suspension his move was pure desperation.
Gallup tracking poll out today 9/26 has them even.  (46%, 46%)
Time to ride into DC on the white horse and save the day. But, a funny thing happened on the horse ride to DC, the day was saved without him. But whoa, not so fast, McCain gets there and the entire deal falls apart. Now to save face, the repubs are saying there was no deal. Belive that? Ok, suspend reality. This is politics at its worst. It should be the final nail in McCain's candidacy. Then again, guys like you voted Bush in for two terms. Some people just eat an extra bowl of stupid every morning.  Should be final nail?  Why isn't it?  Why can't your candid. separate or distinguish himself?  People are stupid is a lousy argument, BG.  The entire country would better served if it had the collective intelligence as people from NJ / NY, like yourself.  Everything would be fine today with John Kerry & Al Gore too.  If McCain is stumbling so badly, it should be a layup for your candid. to pull away in polls and bring something to table to solve these issues.  Why he isn't is because too many people eating bowls of stupid for breakfast?  My take is that you better serve your candid. by speaking of why your candid. is best for country than questioning the intelligence of your opponents supporters.  (Elitist shtick) 

If anyone believes that it is even possible to suspend a presidential campaign well then, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.   
[/quote]

Side Note-  Why in the world would Dems go along with a Treasury Sec. of a Admin. they despise and have no confidence in?  My take-  Frank, Dodd, Reid, Pelosi (Scary) = Bush, Paulsen (Scary)....No reason to go along with entire Paulsen plan...We'll survive.   Also, not very comforting that Obama would get in line behind the DEM side of the above equation in this situation.  Shows a lack of leadership.
Sep 26, 2008 4:50 pm

McCain needs to fire whatever idiot advisor told him it would be a good idea to suspend his campaign and skip the debate. Bad advice and McCain is a better man than that. He now looks ridiculous.

  Headline: McCain Blinks   I stand by my observation that when announcing the suspension he looked like a deer in the headlights.    
Sep 26, 2008 6:15 pm

[quote=BondGuy]McCain needs to fire whatever idiot advisor told him it would be a good idea to suspend his campaign and skip the debate. Bad advice and McCain is a better man than that. He now looks ridiculous.

  Headline: McCain Blinks   I stand by my observation that when announcing the suspension he looked like a deer in the headlights.    [/quote]   I agree, McCain looked stupid.  You were right, all Obama had to do is show up.  That's it, he did.   McCain's advisors aren't helping him.   Also, what were they thinking not letting Palin talk?  She gave, what, two interviews?  That looks suspect in and of itself.  Are they so afraid the public will see through her now that her luster has worn off?   McCain's campaign is being run into the ground.  Maybe being a maverick isn't a good thing?!?   Obama, on the other hand, what are we to do with the people he chooses to associate with and seek economic advice from?  He's just as guilty as anyone else in Washington and actually found a way to do it faster than anyone else as he hasn't been there long.   This presidential race is a joke. 
Sep 28, 2008 2:24 pm

I have to agree with BondGuy, here. What was the McCain camp thinking? However, the whole $700 B bailout talks have all been a circus. All the political postering that has taken place just sickens me.

Sep 28, 2008 2:52 pm

Did anybody SEE the interview with Palin/Couric the other day? “What exactly has John McCain done in Washington?”-Couric

"Well, let me find out and I’ll get back you!"-Palin



I was sort of para-phrasing (I forget the exact words). But man, she looked stupid.

Sep 28, 2008 4:31 pm
For anyone interested in some reasons for this financial mess...this is from the right
and could be considered biased. See link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
Sep 28, 2008 4:58 pm
B24:

Did anybody SEE the interview with Palin/Couric the other day? “What exactly has John McCain done in Washington?”-Couric
“Well, let me find out and I’ll get back you!”-Palin

I was sort of para-phrasing (I forget the exact words). But man, she looked stupid.

  The smart answer would be   "Why don't you ask John McCain that question. I thought you were interviewing ME"
Sep 28, 2008 5:21 pm

I’m still having a hard time getting over this:

COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion
helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care,
housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money
into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions
that played a role in creating this mess?


PALIN:
That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill
about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers
looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help
those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to
help shore up our economy, helping the—it’s got to be all about job
creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right
track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending
has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And
trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive,
scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector
today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things
under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

--------------------

I know it was a landmine question, but she didn’t just lose a leg, she lost it all. 

Sep 29, 2008 12:05 am

Saturday Night Live did it’s opening skit with Tina Fey playing Palin in the Couric interview.

Of course it was very funny. But sadly, the answers Fey gave to those questions were as good as Palin's. The were equally nonsensical.  And Fey is so good playing her you had to do a double take to make sure it wasn't Palin.   Palin is a smart woman but here's the problem: She's out of her league. And it's not all her fault. Her handlers, those running the campaign, bare much of the responsiblity here. They haven't prepped her. They should have locked her in a room and said here are 150 questions you are going to get asked again and again, we're staying here until you can answer every one of them. They didn't do that. They locked her in the room, but they did nothing, or at least very little to prep her. To top it off she's lost her Mojo. She's lost her confidence. She's not the same woman who delivered that acceptance speech a few weeks ago. That's on the managers, not her.   Looking at it realistically, maybe she's never going to be ready. She was the governor of a state that population wise, is smaller than many counties in the northeast states. Or, another comparison would be she leads a government about the same size as a small city. Now she's taking out ofthat and thrust onto the bigist stage there is. That's gotta be a tough gig. And for me at least, I don't think she has the stuff we need in the executive branch.   Many are now saying she's going to get slaughtered in the debate this week. I for one, don't think so. It's a controlled setting and she knows the topic going in. Besides Biden will talk too much as usual. If he goes for the jugular it could backfire.   Still, to me it's a scary thought that this woman could be president. It is like a bad Disney movie.   I thought the McCain/Obama debate was a draw but polls show clearly that Obama won the debate. McCain's "I'm the Sheriff" strategy backfired with independents. They really didn't like McCain lecturing Obama, who obviously had a handle on the points McCain was making and clearly understood the points McCain said he didn't understand. This debate was McCain's strongest suit, foreign policy. He needed a big win here and didn't get it. And now fellow republicans are minimalizing his role as a player in the Bailout.   My own impression was McCain was looking backwards at our mistakes and Obama was looking forward with a vision for the future.   Stuck in the past or onward and upward to the future. Now, that's a choice. 
Sep 29, 2008 12:18 am

Bondguy,

  I do agree with what you are saying.  The fact that you say, "It's like a bad Disney movie" is along the same lines of Matt Damon's comments:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk   As an independent myself, I did favor Obama in the debate by a pretty wide margin.  All the "Obama doesn't know what he's talking about" stuff did get pretty old.   I was also annoyed by the stupid things he says off the cuff.  For instance, when asked, "What would you do or cut from your plans because of this economic crisis?", McCain says, "How about a spending freeze on everything except the war and taking care of our veterans".  Are you serious?  Did you really just say that?   I know it's not a huge point, but the guy seems so frantic about everything.    The whole Palin thing has completely worn off on me.  I am so dis-interested in her and now view her pick as a terrible choice.   Lastly, I think McCain's advisors must be the dumbest guys around.  They have been making McCain look very poorly of late.
Sep 29, 2008 7:15 pm

The Republicans just put the stake through McCain’s presidential bid. 

  This is not going away for a long time.   The republicans are blaming Pelosi's speech before the vote, citing it as bipartisan.  Sure, saying nothing would have been better.  But if the republicans voted against it because of Pelosi's comments, then it plainly shows they are playing politics with the market and could not have put it to the side.   The republicans went against their own party's plan.  Talk about bumblef*ck.
Sep 29, 2008 7:50 pm

I’m over Democracy at this point.  I’m ready for communism. 

Our Glorious Leaders, Bernanke and Paulson '08

edit: my apologies, I forget irony is hard to achieve with out the

but seriously…

Sep 29, 2008 8:14 pm

This is serious, but ice’s advice is good advice to heed. It’s way too early to know what the final outcome of any of this will be. While I tend to agree that this doesn’t bode well for McCain, let’s let the smoke clear. Right now each side is blasting away at the other. This deal isn’t going to pass if that continues.