2008 Presidential Race Part Two

[Jedieb]

This next week is going to be interesting for the press. You know they've descended on Alaska. I wonder how many stories are going to be popping up during the week. This will her first full work week as the nominee and the press is going to be vetting her like no other candidate before. This is what you get when you nominate someone who's virtually unknown nationally. And I just say a You Tube video of Palin on stage with pastors as they pray for Alaska being a "refuge" for hundreds of thousands of Christians as the End Days approach. Yep, apparently Alaska and Wisconsin will be the place to be for Kirk Cameron and friends when the big day hits any day now... any day now..... :crack

Back in the real world, I just saw part of an Obama stump speech where he took shots at Palin by mentioning her love of "earmarks" and some of the B.S. she's been spouting in her speeches. Good, the Dems need to start calling her on her bogus 'Bridge to Nowhere' crud. And even the ebay story is getting ripped to shreds. And it's really carelessness on McCain's part. Because even though Palin didn't exactly say she sold the jet, McCain HAS been saying exactly that on the stump.

"You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was purchased by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit."

But it's almost old news now that the jet had to pulled off ebay and then it was eventually sold for a $700,000 loss. Man, the jokes that you could make out of that gaffe if you're Obama or Biden...

[Rutabaga]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184111&title=john-mccains-big-acceptance&byDate=true
I thought this was funny, well I thought the whole show was funny last night. But about 5 mins into that video, there's a little comparison of the Bush speech in 2000 and the McCain speech.
That was brilliant! :lol

On a different note, you know the McCain campaign is playing Karl Rove tactics when they pull this stunt: McCain Camp ‘Rescues’ Flags From Obama Rally (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mccain-camp-to-chastise-dems-for-discarding-american-flags/)

Which was immediately debunked:
'Thrown Away Flags' Story False, Dem Convention Official Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/06/thrown-away-flags-story-f_n_124499.html)

It defies my belief that they are able to send their campaign workers trespassing and stealing material from the Obama campaign, then they have the audacity to proudly proclaim they did it to "save the flags", then making an event mocking and accusing DNC for lack of patriotism. How do the GOP get away with this crap? The media should roast them for this.

I truly thank heavens for The Daily Show. I am so glad that a lot of people--particularly younger people--are getting their news there instead of from the corporate media. The stuff they have done this week, especially the outing of Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and Sarah Palin herself re: sexism and Samantha Bee's brilliant piece at the Republican convention trying to get delegates to say the word "choice," have been masterpieces. I haven't seen the coverage of McCain's speech yet...I have the episode recorded and will watch it tonight, but I hear it was yet another moment of outrageous hilarity.

And the flag story...geez, how stupid do they think the DNC and the American public are? The fact that that story was "broken" by Faux News comes as no surprise at all. And I was really glad to see the rebuttal posted at HuffPo. I see there are now further updates with more statements from members of the DNC decrying what the McCain campaign did. The bad part is, there are Faux News lemmings out there who will believe it despite any other statements to the contrary. The good news is that most of the American public won't fall for it, and most won't care. This is just like the whole flag pin controversy. (Oh, BTW, notice what was missing from McCain's lapel during his acceptance speech? Hm?) This whole flag story is just a diversionary tactic because they've been caught red-handed in so many lies and distortions already. It's probably also a diversionary tactic because it's been revealed that Palin will NOT be on any of the Sunday talking head programs and isn't even available to the media for any interviews at all. And apparently she's heading home to Alaska after this weekend. Cover story is to prepare for her son being deployed to Iraq, which is probably partially the truth. But there's obviously more to it than that.

[Rutabaga]

This next week is going to be interesting for the press. You know they've descended on Alaska. I wonder how many stories are going to be popping up during the week. This will her first full work week as the nominee and the press is going to be vetting her like no other candidate before. This is what you get when you nominate someone who's virtually unknown nationally. And I just say a You Tube video of Palin on stage with pastors as they pray for Alaska being a "refuge" for hundreds of thousands of Christians as the End Days approach. Yep, apparently Alaska and Wisconsin will be the place to be for Kirk Cameron and friends when the big day hits any day now... any day now..... :crack

Back in the real world, I just saw part of an Obama stump speech where he took shots at Palin by mentioning her love of "earmarks" and some of the B.S. she's been spouting in her speeches. Good, the Dems need to start calling her on her bogus 'Bridge to Nowhere' crud. And even the ebay story is getting ripped to shreds. And it's really carelessness on McCain's part. Because even though Palin didn't exactly say she sold the jet, McCain HAS been saying exactly that on the stump.

"You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was purchased by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit."

But it's almost old news now that the jet had to pulled off ebay and then it was eventually sold for a $700,000 loss. Man, the jokes that you could make out of that gaffe if you're Obama or Biden...

I still want to know why the corporate media is NOT covering Palin's religious statements when they were so quick to roast Obama and Reverend Wright continuously for days on end. Oh, I already know the answer, but still...come on, people, do your freaking job. :shakefist

And if you want to see great outrage against what McCain and Palin said this week, I got an email from the Obama campaign today with footage of an appearance by Joe Biden in Pennsylvania yesterday. It was simply awesome.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAUSoXqr3yc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAUSoXqr3yc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Daiquiri]

Maybe you guys can tell me if this is true: did Obama really have the American flag removed on the outside of his plane and put his own symbol on it? A couple of the guys I work with told me this yesterday.

[Rutabaga]

Maybe you guys can tell me if this is true: did Obama really have the American flag removed on the outside of his plane and put his own symbol on it? A couple of the guys I work with told me this yesterday.

Happy to oblige :). This is one of those rumors that has an element of truth to it, but it's not nearly as cut and dried and/or nefarious as the urban legend is making it out to be. The full details can be found here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/plane

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp

What makes this whole story so ridiculous is that people are being very indignant and claiming that it's an indication of Obama actually being anti-American and unpatriotic, etc., so forth, yadda yadda yadda. Well, take a look at these articles and you'll see pictures of McCain's campaign plane. Which is painted in a very, very similar fashion. So it's much ado about nothing, and just another one of those false urban legends that are floating through the internet ether.

Snopes is always a terrific place to go if you hear any stories that sound just too weird to be true. They have an extensive Obama section. Plus there's the Obama campaign itself at http://www.fightthesmears.com. These are both valuable resources to help sort the truth from the lies.

[Yog]

Obama's campaign is very conscious about color scheme and design. I don't see the big deal. Besides, the American flag IS on the plane.

These kind of smears are just retarded. It reminds me of the 'controversy' about flag pins and pledge of allegiance, which was equally stupid. Last time I checked, the McCain logo was not designed around the American flag....

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/2606/obamalogo712332hr9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/2606/obamalogo712332hr9.e97c9f60b8.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=367&i=obamalogo712332hr9.jpg)

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4522/mccainlogo2mz2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4522/mccainlogo2mz2.39ca33863f.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=156&i=mccainlogo2mz2.jpg)

Obviously, this means McCain is unpatriotic!!! Quick, tell all your friends! :rolleyes

Edit: Also, McCain did not wear his flag pin during his speech on Thursday. Preposterous!


These are both valuable resources to help sort the truth from the lies.
I like those sites, but my favorite is factcheck.org. Totally non partisan and unbiased, factchecking both sides of the political spectrum:
http://www.factcheck.org/

[Yog]

Here is an interesting article in New York Times about Obama and what he plans to do about the economy. It requires you to be logged in, but it's well worth the read:
How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=login&oref=slogin)


Also, for the latest McCain camp blunder, it does not get much better than this one:
New GOP Spin: Palin's Not Ready (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/new-gop-spin-palins-not-ready.html)


Todd Harris, a GOP strategist who is close to the McCain campaign, says Palin won't be available to the press for about two weeks. His defense? She might make "a mistake."

"If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that [voters will] care about, and that's something that will haunt [McCain] for awhile, so I think this is a smart move."

[Rutabaga]

Also, for the latest McCain camp blunder, it does not get much better than this one:
New GOP Spin: Palin's Not Ready (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/new-gop-spin-palins-not-ready.html)


Todd Harris, a GOP strategist who is close to the McCain campaign, says Palin won't be available to the press for about two weeks. His defense? She might make "a mistake."

"If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that [voters will] care about, and that's something that will haunt [McCain] for awhile, so I think this is a smart move."

You've got to be freaking KIDDING ME. :mad

I can't believe this. I know I sound like a broken record, but geez, if this were Obama's VP pick, the outrage would be strong enough to light up the national power grid for weeks.

[Yog]

I can't believe this. I know I sound like a broken record, but geez, if this were Obama's VP pick, the outrage would be strong enough to light up the national power grid for weeks.

Not to mention, Obama has been under the microscope for 19 months, with I don't know how many debates, Q&A and interviews. As for Biden, he is already out there talking with people and the press, with no scripts. This week, he has had an interview with 60 minutes, morning shows, and he will be on Meet The Press tomorrow I think. And he already ran for president, and more than 30 years in the public spotlight.

Palin? She read a speech someone else wrote.. on a teleprompter. And the Republicans are in ecstasy about her...

[Jedieb]

If I were Biden I'd be bending over backwards to make myself available to the press. I'd put them on the bus, the plane, hell I'd invite them into the bathroom. Just keep hammering this message; "Ask away guys, THIS VP candidate isn't afraid of you!"

Planes, Trains, Automobiles, and the Flag
Holy crap, this is unbelievable. Obama puts the stripes on his logo, but that's not enough. As Yog mentioned, McCain didn't even wear a flag pin while Obama now has to make sure he has one attahed to every suit he owns. It's a ridiculous non-issue, but for some people, it actually matters. I wouldn't even bother arguing it because people who actually pay attention to this junk were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

The McCain bounce inches forward, the RCP average now has Obama's lead down to 1.8. Obama's bounce played out early into the following week. I expect McCain could have a good Monday and Tuesday. It depends on how well people received his speech.

[Yog]

Obama now has to make sure he has one attahed to every suit he owns.

You think this outfit would help?

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/3876/7328xlix5.jpg

[Rutabaga]

And the Republican hypocrisy machine roars on:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-media-a-2.html

This is just so pretentious and insulting, it makes my blood boil. They want her to be treated with "deference" and "respect"? :lol Just like she treated Obama, community organizers, and the Democratic party in her acceptance speech? Just like she respects a woman's right to choose? Non-Christians? Gays and lesbians? Librarians? Wolves and polar bears? The rule of law? THE TRUTH?

:shakefist

This is just another diversionary tactic spun by the Rovian campaign strategists to keep people from getting to the truth. I swear to God, if McCain and Palin do get voted in, then the American public deserves what they get. I regret, however, that I will be caught in the crossfire.

And look what's happening in Canada right now:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/07/canada.elections.ap/index.html

Please please please don't let this give George Bush any ideas.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

You've got to be freaking KIDDING ME. :mad

I can't believe this. I know I sound like a broken record, but geez, if this were Obama's VP pick, the outrage would be strong enough to light up the national power grid for weeks.


If McCain is elected I'll just plain give up on the USA. This crap is just so transparently blatantly bad... why is nearly half the population allowing the Republicans to get away with it? Why are so few within their own party holding them accountable? How can you put up such a clearly BAD candidate as Palin and be allowed to bluster your way around it??? And how can you let someone with such seriously poor judgement as McCain has proven into the Whitehouse?

I mean come on guys and gals.... your country has a whole lot of problems created by the Republicans and the election is still polling as a dead heat??? WTF is WRONG with this picture????

[Rutabaga]

You've got to be freaking KIDDING ME. :mad

I can't believe this. I know I sound like a broken record, but geez, if this were Obama's VP pick, the outrage would be strong enough to light up the national power grid for weeks.


If McCain is elected I'll just plain give up on the USA. This crap is just so transparently blatantly bad... why is nearly half the population allowing the Republicans to get away with it? Why are so few within their own party holding them accountable? How can you put up such a clearly BAD candidate as Palin and be allowed to bluster your way around it??? And how can you let someone with such seriously poor judgement as McCain has proven into the Whitehouse?

I mean come on guys and gals.... your country has a whole lot of problems created by the Republicans and the election is still polling as a dead heat??? WTF is WRONG with this picture????

Honest to God, I just wish I knew. It makes no sense to me either. Nearly 80% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, but half of the country says they're going to vote for a man who is one of the people very responsible for it and will lead the country even further in the wrong direction. It simply boggles my mind, and I have no explanation for it. Except perhaps for mass stupidity, mass hypnosis, mass naivete, mass fear, or a combination of all of the above.

I'm also going to put my trusty old tinfoil hat on right now and say that this is all going right according to Republican plan, with all the attention being on Palin. Have you noticed there's been basically no real coverage of Obama for days? And not even really any substantial coverage of McCain since his speech Thursday? No, it's been Palin, Palin, Palin, all Palin, all the time. And it's successfully diverting people from the truly important issues, like the tanking economy, lack of healthcare, the skyrocketing unemployment rate, massive foreclosures, loss of personal freedom, a woman's right to choose, and things like that. Instead, people seem to be drawn to Palin just like they were drawn to Bush. In Bush, they decided to vote for somebody because they felt like they could have a beer with him. Now they're attracted to someone because they feel like they could have a mooseburger with her. And screw the consequences.

People are falling all over themselves praising Palin and batting their eyelashes at her, proclaiming her as "one of us." And they've known her for only NINE DAYS. Would you marry anyone you knew for only nine days? I think not. The Obama-Biden campaign has to not only bring this election back into focus on what really matters--the issues (even though a McCain aide said it's not about issues, it's about personality :x)--and center everything on McCain, not Palin. But they also still have to keep her in the picture and not be afraid to point out her flaws, because the Republicans sure won't be shy about keeping her in the picture for vastly different reasons.

Oh, and PS...Palin is finally sitting down for her first interview. With Charlie Gibson of ABC :zzz. He's not an aggressive interviewer, so I'm sure this will be all softballs and apple pie. I'm just shocked that it's not Faux News getting the first crack at her.

[Miranda Tarkin]

This is me not being serious about politics, but thought you guys would all appreciate this.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEclbrq7MKE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEclbrq7MKE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

PS - thanks for the links! I have been reading them. Just digesting things

[Rutabaga]

This is me not being serious about politics, but thought you guys would all appreciate this.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEclbrq7MKE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dEclbrq7MKE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

PS - thanks for the links! I have been reading them. Just digesting things

I saw that last week and thought it was hilarious. And maybe a little bit too close to the truth as well :lol.

[Jedieb]

For the first time that I can remember McCain has surged ahead in the RCP average thanks to a big lead in a USA Today poll. (It had him ahead by 10 points.) You should continue to see McCain leads in polls on Monday and Tuesday and then things should start to level out.

[Jedi Master Carr]

For the first time that I can remember McCain has surged ahead in the RCP average thanks to a big lead in a USA Today poll. (It had him ahead by 10 points.) You should continue to see McCain leads in polls on Monday and Tuesday and then things should start to level out.

I think something must be wrong with the polling data on that poll. Hopefully, things to do settle down if not I have to say people are just stupid and makes me worried about the future of our country.

[Figrin D'an]

Honest to God, I just wish I knew. It makes no sense to me either. Nearly 80% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, but half of the country says they're going to vote for a man who is one of the people very responsible for it and will lead the country even further in the wrong direction. It simply boggles my mind, and I have no explanation for it. Except perhaps for mass stupidity, mass hypnosis, mass naivete, mass fear, or a combination of all of the above.



Mass media is at the head of that list. People are lazy, and get their information from incredibly poor sources and in sound byte form because they simply don't want to invest the time to really understand the "why" behind the "what". So, they take whatever spin job is presented as fact, and leave it at that. Combine that with the massively outdated perspective that a lot of people have about both the Democrat and Republican parties, and you have an electorate as inept as the one that exists in the US today.

[Daiquiri]

From everything that the rest of you have dug up, Im reading more and learning to question what others have passed on (like the flag thingy) - I do it anyway but more so in this campaign. I appreciate all that all of you are doing here. Thanks!

[Morgan Evanar]

Mass media is at the head of that list. People are lazy, and get their information from incredibly poor sources and in sound byte form because they simply don't want to invest the time to really understand the "why" behind the "what". So, they take whatever spin job is presented as fact, and leave it at that. Combine that with the massively outdated perspective that a lot of people have about both the Democrat and Republican parties, and you have an electorate as inept as the one that exists in the US today.That and our civil education during school is woeful at best.

[Rutabaga]

Honest to God, I just wish I knew. It makes no sense to me either. Nearly 80% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, but half of the country says they're going to vote for a man who is one of the people very responsible for it and will lead the country even further in the wrong direction. It simply boggles my mind, and I have no explanation for it. Except perhaps for mass stupidity, mass hypnosis, mass naivete, mass fear, or a combination of all of the above.



Mass media is at the head of that list. People are lazy, and get their information from incredibly poor sources and in sound byte form because they simply don't want to invest the time to really understand the "why" behind the "what". So, they take whatever spin job is presented as fact, and leave it at that. Combine that with the massively outdated perspective that a lot of people have about both the Democrat and Republican parties, and you have an electorate as inept as the one that exists in the US today.

You are absolutely right about that. You know, so many people complain about the so-called "liberal media," when the media is anything BUT liberal. I heard a rerun of the Thom Hartmann show today that crystallized the whole argument...most of the media conglomerates are CONSERVATIVE. Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel, etc. There is very little progressive media out there on TV and the radio. A blowhard like Limbaugh is on 600 stations, while Air America struggles to be on 60. (Hooray for XM radio, otherwise I'd never hear any of their programming.) If we truly had a "liberal" media, then Bush and Cheney would have been impeached and thrown in jail years ago. Combine that with a slim Democratic majority in Congress that is terrified of Bush and company, and all you're left with is chaos.

The only part of the media that the conservatives can't control is the internet. And so that's why you see and hear all the outrage on Faux News, Limbaugh, Savage, whining and complaining about progressive blogs and places like Media Matters, which constantly catch conservatives with their pants down (both literally and figuratively), and why there is so much conservative opposition to the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. People do need to be judicious when it comes to gathering info from the net, though...too many people automatically assume that because they read something on the internet, then it must be true. Changing that mindset could be very, very difficult. We've seen evidence of that already with the insane viral emails about Obama that still circulate to this day, despite that crap being debunked.

Being a natural pessimist in situations like this, I can't help but think of the old quote about never going broke by underestimating the stupidity of the public. After all, this is a country where more people vote for their favorites on American Idol than vote in presidential elections. :\

[Drin Kizael]

The lineup of clearly biased liberal media today = every network news TV and cable station except 1 and roughly 3/4 of the national magazines and newspapers.

Rupert Murdoch recognized the niche market. There were a lot of conservatives in the country hungry for news and opinions that wasn't always framed as an attack on their beliefs. And so Fox News was born in 1986.

Conservative talk radio has only been around since 1988. Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio from extinction and gave conservatives a refuge. Without it, there would be no place left where an opposing viewpoint to the left could be heard on anywhere near the same level.

There isn't a complete monopoly on the media anymore. True. But Fox is still just one network. They are still offset by NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. Conservatives don't own AM radio because they waved a magic wand and made people listen. Their audiences come to them to escape the deluge of negativity they get from the networks.

[Yog]

The lineup of clearly biased liberal media today = every network news TV and cable station except 1 and roughly 3/4 of the national magazines and newspapers.

Rupert Murdoch recognized the niche market. There were a lot of conservatives in the country hungry for news and opinions that wasn't always framed as an attack on their beliefs. And so Fox News was born in 1986.

Conservative talk radio has only been around since 1988. Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio from extinction and gave conservatives a refuge. Without it, there would be no place left where an opposing viewpoint to the left could be heard on anywhere near the same level.

There isn't a complete monopoly on the media anymore. True. But Fox is still just one network. They are still offset by NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. Conservatives don't own AM radio because they waved a magic wand and made people listen. Their audiences come to them to escape the deluge of negativity they get from the networks.

No offense, but NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN, those networks are not so much 'liberal' as they are 'capitalist'. They will do anything that raises their ratings. Case in point, Reverend Wright makes about as good 'news' as Palin, they both raise ratings. The media loves sensations, scandals and the big headlines. For a foreigner, the mere suggestion that these networks are viewed as left wing, is utterly absurd. On a political scale from 1-10, with 1 being Stalin and 10 Mussolini, and 5-6 being the ideal middle ground, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN are 5-6 (with NBC being a 5), and Fox News is an 8.

If you are looking for liberal media, it would be more like Stephen Colbert, John Stewart and Bill Maher, which of course is one of the reasons (besides that they are funny) they got so popular with the younger generation. The counterpart to Fox News would be someone like Michael Moore.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The lineup of clearly biased liberal media today = every network news TV and cable station except 1 and roughly 3/4 of the national magazines and newspapers.

Rupert Murdoch recognized the niche market. There were a lot of conservatives in the country hungry for news and opinions that wasn't always framed as an attack on their beliefs. And so Fox News was born in 1986.

Conservative talk radio has only been around since 1988. Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio from extinction and gave conservatives a refuge. Without it, there would be no place left where an opposing viewpoint to the left could be heard on anywhere near the same level.

There isn't a complete monopoly on the media anymore. True. But Fox is still just one network. They are still offset by NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. Conservatives don't own AM radio because they waved a magic wand and made people listen. Their audiences come to them to escape the deluge of negativity they get from the networks.

No offense, but NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN, those networks are not so much 'liberal' as they are 'capitalist'. They will do anything that raises their ratings. Case in point, Reverend Wright makes about as good 'news' as Palin, they both raise ratings. The media loves sensations, scandals and the big headlines. For a foreigner, the mere suggestion that these networks are viewed as left wing, is utterly absurd. On a political scale from 1-10, with 1 being Stalin and 10 Mussolini, and 5-6 being the ideal middle ground, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN are 5-6 (with NBC being a 5), and Fox News is an 8.

If you are looking for liberal media, it would be more like Stephen Colbert, John Stewart and Bill Maher, which of course is one of the reasons (besides that they are funny) they got so popular with the younger generation. The counterpart to Fox News would be someone like Michael Moore.

I agree with you there, although Olberman is very liberal, I say he is like Bill Maher in that regards.

[Yog]

I agree with you there, although Olberman is very liberal, I say he is like Bill Maher in that regards.

Olberman is liberal, no denying that. The NETWORK is not really liberal though. Remember, you have guys like Joe Scarborough, a Republican as an anchor on Morning Joe. Pat Buchanan appears frequently as commentator and guest. And this latest news, just further emphasise NBC have no wish to be liberal:
MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as News Anchors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008_pf.html)

Bottom line, they were "too opiniated" in the Presidential campaign.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

The lineup of clearly biased liberal media today = every network news TV and cable station except 1 and roughly 3/4 of the national magazines and newspapers.


You think your USA media is LIBERAL????????

Get out of the USA and find out just how liberal it really is. It's NOT by a mile. It's not even liberal bias, your media is quite conservative. Obama isnt liberal either, he would be a conservative anywhere else in the world.

The meme about media bias to an idealology is crap anyway. See below.



Rupert Murdoch recognized the niche market. There were a lot of conservatives in the country hungry for news and opinions that wasn't always framed as an attack on their beliefs. And so Fox News was born in 1986.


You honestly think that or you not know the history of Murdoch? He doesnt recognise niches. He owns some of the smuttiest smear rags in the world. He is concerned only about two things - politcal influnece and money. His empire reflects HIM, not some niche marketing.

Ask any an Aussie, we know. Remember where he came from and the papers he's run for the last 40 years. Ask Britain who saw him take over their media in the 80's. It's not conservative media, it's MURDOCH BIAS media. It does what he says so he gets more money and power. Right now the Republican party is the one who gives him the most, so he goes in that direction. If the Democrats were going to make rules to suit him.... hey guess what will happen.

And I will bluntly say that's how media really works. It's not bias. to one wing or the other. It's bias to the owners and serves their interests.

[Yog]

Get out of the USA and find out just how liberal it really is. It's NOT by a mile. It's not even liberal bias, your media is quite conservative. Obama isnt liberal either, he would be a conservative anywhere else in the world.
Pretty much. I'd put every one of those major networks, except NBC on my 1-10 scale at 6, which actually is a slight lean conservative, and I maintain Fox is an 8. And there is no way Obama would be considered "liberal" in any country outside of USA.

It is also funny when american conservatives refer to left wing progressive democrats as "socialists", or "commies". I don't think they know what the word means. There is an hilarious magnitude of difference from socialism to even the most extreme left wing democrats. I think you would have to look at members of the Green Party kicked out because they were too progressive, to even approach that territory, let alone communism, which is an entirely different dimension.

Take it from someone who had a "social democrat" governments for decades, yet we have full scale market economies and privatised services, and top the OECD list of wealthiest countries in the world year after year. Even our most progressive socialist party "Socialist Left" (who btw is part the Government coalition this term), they embrace market economy and don't want to raise taxes...

[Drin Kizael]

No offense, but NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN, those networks are not so much 'liberal' as they are 'capitalist'. They will do anything that raises their ratings. Case in point, Reverend Wright makes about as good 'news' as Palin, they both raise ratings. The media loves sensations, scandals and the big headlines.
Well Fox is just as much capitalist as they are in that regard, but I beg to differ that they are not liberal. I'll only grant that ABC is a little less guilty than the others. But shows like Nightline, 60 Minutes, and the Clinton News Network's entire schedule is unabashedly on the left while protesting their innocence a bit too much. Seriously, Fox gets crap for their "fair and balanced" slogan... but in truth they ARE the balance.

I remember when Jon Stewart used to be funny. I miss the Daily Show. Colbert still manages it sometimes.

Bill Maher every now and then sounds like he's got Rush Limbaugh Echo Syndrome, though. I remember when Dennis Miller used to be hard left, too.... oh wait. He's on radio now. :)

[Drin Kizael]

You think your USA media is LIBERAL????????
On an American scale... Yes. It is.


Get out of the USA and find out just how liberal it really is. It's NOT by a mile. It's not even liberal bias, your media is quite conservative. Obama isnt liberal either, he would be a conservative anywhere else in the world.

Yes I am aware that much of Europe and Australia is even farther left than today's Democrat party leaders, which frankly makes me glad I live here. No offense. Sorry. McCain could well have been a Democrat 30 years ago, so in truth, America isn't as extreme far right as people make us out to be either.

I love how Rupert Murdoch is this evil Machiavellian... but apparently the rest are just doing their jobs.

As an aside... I've read an awful lot of conservative opinions filter its way out of Australia, too. I should also add that conservatism is not a uniquely American concept. Look at France, even.

[Yog]

Well Fox is just as much capitalist as they are in that regard, but I beg to differ that they are not liberal. I'll only grant that ABC is a little less guilty than the others. But shows like Nightline, 60 Minutes, and the Clinton News Network's entire schedule is unabashedly on the left while protesting their innocence a bit too much. Seriously, Fox gets crap for their "fair and balanced" slogan... but in truth they ARE the balance.
I don't watch Nightline so no comment on that one, but 60 minutes? I think you confuse critical journalism with liberal. The fact that republicans have been in power for the last 8 years (a corrupt one at that), thus making them a valid target, does not make a documentary show "liberal".

As for Clinton News Network, yeah, they always been in favor of Clinton, but not so much Obama. I remember in the primaries how frustrated I was hearing Wolf Blitzer talking about Clinton's "momentum" and how close the race was all the time. And in the McCain / Obama race, they have criticised Obama just as much if not more, especially on the Reverend Wright issue and perceived lack of experience. It's only now that this disaster on two legs (Palin) and the RNC playing Karl Rove tactics, the narrative changed.



Bill Maher every now and then sounds like he's got Rush Limbaugh Echo Syndrome, though. I remember when Dennis Miller used to be hard left, too.... oh wait. He's on radio now. :)
I watched Real Time with Bill Maher the other day. Former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Michael Steele was on the show. Mr. Steele parroted republican party lines like a robot, he was quite obnoxious IMO. And Maher seemed to have more patience than the Pope sitting there letting him spew out nonsense. I don't think it's fair to compare Maher with Limbaugh, who is more of an activist with a radio show.

There is also something to be said about the difference between being "opiniated" and having hard left values.

[Rutabaga]

I agree with you there, although Olberman is very liberal, I say he is like Bill Maher in that regards.

Olberman is liberal, no denying that. The NETWORK is not really liberal though. Remember, you have guys like Joe Scarborough, a Republican as an anchor on Morning Joe. Pat Buchanan appears frequently as commentator and guest. And this latest news, just further emphasise NBC have no wish to be liberal:
MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as News Anchors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008_pf.html)

Bottom line, they were "too opiniated" in the Presidential campaign.

My mother and I cannot have a civil conversation about this election, because she has so totally and thoroughly imbibed the Faux News Kool-Aid. She is so brainwashed, it gives me terrible heartache. Just this afternoon, she was chortling about how it was breaking news on Faux today that MSNBC had "fired" Olbermann and Matthews. I immediately had to correct her and tell her the real story, and called it "one of the typical lies" that Faux tells. She immediately got defensive, saying, "No, no, no!" Then she said she might have misunderstood, maybe that wasn't what they said. I felt like telling her that if MSNBC fires Olbermann, then Faux needs to fire her beloved Bill O'Reilly. But I just left it where it was, although I was just about ready to cry. She knows how much I hate Faux, and sometimes I feel like she's rubbing my face in it.

The idea that Faux News is "fair and balanced" is just so offensive, it's almost indescribable. Their token liberal, Alan Colmes, is such a wuss, it's ridiculous.

Remember the flag story this weekend? It came from Carl Cameron of Faux. Did you know that in 2004, he was caught <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/214283.php">posting fabricated quotes from John Kerry on the Faux News website</a>? All he got was a weak slap on the wrist. He should have been fired for that.

It's true that the corporations behind most of the media outlets are driven by one thing, and one thing only: PROFITS. That's why so many of them would love to see the administration continue to be Republican, because they'll keep getting their big ol' beloved tax breaks. Ratings are also a secondary driver, but that's all connected with profits as well. They will want this election to be a horse race until November 4th, otherwise their ratings will tank. So that's why they (all of the corporate media) will manipulate coverage to whatever extent they can to keep the candidates close in the polls.

Just remember what Joseph Goebbels said....

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[Rutabaga]

I watched Real Time with Bill Maher the other day. Former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Michael Steele was on the show. Mr. Steele parroted republican party lines like a robot, he was quite obnoxious IMO. And Maher seemed to have more patience than the Pope sitting there letting him spew out nonsense. I don't think it's fair to compare Maher with Limbaugh, who is more of an activist with a radio show.

There is also something to be said about the difference between being "opiniated" and having hard left values.

And Bill Maher usually has at least one conservative guest on each week. He will disgree with them, sometimes vehemently, but he treats them with respect and will shush the audience if they boo the person. He's not my favorite person, but I find his show to overall be intelligent and thought-provoking.

I was ready to throw stuff at the screen when Michael Steele was speaking this past Friday, though. :shakefist

[Cat X]

Well Fox is just as much capitalist as they are in that regard, but I beg to differ that they are not liberal. I'll only grant that ABC is a little less guilty than the others. But shows like Nightline, 60 Minutes, and the Clinton News Network's entire schedule is unabashedly on the left while protesting their innocence a bit too much. Seriously, Fox gets crap for their "fair and balanced" slogan... but in truth they ARE the balance.



WHAT THE HELL FOX IS A BLANCE?????

Here in Australia we have a saying. It's "Is that your opinion or did you read that BS in the Telegraph?" and it shows exactly what News Corporation is about. It's about ratings, full stop, end of story. It trolls it's viewers. It makes stories up or slants them horribly to provoke reactions. It stuffs reactionary idiots into commentary. And the ill informed eat this crap up.

It. Is. NOT. NEWS! It is crap!

And yes this fires me up because we have had to put up with News Corporation media influnece for far too long. The fact Faux is blatantly worse is just plain amazing.

It is not fair, or balanced at all.



Yes I am aware that much of Europe and Australia is even farther left than today's Democrat party leaders, which frankly makes me glad I live here. No offense. Sorry. McCain could well have been a Democrat 30 years ago, so in truth, America isn't as extreme far right as people make us out to be either.

Which McCain? The 2000 version or the McSame 2008 version?

And frankly Australia is not liberal either. We are Centre-Right as our governments tend to be, apart from the jerk we just got rid of. And given we have some rationality in our conservatism finally again, I'm glad Howard is gone.




I love how Rupert Murdoch is this evil Machiavellian... but apparently the rest are just doing their jobs.

Yes actually, I think he is. All he needs is an eyepatch and a cat to be a Bond villain.

[Morgan Evanar]

but apparently the rest are just doing their jobs.No, they're all ratings whores, but Fox is the only one with the habit of lying or simply making stories up.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am not sure how any sane person can call Fox balanced? They are very far right and like Morgan said they tilt the news to make you think something else. They have horrible journalists. Edward R. Murrow would vomit on their network.

[Drin Kizael]

Yes actually, I think he is. All he needs is an eyepatch and a cat to be a Bond villain.
He WAS a Bond villain. :D Jonathan Pryce played him in Tomorrow Never Dies.

Wow. So this was eye opening. Of course nothing from the side you agree with is going to appear biased when you are so violently opposed to even acknowledging any other point of view. It's not bias, it's just truth. Anything else is just lies and smears because they simply... well they just are. I know because I remember when I used to think the same way. Times like this I wish I still could.

I'm not sure if I should expect anyone to care how it feels to be yelled at like you're an insane retard simply for having a different perspective on things. But, uh... sorry for intruding.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Yes actually, I think he is. All he needs is an eyepatch and a cat to be a Bond villain.
He WAS a Bond villain. :D Jonathan Pryce played him in Tomorrow Never Dies.

Wow. So this was eye opening. Of course nothing from the side you agree with is going to appear biased when you are so violently opposed to even acknowledging any other point of view. It's not bias, it's just truth. Anything else is just lies and smears because they simply... well they just are. I know because I remember when I used to think the same way. Times like this I wish I still could.

I'm not sure if I should expect anyone to care how it feels to be yelled at like you're an insane retard simply for having a different perspective on things. But, uh... sorry for intruding.


Spewing BS is not balance. It is not truth. It SHOULD be completely and utterly disregarded. Spewing BS is exactly what Fox does. It is exactly what News Corporation has persisted in doing for 40 years.

Let me dredge some history here..... News Corporation used to be known is Left wing crackpots in support of Gough Whitlam, who was indeed one hell of a loopy lefty. Go on, look Whitlam up. I'll wait. Interesting, eh? So what happened?

(Whitlam supported opening up highly restrictive broadcasting rules. Subsequent conservative govts took that mantle instead so News swung to the right to support them)

Murdoch is in love so much with the dollar that he became a US citizen so he could gain more control over US media. Oh and he shifted the accounting base to Delaware so he could avoid paying taxes and as well as avoid the scrutiny / openness that comes with being an Australian Pty Ltd.

The point you so much dismiss that everyone is screaming at you about is that Fox / News is not truthful because it does not win ratings. . It is not a matter of left or right, which you are trying to make it out to be - Truth does not have a side or a wing and it does not have allegience to anyone. It simply is.

Every single time someone links Fox or News here, we have almost instantly been able to show it was lies, distortions etc. It happened with Iraq, with the swiftboatign, with 2000 election.... every single time.

And you wonder why we leap at you when you defend Fox.

Let me doubly make this clear - it is NOT about left or right. It is about Right or WRONG.

There are good right wing news hanging about, in fact the BBC has programs with right wing slants that are thought provoking - I dont mind them at all. Left wing media does make me want to throw a gchair through the TV too however , so lets not try the OMG LIBERAL!!! tract. I prefer the local ABC as it's usually quite fair and honest. That's what you really should be looking for.

Fox is not news. It's crap.

[Drin Kizael]

Let me doubly make this clear - it is NOT about left or right. It is about Right or WRONG.
Thank you for illustrating my point.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

p.s. Drin, this is why I stay out of this thread. The rabid slobber from these guys always ruins my clothes. ;) Here, watch this:

"I like Sarah Palin so far. And to be honest, I don't see where you're getting McCain is just McSame, because he's fairly leftminded on most subjects except the war, which we're winning, by the way. Notice how no one is talking about Iraq any more? That's because your so-called 'fair' media can't stand the fact that things are going well, so they'd rather make it a non-issue. Iraq going well = bad news for Obama, and they fall over themselves for him.

Oh, and Oprah chosing not to interview Palin on her show? She doesn't want to give press time to the enemy (she's endorsing Obama), because in just a week or so Sarah Palin has caught the imagination of the Republican Party and energized McCain's campaign. I think the race will be a close one, now."

*opens umbrella and ducks*

Oh and in all seriousness, I really dislike this thread. Most of you Europeans/non-Americans are living in a socialist state already and you think that having the government tax the hell out of you and hand you everything on a silver platter (basically a welfare state) is great. Heck, if it works for you I'm glad. But I get riled when you try to tell me what is best for MY country. I'm sure that calling you socialists just upset you, so what makes you think that your opinion is something we want to hear?

edit: I take it back, I'm glad to hear your opinions, but when you start saying "WE ARE RIGHT YOU IDIOTS" you lose me completely. I'm a conservative, not an idiot.

[Yog]

*opens umbrella and ducks*

Deville! :wave

I was beginning to wonder when the conservatives would show up. And now that you guys are here, I am almost afraid to say anything to scare you away... :uhoh

(seriously, politics is so much more interesting when I don't have to debate myself)

Btw, in the interest of full disclosure, I vote for the Conservative Party here, which is about the same as the as the Conservatives in UK. I favor lower taxes, and want the socialists kicked out of the government at the next election (and they certainly will, looking at the polls). I do however subscribe to horrible outrageous radical socialist ideas such as universal healthcare, fair taxes, and right to free education for all. If that makes me a terrible Karl Marx reading commie in your eyes, I am ok with that. Whatever floats your boat... :D

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well, I don't see Yog screaming at people calling them idiots. Also Jedieb, Rutabaga, and myself keep things pretty rational. I don't care for the Republican party and completely disagree with those who do, but I would go as far as calling them idiots. I also don't see the democrats as socialists. Liberals in this country are very far from socialists, I get tired of hearing liberal being such a dirty word. In the early 20th century liberal meant progressive and it was about cleaning up the meat industry and poor working conditions. I don't think its fair that Republicans try to smear us as commies or such nonsense. I don't go around calling you conservatives, fascists or Nazis.

[Jedieb]

Damn, I turn away for a second and all hell breaks loose. ;)

I don't have time to post anything of much length so just one quick example of how something ridiculous can get spun by the right; Oprah. This is a Drudge special. The fact is, that Oprah had Obama on before she came out and endorsed him. After her endorsement she said she wouldn't have ANY candidate on her show. So why should she have Palin on now?

MSNBC
MSNBC is pretty much a FoxNews doppleganger(sp?). Olberman (who I love) and Matthews (who BTW once expressed man love for Dubya) shouldn't have been anchoring the Dem convention. It would have been the equivalent of Fox having Hannity and O'Reily anchoring the RNC. These guys are 'commetators,' not objective anchors. And I also thing that calling CNN the Clinton network is a joke. Yeah, I remember the total media blackout they had during the Lewinsky affair. They're not nearly as far to the left as Fox is to the right. By its very nature the media should have some kind of liberal bias because its job is to hold government under a microscope and try to hold it responsible for its actions. If it doesn't do that, then it's basically propaganda, not news. If Clinton is in office, you cover his knobjobs. If Bush is in office, you cover his incompetance. Period.

And as Carr said, I haven't insulted any conservative posters. I've taken shots at Palin and McCain, but I think I've done so in a rational manner. (I even criticised Obama for voting for the FISA bill.)

I mean, it's not like I lied about supporting a massive pork project and eventually kept every dime by shifting it to other state projects! ;)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

My comment about "WE ARE RIGHT YOU IDIOTS" is of course not literal. None of you have said that, literally. Just... hinted at it. ;)

Things I believe: Our public education system is a joke. The government runs it and the teachers unions terrorize it by making it impossible to get rid of teachers who do poorly. Ridiculous. Teachers should have to earn their keep by producing good results. There's a little more to their situations than that (quality of students, poor areas, etc...) but the principle is the same. To fix public education the government wants to throw more money at it. So we need higher taxes to pay for more of the same when it comes to education, or else we take away money from other programs such as defense and public safety.

I think everyone should have the same opportunity Barack Obama's kids have when it comes to education. That's why I'm for school vouchers that will allow parents to choose where their child's allotment of state money for their education goes - to a private school or to a public school. Here in Oregon we've been trying to get vouchers for years, only to have the teachers unions and alarmists tell us that this will undermine the public schools.

Uh, yeah, it probably will. Because guess what? When people are able to choose not to send their kids to a school that produces poor results, and instead send their kids and the money to a school that consistently produces good results, they're going to choose the better school. If that means that public schools get shut down, then I'm not sorry. And all teachers don't deserve to be employed and paid. GOOD teachers deserve to be employed and paid.

So, there's a lot of buzz for universal and public health care. Europe has this system, and it works. Um. Sure. I have heard a lot of stories (no solid facts here, sorry) of Americans with dual citizenships coming home to America if they need surgeries, or other medical procedures. They don't like the waiting lists or the quality of work that is done in the socialized government run health programs.

Public education is awful here. What makes us think that if we give hospitals and doctors over to be run by the government that they're going to do a great job with them? The only thing a bureaucracy is good for is creating more bureaucracy.

We don't need a bigger government we need a smaller one. We don't need MORE taxes, we need LESS. We don't need to throw more money at a broken system, we need to create a different system.

Sure, John McCain isn't going to be a great conservative choice. But I'd rather have him than Obama.

Oh, McCain is in favor of school vouchers and Obama is against them. Just one issue, of course, but its an important one because our children are the future.

[Park Kraken]

Spewing BS is not balance. It is not truth. It SHOULD be completely and utterly disregarded. Spewing BS is exactly what Fox does. It is exactly what News Corporation has persisted in doing for 40 years.

Longer than that, lest we forget the Spanish-American War in 1898. I mean, by TV probably, but news was around before the TV was.

We do need change, but we also need a lot of what we currently have as well. We need to start shifting troops from Iraq back to Afghanistan, and start covert ops going in Pakistan. And McCain was right on the money when talking about stop spending 700 million in buying oil from countries that don't like us very much.

[Wei Wu Wei]

I'm also interested in smaller government and less taxes.

I hate the Income Tax with a passion. Why Should I get taxed for working and earning a living? "Good for you, working hard, living by the American dream...oh, you're a white single male, so we get 25% of your money. Later! HAve fun living with your parents!"

A number of times in the past two years I have been screwed out of being able to live like a responsible adult because of this tax.

Both candidates offer fairer taxes, but I will automatically vote for the one that decides to install the Fair Tax and eliminate my income tax forever. If I earn 500 dollars a week, I want to receive all 500 of those dollars.

I also think the educational system is a joke. Neither candidate offers a good solution on this to me.

Energy is important. I like McCain's embrace of nuclear power and his plan to make more nuclear power plants, along with facilities to build parts to maintain those facilities. This seems to me to be a good way to generate plenty of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.

I would appreciate the government buying me a car, but Mr. Obama, I don't think I could cover the insurance for one of those new-fangled plug-in hybrid cars.

I also think Obama's ideas to add more solar power and such to homes is interesting, but it's not as clear to me how such a plan would be implemented or if it's even feasible.

But that won't stop me from voting for Obama if I get to keep my money and the government economy gets better.

I'm greedy this election season. I want my money to stay in my pocket.

[Drin Kizael]

We need to start shifting troops from Iraq back to Afghanistan, and start covert ops going in Pakistan.

If we start covert ops in Pakistan... uhm, I hope we don't know about em.

On the other front, there's some good news... Today Bush announced plans to pull 8,000 troops from Iraq by February.

For giggles, I checked CNN.com and could not find this story mentioned in the top headlines.

The NBCnews.com method of carrying the story was awesome. The headline that was easiest to find under the World News menu was "Iraq is still not fully secure". This story contains a link to another article titled "Bush to maintain Iraq troop levels until 2009".

Way down in the story after discussing Obama's criticism of the plan and pointing out the obvious that the next President will have to handle any further withdrawl decisions... they mention that 1,000 Marines are coming home in November and not being replaced, but 3500-4000 are being sent out (doesn't say where) by February.

Foxnews.com titled the story 'Quiet Surge for Afghanistan' (near the top of the main home page) in which you learn that those 1,000 Marines are being redeployed there in November... followed by another 3500 in January.

Believe who you want of course.

[Jedi Master Carr]

My comment about "WE ARE RIGHT YOU IDIOTS" is of course not literal. None of you have said that, literally. Just... hinted at it. ;)

Things I believe: Our public education system is a joke. The government runs it and the teachers unions terrorize it by making it impossible to get rid of teachers who do poorly. Ridiculous. Teachers should have to earn their keep by producing good results. There's a little more to their situations than that (quality of students, poor areas, etc...) but the principle is the same. To fix public education the government wants to throw more money at it. So we need higher taxes to pay for more of the same when it comes to education, or else we take away money from other programs such as defense and public safety.

I think everyone should have the same opportunity Barack Obama's kids have when it comes to education. That's why I'm for school vouchers that will allow parents to choose where their child's allotment of state money for their education goes - to a private school or to a public school. Here in Oregon we've been trying to get vouchers for years, only to have the teachers unions and alarmists tell us that this will undermine the public schools.

Uh, yeah, it probably will. Because guess what? When people are able to choose not to send their kids to a school that produces poor results, and instead send their kids and the money to a school that consistently produces good results, they're going to choose the better school. If that means that public schools get shut down, then I'm not sorry. And all teachers don't deserve to be employed and paid. GOOD teachers deserve to be employed and paid.

So, there's a lot of buzz for universal and public health care. Europe has this system, and it works. Um. Sure. I have heard a lot of stories (no solid facts here, sorry) of Americans with dual citizenships coming home to America if they need surgeries, or other medical procedures. They don't like the waiting lists or the quality of work that is done in the socialized government run health programs.

Public education is awful here. What makes us think that if we give hospitals and doctors over to be run by the government that they're going to do a great job with them? The only thing a bureaucracy is good for is creating more bureaucracy.

We don't need a bigger government we need a smaller one. We don't need MORE taxes, we need LESS. We don't need to throw more money at a broken system, we need to create a different system.

Sure, John McCain isn't going to be a great conservative choice. But I'd rather have him than Obama.

Oh, McCain is in favor of school vouchers and Obama is against them. Just one issue, of course, but its an important one because our children are the future.


I am against privatization out of principle. I just don't think it works. Big business is only out to make money, that is their goal. Now how do you make money out of Education, libraries, and museums? You don't if you privatize museums and libraries for example I predict 2/3 of them would no longer exist in 20 years. I think its our job as society to teach the masses. People need to know about the past, read, be better than the previous generation. If you privatize these things they will be teaching how great Coke and Pepsi are or trying to sell you Nike shoes. I think you have to fix the education system and fund libraries and museum to their fullest, otherwise we are failing society. Also, this policy isn't socialist or anything, this came out of progressive movement of late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Crusader]

Hm at the beginning of the presidential race I thought that Hillary or Obama would make the race but now I am kind of disappointed by both...I am obviously more disappointed by Hilary but on the other hand Obama has not impressed me yet. I kind of expected more from him. His speeches are nice and he had this great momentum but I still have not quite understood what he means when he is talking about CHANGE and I do not understand what this is going to mean for foreign politics.

After last week I am more and more getting convinced that the next president of the United States is going to be an old white man and not a woman or the first Afro-American. I do not really know why I think so.
Maybe it was Lieberman's speech or the fact that the democrats wasted so much time for their internal affairs.

Well my perspective on this matter is certainly not the one of an American. I do not really care about educational or health care issues. I think I have to admit this here. I am more intrested in economical questions, foreign politics and what will happen to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think that McCain might be the better choice in these departments.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Hm at the beginning of the presidential race I thought that Hillary or Obama would make the race but now I am kind of disappointed by both...I am obviously more disappointed by Hilary but on the other hand Obama has not impressed me yet. I kind of expected more from him. His speeches are nice and he had this great momentum but I still have not quite understood what he means when he is talking about CHANGE and I do not understand what this is going to mean for foreign politics.

After last week I am more and more getting convinced that the next president of the United States is going to be an old white man and not a woman or the first Afro-American. I do not really know why I think so.
Maybe it was Lieberman's speech or the fact that the democrats wasted so much time for their internal affairs.

Well my perspective on this matter is certainly not the one of an American. I do not really care about educational or health care issues. I think I have to admit this here. I am more intrested in economical questions, foreign politics and what will happen to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think that McCain might be the better choice in these departments.


I don't think McCain knows anything about economics. Him having Phil Graham as his chief economic adviser scares the crap out of me. I mean if it was somebody from a fortune 500 company like Microsoft or Bank of America it would be so bad. I don't care for his foreign policy. I have a funny feeling he is going to get us involved in more wars and be force us to bring back the draft.

[Crusader]

I am against privatization out of principle. I just don't think it works. Big business is only out to make money, that is their goal. Now how do you make money out of Education, libraries, and museums? You don't if you privatize museums and libraries for example I predict 2/3 of them would no longer exist in 20 years. I think its our job as society to teach the masses. People need to know about the past, read, be better than the previous generation. If you privatize these things they will be teaching how great Coke and Pepsi are or trying to sell you Nike shoes. I think you have to fix the education system and fund libraries and museum to their fullest, otherwise we are failing society. Also, this policy isn't socialist or anything, this came out of progressive movement of late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I think I have to agree with Jedi Master Carr. Once education is in the hands of corporations they will decide what the children will learn and freedom of speech can only prevail if the freedom of mind is preserved by keeping the teachers' independent.
The American education system has been already screwed up by parents and political groups that want to get rid of the THEORY of evolution and ban books that contain magic or classics like Huckleberry Finn because it contains the N-word.

[Crusader]

I don't think McCain knows anything about economics. Him having Phil Graham as his chief economic adviser scares the crap out of me. I mean if it was somebody from a fortune 500 company like Microsoft or Bank of America it would be so bad. I don't care for his foreign policy. I have a funny feeling he is going to get us involved in more wars and be force us to bring back the draft.

A draft is a good thing actually. An army should always mirror the educational and wealth of a society. If you only send to war the lower class and people that serve because the army has got great educational programs, your army will not meet the above mentioned statement. Eventually you will have an Army run by the wrong people that's why I like a draft. People that do not want to go to war might make better decisions in the case they would have to.


I don't think that McCain wants to start any new wars but he will win the wars that Bush did not. One year ago Obama wanted a full retreat from Iraq and now it looks like that this war might end in a few years becasue the new strategy works. On the other hand the REAL war on terror in Afghanistan needs to be won as soon as possible and I do not think that Obama has got the experience to do that.
In the end I think that McCain as a soldier and as a patriot knows best what he can ask from his troops and what not and this is something that Obama does not know.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I don't think that McCain wants to start any new wars but he will win the wars that Bush did not. One year ago Obama wanted a full retreat from Iraq and now it looks like that this war might end in a few years because the new strategy works. On the other hand the REAL war on terror in Afghanistan needs to be won as soon as possible and I do not think that Obama has got the experience to do that.

In the end I think that McCain as a soldier and as a patriot knows best what he can ask from his troops and what not and this is something that Obama does not know.

I agree with this.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Let me doubly make this clear - it is NOT about left or right. It is about Right or WRONG.
Thank you for illustrating my point.

No actually, the point sailed right over my head because I've always argued over many years Fox is poison and to be avoid by everyone, no matter their political leanings. And you claimed Fox is a balance?????

What?

Oh and the hippy left liberal media here is all over the Afghan troop news. And it's on the BBC. Lead bulletin in fact. So what does that actually tell us?

(The USA news sources are in general total crap?)

This is what I've always really been on about when I get wound up. Stop lsitenign to the USA news and start getting BBC, Al Jazerra (Remarkably open for where it's produced and some very interesting stories you wouldn't normally hear), Radio Duechland, Australian ABC or if you do want to listen to USA scourced, NPR has it's moments.

It'll challenge your views but the sheer range of subjects is amazing.


I don't think that McCain wants to start any new wars but he will win the wars that Bush did not. One year ago Obama wanted a full retreat from Iraq and now it looks like that this war might end in a few years becasue the new strategy works. On the other hand the REAL war on terror in Afghanistan needs to be won as soon as possible and I do not think that Obama has got the experience to do that.
In the end I think that McCain as a soldier and as a patriot knows best what he can ask from his troops and what not and this is something that Obama does not know.


So what experience does McCain in winning wars? And what examples of good judgement does he have that backs that up?

The other more compelling issue is that wars need money to be fought. The USA economy is basically going down the tubes and the Administration has a huge amount of dept on it's books. How will they fund the minimum 10 Billion a month the wars are consuming without the present drainign of the economy?

This is the thing people that people opposing tax decreases are missing. The USA debt is staggering. If you want healthcare (and you should) and good hospitals and roads and infrastructure and an army and police and everything else that governments do, you need to pay taxes. The Bush tax cuts gutted a hole in the budget. And the Government has become larger as per GDP, which is odd considering the Republicans are supposed to be the party of small goverment.

So forget the war for a moment, because wars need money. Who's going to fix the mess Bush have left? That should be the first question on everyone's mind considering what's goign on.

Considering the lobbyists and Carly Fioroni are in McCain's ear.... that's scaryE.
specially Fioroni


So, there's a lot of buzz for universal and public health care. Europe has this system, and it works. Um. Sure. I have heard a lot of stories (no solid facts here, sorry) of Americans with dual citizenships coming home to America if they need surgeries, or other medical procedures. They don't like the waiting lists or the quality of work that is done in the socialized government run health programs.

That's because of two things - USA healthcare is in fact the best in the world - some "socialist" countries like Australia, NZ, do come very close tho and in some cases exceed. BUT the problem is it's ridiculously expensive. So expensive in that decent healthcare is only available to people lucky to have insurance OR rich. The whole point of having a safety net is that everyone gets looked after - and then if you want to pay / insured for a private hospital, go for it. Which seems to work incredibly well.

Not that Australia is actually socialist by any stretch. Moderate right more like it :) Only Yog lives in a country approaching socialist.

School vouchers on the other hand have been proven not to work. They got tried here and rapidly created a bad two tier system with no equality in ability to get a decent education. A good well funded public system with the proper controls to ensure standards works the best for everyone.

The best schools for education are not private schools anyway. They are public. The proof again I can draw you back to a school called James Ruse Ag High School - consistently the best performing academic school in Australia for the last decade. It is a public school. It's well funded and staffed. And it makes a point of beating up schools where you pay 40,000 a year to send your kids :) - in fact your wasting your time with all that money if you really want to get your kid into Uni with top marks - send them to JRAHS (If they can get in, competition to get a place is fierce now, 4000 applications for 120 spots per year - and you have to pass certain critera to even be allowed to apply!) or North Sydney Boys or Fort Street or Baulkham Hills or..... all public. All better than private. All well funded and resourced. All 250 dollars a term :) Which is not much considering what you get.

Fund and resource public properly, the results are brilliant. Not that you would know of course with the sole Aust public school rep here. Or there's a dirty secret to his education that floors everyone who knows about it :)

[Yog]

For those worried about taxes, I recommend this site for checking what your taxes would be under Obama:
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/



Stuff about education
I think Obama's plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/) has a lot more meat to the bone, wheras McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ce50b5-daa8-4795-b92d-92bd0d985bca.htm) intend to let the market handle things on its own more. That will hardly be enough. You need higher wages for school teachers in order to turn it from low status to an attractive job where the most qualified people compete for spots. And that means more spending in this sector, like it or not.

I also think, if you want to raise the competitive strength of your economy, you need to make college education a basic right rather, than reserved for those who can afford it.

Jedieb is a school teacher btw. I would be interested to hear what he thinks on this particular issue.




That's because of two things - USA healthcare is in fact the best in the world
If your name is Donald Trump, sure. Even those who have private health insurance risk getting screwed by the health insurance companies. That is if the insurance company even allowed you to sign one, based on your pre existing conditions. And btw, the quality and waiting times of american healthcare is not nearly as good as they want you to believe.


BUT the problem is it's ridiculously expensive.
BINGO!! Yes, you are 100% correct there. This topic is btw a favorite pet peeve of mine.

Here are some pretty charts to look at:

http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/healthcare/ranking.gif

http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/healthcare/waiting-times.jpg

http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/healthcare/spending.gif

United States is the only industrialised country in the world without UHC, yet you guys spend more money in taxes funding healthcare than anyone else in the world AND you have the biggest spending for private health insurance by a HUGE margin. I mean, these are just fantastic amounts of money per capita. Utterly mind boggling! Yet, you do from mediocre to bad in waiting times and quality.

18,000 is the number of deaths every year in the US due to lack of health care insurance. Thats 6x 9-11 EVERY YEAR. 47 million Americans don't have health insurance. If there is need for a surge anywhere, it's a healtcare surge.

Your healthcare system is very unique. American corporations are socialists when it comes to the public paying corporate welfare to companies who are about to die out to keep them afloat, but they're capitalists when it comes to pocketing the profits for themselves. So they not only live off the taxpayer via public money, they also want to exist as a private company and take private money as well.

Bottom line: Socialized corporate welfare, privatized profits. You guys are getting ripped off all the way to hell and back from the pharmaceutical companies, private (and public hospitals!) and the insurance companies.

Healthcare spendings were an estimated $2.3 TRILLION in 2007 ($7600 per capita and 16% of GDP), and are projected to reach $4.2 TRILLION in 2016 (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml), or 20 percent of GDP.

Government needs to:
1. Regulate strict cost control on pharmaceutical products and health care services. Doctors and hospitals must accept standards for prices.
2. Make healthcare a mandatory human right, no matter your pocket book or pre existing conditions. If you can't afford the premium, government should cover it.
3. Force insurance companies to accept anyone. Insurance companies should not be allowed to make a profit on basic care.

Unfortunately, neither presidential candidates embrace these kind of progressive policies, but Obama at least is on the right track on reducing costs and wider coverage (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/). If you even slighly care about this issue, you should not even think about voting McCain.

/end of rant

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Personally, I was homeschooled and I plan on homeschooling my kids to ensure they get a good education with one-on-one attention. But my concerns are for others who don't have that choice or are not comfortable with teaching their own kids.

The whole thing with vouchers is that poor families who cannot send their kids to private schools because of the cost have the choice to do so if they want. When their students start leaking out to better schools, that will hopefully wake up the public institutions and cause some major reform, instead of superficial "spend more money and it'll get better" changes.

I can't find the numbers but we spend billions of dollars on education, and more and more every budget, and our scores seem to stay right about the same on standardized tests. We just had an article in the Oregonian about how Oregon's students are failing at math. Its shameful.

edit: We would probably have cheaper healthcare if they would limit what people could sue for in malpractice cases, and make sure doctors get more sleep so that there are less cases of malpractice in the first place. I'm not an expert of course, but I do know that docs have to carry ridiculous amounts of malpractice insurance to protect their butts in case of a lawsuit, whether a true case of malpractice or not. This drives the costs up. Again, not an expert, but I'm pretty sure the problem is probably in the insurance community that needs to be dealt with.

If I want universal healthcare, I'll move to Canada.

[Jedieb]

My comment about "WE ARE RIGHT YOU IDIOTS" is of course not literal. None of you have said that, literally. Just... hinted at it. ;)

Things I believe: Our public education system is a joke. The government runs it and the teachers unions terrorize it by making it impossible to get rid of teachers who do poorly. Ridiculous. Teachers should have to earn their keep by producing good results. There's a little more to their situations than that (quality of students, poor areas, etc...) but the principle is the same. To fix public education the government wants to throw more money at it. So we need higher taxes to pay for more of the same when it comes to education, or else we take away money from other programs such as defense and public safety.

I think everyone should have the same opportunity Barack Obama's kids have when it comes to education. That's why I'm for school vouchers that will allow parents to choose where their child's allotment of state money for their education goes - to a private school or to a public school. Here in Oregon we've been trying to get vouchers for years, only to have the teachers unions and alarmists tell us that this will undermine the public schools.

Uh, yeah, it probably will. Because guess what? When people are able to choose not to send their kids to a school that produces poor results, and instead send their kids and the money to a school that consistently produces good results, they're going to choose the better school. If that means that public schools get shut down, then I'm not sorry. And all teachers don't deserve to be employed and paid. GOOD teachers deserve to be employed and paid.

Oh, McCain is in favor of school vouchers and Obama is against them. Just one issue, of course, but its an important one because our children are the future.

I'm now into my 15th year of teaching in public schools at both the elementary and middle school level. In my opinion, vouchers are a complete and utter joke. They do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The only thing they could ever possibly do is make the situation worse. When you close down a public school with low scores those kids all have to go somewhere. And the idea that those kids who were scoring low will now magically start producing great scores once they get into those good schools is naive. The truth is, they'll start bringing down scores in other schools. You have to look at several factors when you look at schools that struggle to produce great multiple choice scores. And at the end of the day, that's what we're talking about. How well you can train kids to fill in the bubble. That is what my job has been reduced to, teaching to a damn multiple choice test. We drill this stuff into their heads day after day after day...

I've taught in the poorest areas of the city I work in. My scores have never been great. But here's a startling fact. Around my 10th year of teaching I had a first. For the first time I had a class WITHOUT a child that had been sexually molested. Mind you, I taught 4th and 5th grade for my first ten years. In my first ten years anywhere from half to a third of my students weren't even living with their biological parents but their grandparents or some other family member. What in the Wide World of Sports are vouchers going to do to solve that? Nothing. You want to fix public education, start by chucking No Child Left Behind into the gutter. Superintendents across the country have been calling it the failure it is for YEARS now.

And to be blunt, there's only so much the federal government can do about public education. The majority of school budgets come from LOCAL, not federal funding. Federal funding is great for grants and programs like Free Lunch and Headstart, but they DON'T pay teacher salaries or school supplies. Obama and McCain can go on and on, but the truth is the best either of them could do is to repeal NCLB and start sending some cash. If you want to fix public education then you have to get involved at the LOCAL level. Because the second you start going national, you more than likely do more harm than good.

I've seen the first evidence that the McCain bounce is starting to play itself out. His RCP average has dropped below 3 today. Typically, the candidate of the second convention holds on to his lead for about a month. If Obama gets it back before then he'll be bucking a trend. But, this is an unusual election in that the conventions were later than usual and right on top of each other. The compressed time could throw a lot of old rules out the window. The debates are now going to be more important than ever.

[Yog]

This was not written by myself (I am too lazy to type it out :p) but I thought it was a pretty good analysis what is going on about costs of healthcare..


The fact is that health costs would drop with UHC. There is absolutely no question about it. Currently 75% of health costs are caused by untreated chronic illness; the big three being Heart Disease, Diabetes, and Asthma. Uninsured patients received $125 billion worth of healthcare; however they only end up actually paying for about 26% of that; leaving $92.5 billion a year that goes unpaid. Some estimates report that insuring the 45 million uninsured Americans would cost about $48 billion a year. Remember too that approximately 75% of the costs are due to untreated chronic illness. So it becomes logical to correlate the fact that uninsured costs would decrease substantially because their care would be provided by a GP versus an ER visit. The cost of medication and visits to treat the big three chronic conditions for a lifetime is substantially less than even a single major visit to the hospital.

Despite the money spent on healthcare, the United States has fewer doctors per thousand people and fewer doctor visits per thousand people than many other comparable industrialized countries. Some of these countries also possess more high-tech imaging devices per capita than the United States.

One of the other reasons for such high costs is the fact that 2/3 of the doctors in the United States are specialists. This is extremely unbalanced; and most countries maintain at least 50% GP doctors. Specialists on average make twice as much as a GP. In the highest spending states GPs routinely refer their patients to specialists for general medicine needs. Increased specialists has shown to have no increased medical benefit; whereas increased access to GPs can often reduce mortality rates in adults and infants. Of course a balance must be struck; as specialists to play a vital role in any healthcare system.

Here's the thing too. The government doesn't even need to be the insurance agent. In Switzerland every citizen is required to purchase health insurance, they however subsidize the costs for citizens who need it. What the Swiss do however is control the price negotiations. Every Swiss resident is insured, and they pay 2/3 as much as the average American on healthcare.

The breakdown of the costs of medicine in the US? The feds doll out 48.6%, private insurance covers 34.4% mostly in the form of PPOs, and the uninsured spend 12.3% and that is out of pocket.

By every single metric the United States pays more and has a lower quality of care for its patients. How is this acceptable at all?

[Figrin D'an]

No Child Left Behind is one of the worst pieces of legislation regarding our public education system ever enacted. Forcing our teachers to put together curriculum focused on teaching to a standardized test is one of the reasons why the US public education system is somewhere around 30th in the world instead of near the top.


My girlfriend and I have had numerous discussions on the health care system, and we both agree that some form of UHC, at least for the most basic medical needs, is a necessity. She sees patients in her practice all the time who will ultimately refuse care for certain problems because they have no insurance and programs like Medicaid don't even come close to covering their needs. Some of them literally have to survive off of free samples of medications because they can't afford a full prescription, and are forced to ration what they have access to and suffer when it's not enough. Then they turn to other things, like narcotics to deal with the pain of their ailments. It's not as if the clinic charges ridiculous prices for care either. They will often times drastically reduce costs for those who need it, offer payment plans, and provide what care they can for free as part of community wellness programs. But, it's simply not enough.

A basic UHC system will not be perfect by any means. But, when compared to the current disaster that is dictated by a corrupt insurance system, it's not hard to see why so many people long for something better, even if it's not the end-all solution.

[Daiquiri]

Mark was right when he said the USA has the best healthcare in the world - getting that world-class healthcare for the average person is something else.

Overall, I think our education is better than most (not all) but the emphasis has to be taken off this bs law of 'no child left behind'. In theory its wonderful until you see how the average non-resource student is disicplined compared to those students who really only need a gentle push in the classroom. Cops found weed paraphenalia in non-resource students car and also busted a full-time resource student for selling pot in school. The difference? The non-resource boy was expelled and could not return to our school district for a full 2 years. The full-time resource boy was given a slap on the wrist and got to come back 6 months later. I dont know if its the same for all states around the country but why is it that we have to spend extra dollars on those who are truly retarded, who will NEVER be able to hold a job and will need continuous care for the rest of thier lives?? Wouldnt that money be better spent on those students who have a future ahead of them, who will (hopefully) become productive citizens, pay thier taxes, etc? We have a Down Syndrome girl there who will never be able to really function out in society (dont start wiht Palin, please) and two non-related brothers ( both adopted by parents who only wanted them for the money the state pays them) who are brought to school in the middle of winter in shorts and t-shirts and maybe a sweatshirt; one of the brothers has to wear a diaper and his teacher has to take him into one of the GIRLS bathrooms because she herself cant go into the boys. If he isnt watched every second, he will sometimes take his diaper off and smear it everywhere in the GIRLS bathroom. Regular students should not have to deal with this during the time they are at school learning. A couple of girls have accidentally walked in on him because his teacher couldnt get to him quick enough. Talk about traumatized! These kids can go to school until they are 21, though for the life of me I dont see what 3 more years is going to teach them. I think its thier parents using the school as a free daycare and I say 'free' because everyone of these truly special needs kids come from the poorest of families.

Im not advocating no education for special needs children; what I am saying is that our systems need overhauled without the bleeding hearts pounding for equal rights that will never make these children equal no matter what. Im not being heartless, just practical.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Personally, I was homeschooled and I plan on homeschooling my kids to ensure they get a good education with one-on-one attention. But my concerns are for others who don't have that choice or are not comfortable with teaching their own kids.

One of the points that is being made about public education is it's making it accountable to the parent, which is in fact happening in places with good public education. And when you are accountible, you know the job is done properly.

That is why to do the job right, you resource and you set up standards. And that's why a public system like ours produces the best students.



The whole thing with vouchers is that poor families who cannot send their kids to private schools because of the cost have the choice to do so if they want. When their students start leaking out to better schools, that will hopefully wake up the public institutions and cause some major reform, instead of superficial "spend more money and it'll get better" changes.


It's not superficial when you sit down and do the job properly - the real issue is that the public system has been run down and under resourced. And I have to say that the public officials who are doing the draining of resources are electable, are they not? Throw them out and put people in that know WTF they are doing :)

Teachers who care about student, Principals who care about schools, public officials who care about resources... that's what makes for a good education system. And when you have that, you get a public system that will consistently outperform any private system. That's not a big call, that happens every year right here.

Vouchers do not give you teachers that want to teach. They do not give Principals who want to keep up school maintenance. Vouchers do not give officials who would want to swing resources in education;'s way. A well structured system on the other hand with clear guidelines and performance checks with employees who want to make a good system does. The proof is in the public systems that work.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Personally, I was homeschooled and I plan on homeschooling my kids to ensure they get a good education with one-on-one attention. But my concerns are for others who don't have that choice or are not comfortable with teaching their own kids.

The whole thing with vouchers is that poor families who cannot send their kids to private schools because of the cost have the choice to do so if they want. When their students start leaking out to better schools, that will hopefully wake up the public institutions and cause some major reform, instead of superficial "spend more money and it'll get better" changes.

I can't find the numbers but we spend billions of dollars on education, and more and more every budget, and our scores seem to stay right about the same on standardized tests. We just had an article in the Oregonian about how Oregon's students are failing at math. Its shameful.

edit: We would probably have cheaper healthcare if they would limit what people could sue for in malpractice cases, and make sure doctors get more sleep so that there are less cases of malpractice in the first place. I'm not an expert of course, but I do know that docs have to carry ridiculous amounts of malpractice insurance to protect their butts in case of a lawsuit, whether a true case of malpractice or not. This drives the costs up. Again, not an expert, but I'm pretty sure the problem is probably in the insurance community that needs to be dealt with.

If I want universal healthcare, I'll move to Canada.

I disagree about vouchers because lets say 75%-80% of the parents decide to take up the government on this. Whoops there aren't enough schools to handle them so we have to build news ones but then they are private. So guess what schools get privatize and that is just a very bad bad thing. We need to fix the current system not replace it with something that will make it worse.

[Stern]

If the world ever sees the misfortune of me spawning, I'll be homeschooling my children. I plan to have a career in the Church, so I'll have a place to keep them and they can learn under my tutelage. It works especially well since I plan to be a religious educator, anyway. I can teach them myself and see to their development on a number of fronts.

Later if I have to, I'll probably send them to a Catholic school. Public education will be avoided at all costs unless it seriously turns around between now and the time my spawn reach school age.

[Drin Kizael]

Stop lsitenign to the USA news and start getting BBC, Al Jazerra (Remarkably open for where it's produced and some very interesting stories you wouldn't normally hear), Radio Duechland, Australian ABC or if you do want to listen to USA scourced, NPR has it's moments.
I stopped listening to US networks a long time ago... when I started reading books I would have never considered opening and started listening to people whose name alone used to throw me into a violent rage. I've had my views more than challenged. They were rattled to the core.

I actually do listen to NPR fairly regularly, though. They are probably the last bastion of sanity from the left remaining in the States.

I will give you this... it is about right and wrong. There is indeed an evil empire here in America making up false stories and trying to shape popular opinion to their own political agenda. They make up "inside sources", employ talking points as their story leads, carry the water for their candidates during election season when they start slipping in the polls, and pass off any forged document and crazy fringe blog post they can find as news without bothering to fact check so long as it fits their narrative.

Fox IS the balance in the US. They are the only counter on the airwaves to the alliance of media companies that desperately wish they had their monopoly back. Rupert Murdoch did not manipulate his audience into making his network the top rated news channel on cable. They tuned in precisely because they are NOT lemmings who only eat whatever's fed to them.

I can't stop you from thinking me insane or brainwashed or whatever for holding this opinion. I would have hoped I'd earned just a smidge more credit than that, but oh well.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I agree that the main problem with schools is that the parents sending their kids there are just not involved (or are awful parents, as Jedieb's example shows, with the high levels of molestation, etc). The state of the family in the US is appalling. However, that isn't really an issue the government can fix. And I know that most of the funding comes on a local level, but that's still government, right? I don't like my silly Blue state. I mean, I like it, but I don't.

They're all "public transportation and send all the money to schools and raise taxes and we have more money than ever before so instead of putting some into savings we're going to expand the budget to use it all up wooohooo!" Never mind that along our public transportation train route is about 75% of all the crimes committed. Oh yeah, that's where I live. Yay.

People are afraid to ride the MAX trains and yet even though we vote against them the transportation agency and the government greenlights and speeds through the millions of dollars needed to create more tracks. So now the gangs can rove further and faster than every before, and commit more crimes in other places of the city. Arrrrgh :shakefist

Which doesn't have anything to do with the presidential election.

The only thing that can save the family is a spiritual revolution, not a governmental revolution. To be honest, either guy who gets elected probably won't be able to change all that much.

[Jedi Master Carr]

We don't need a spiritual revolution, we can fix our problems just fine now if people get involved. A lot of it is the funding needs to be put to better use, like in your case more cops along the train route. That would help the gang problem.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Yes its too bad they always cut the funds to public safety and send it into funding their public transit pet projects. :shakefist

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I stopped listening to US networks a long time ago... when I started reading books I would have never considered opening and started listening to people whose name alone used to throw me into a violent rage. I've had my views more than challenged. They were rattled to the core.

I actually do listen to NPR fairly regularly, though. They are probably the last bastion of sanity from the left remaining in the States.

I will give you this... it is about right and wrong. There is indeed an evil empire here in America making up false stories and trying to shape popular opinion to their own political agenda. They make up "inside sources", employ talking points as their story leads, carry the water for their candidates during election season when they start slipping in the polls, and pass off any forged document and crazy fringe blog post they can find as news without bothering to fact check so long as it fits their narrative.


Oh okay - this I agree with. THIS is exactly right. We are definatly on the same page then.

Fact checking seems to be all to hard for media these days. They just want a sound byte.



Fox IS the balance in the US. They are the only counter on the airwaves to the alliance of media companies that desperately wish they had their monopoly back. Rupert Murdoch did not manipulate his audience into making his network the top rated news channel on cable. They tuned in precisely because they are NOT lemmings who only eat whatever's fed to them.


This I cant agree with as I see Fox as one of the problems, not as a balance TO a problem. I see NPR et all as the balance. Fox to me is exactly the problem that we all have with media - sensationalist, lying, distortion, controlled by a Hearst type figure for his own gains. And it did attract the lemmings and the uncritical thinkers because that's exactly what it's designed to do. It's ratings.

Murdoch and Fosters. Australia's two best known exports. Yay.


The only thing that can save the family is a spiritual revolution, not a governmental revolution. To be honest, either guy who gets elected probably won't be able to change all that much.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tdoQr3BQ1g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYzDIhbgDtg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTFUsckSDe8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVt59yd2W0U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x29oqiXwg34&feature=related

This man also has preached in Martin Luther King's church and in other churches. Yes, he is a preacher and a good one too.

But he also knows something about religion that the religious here dont want to admit. It wont work in Government. It cant work. He explains why. And gets you thinking and challenged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris - Preaching at Ebenzer Church

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I didn't say religion would work in government???? O_o

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I didn't say religion would work in government???? O_o


You were wanting a spiritual revolution. What you have on offer is something more profound - you have a man who not only knows about the roles of religion in society, but understands how it moves and motivates, how it is the underpinning of all what we believe and stand for.

What you have is a man who's not offering you religion as something to vote for - He's offering you his faith as it makes him move.

Now, those in power must indeed govern for everyone and think of everyone. But few actually think what that means. He says it a lot better than I will, but the fact is, for 8 long years you have a party that has given lip service to religous issues, that has pandered for your vote and yet doe nothing but make the poor poorer, taken healthcare from those who cant afford it, made more homeless, started wars that the next lot they want you to vote for support (How the hell is starting unjustified wars Christian, I have no idea how anyone can work that one out) and the next lot of the same party will still contune those policies that will make more poor and more unable to afford healthcare and keep killing children int eh ME with smart bombs.

On the other side you have someone who began his career actually helping people who were poor and sick. Who opposed unjust wars. Who is making a stand on healthcare and education. and who is comfortable and knowledgeable enough about his faith that he can stand in the altar of Martin Luther King himself and speak publically about his faith and what it means.

The real uncomfortable truth about Obama is not that he is a secret muslim or whatever lying rubbish they will have you think. The deeply uncomfortable truth about Obama is that he is at home not only behind a podium speakign to thousands, he is at home behind an altar or on the streets helping poor and the infirm. Or actually out in his state after devestating floods this year sandbagging. This is not something people seem to understand when they proclaim he's some sort of antichrist or muslim. They don't understand he's not speaking of words from James Dobson or the AOG or Southern Baptist and thence it goes over their heads!. His words when he speaks I find in the Bible however and that I can understand.

He might just be another politican, true. But on the other hand, listening to him speak about faith from the pulpit..... maybe you will get the more profound Maybe you will have a real man of the Lord as President.

So you want a spiritual revolution that one step, to elect a man who's heart truly is of the Lord but there is more. . Once we stop electing people that spit in the face of decency and the poor, then it will come. Once we stop those who only pay off the wealthy, then it will come. When there is real justice for those wronged, not just for the rich, then it will come. Once we stop wars that are not justified, then it will come.

Once we stop using religion as a political tool and actually use it and move in faith then it will come! Once we pray not for the things of this world, but for the Lord to guide us as He wishes, then it will definatly come!

Once we realise what Jesus truly stood for... them it will come.

But not a moment before all of that is done.

[Droo]

I honestly believe religion has no place in politics whatsoever; morality is the quality of a civilised man, not a religious one. That is not to say that religious men shouldn't be politicians but outside of that, it simply shouldn't be a factor.

[Yog]

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee Palin talked about lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:


They've gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.

Will someone clue her in those are private companies, and not government agencies? They are costing tax payers because Government is bailing them out. Has she ever been to America? I swear, a Japanese tourist would have deeper insight on the economy.

In that video, McCain is seen cringing in the background, probably thinking, "ruh roh, is there anyway I can make her stop talking!?" :lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html

[Jedieb]

I don't think McCain knows anything about economics. Him having Phil Graham as his chief economic adviser scares the crap out of me. I mean if it was somebody from a fortune 500 company like Microsoft or Bank of America it would be so bad. I don't care for his foreign policy. I have a funny feeling he is going to get us involved in more wars and be force us to bring back the draft.

A draft is a good thing actually. An army should always mirror the educational and wealth of a society. If you only send to war the lower class and people that serve because the army has got great educational programs, your army will not meet the above mentioned statement. Eventually you will have an Army run by the wrong people that's why I like a draft. People that do not want to go to war might make better decisions in the case they would have to.


I don't think that McCain wants to start any new wars but he will win the wars that Bush did not. One year ago Obama wanted a full retreat from Iraq and now it looks like that this war might end in a few years becasue the new strategy works. On the other hand the REAL war on terror in Afghanistan needs to be won as soon as possible and I do not think that Obama has got the experience to do that.
In the end I think that McCain as a soldier and as a patriot knows best what he can ask from his troops and what not and this is something that Obama does not know.

The Draft
Oh Hell YES I support a draft. Anyone who knows me or bothers to read my sig knows one of my biggest problems with Bush and Cheney is that they are basically chickenhawk draftdodgers. They both dodged the draft as deftly as Bill Clinton did. Then they talk tough and then consistently challenge the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. That's a crock of epic proportions. I have no problem with a draft as long as it doesn't contain the loopholes of the last one. Wan't to go to college, great, but you're going to have to give something back. And if you've got a boil on your butt like poor Rush Limpbaugh then you can do some community service. No excuse, no easy outs. If you're going to grow into an old geezer that's willing to send men and women off to die one day and get your undies in a bunch whenever someone questions your decisions then you should have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice when you were their age. Bring on a draft. And when you do, I'd like to see the children of Congress represented. They should be the first ones signed up.

Foreign Policy
McCain is a true patriot who risked everything for his country. I admire and respect what he's gone through. But his service hasn't helped him much in regards to Iraq or Afgahnistan. Obama has no military experience (the draft was over when he turned 18), but he has consistently shown better judgement in regards to both. One of these candidates saw the war as a mistake before we got into it. One of these candidates was advocating a timetable for withdrawal, something that even the Iraqi government and eventually the administration agreed to. One of these candidates proposed and supported the surge. By this count, Obama is up 2-1. And as for the surge, the success we're enjoying now is NOT only a result of the surge. Just follow links to articles on Woodword's new book and you'll get example of events like the Anbhar Awakening that we're independent of the surge and also responsible for the reduction in violence. And for those of you that think that McCain's military experience puts him head and shoulders above Obama, then you must be shaking in your boots about Palin. Because only the most diehard Republican could argue she's kept Alaska safe from the advancing Russian horde. Obama has been on the foreign relations committee and he's consistently proven to be adept and knowlegable on foreign affairs. He's been fielding questions and dealing with these topics for years now on a national stage. Rank these tickets on foreign policy experience 1-10 and you'll probably end up with a tie or a Democratic edge. And when you're 72 and have had 4 bouts of skin cancer, your VP pick should be about more than exciting your base. Especially if foreign policy is one of the cornerstones of your campaign.

[Jedieb]

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee Palin talked about lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:


They've gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.

Will someone clue her in those are private companies, and not government agencies? They are costing tax payers because Government is bailing them out. Has she ever been to America? I swear, a Japanese tourist would have deeper insight on the economy.

In that video, McCain is seen cringing in the background, probably thinking, "ruh roh, is there anyway I can make her stop talking!?" :lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html


Here's another hysterical bit. The very next day McCain wrote an editorial for the WSJ on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation. And I kid you not, the byline read;
by John McCain and Sarah Palin

Yeah, I'm sure her fingerprints are all over that gem. What a friggin' joke.

[Drin Kizael]

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee Palin talked about lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:


They've gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.

Will someone clue her in those are private companies, and not government agencies?

Actually... Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are oddities in that regard. Technically they are not government "agencies", but they are government created and ultimately funded by taxpayers. It's weird, and was not widely known until people started researching them in the course of trying to understand the housing crunch.

These two "companies" are arguably front companies. Like the mob creates. They serve as brilliant evidence of how wasteful government is with our money when we give them free reign and how inept government is at running anything outside of their once limited powers. Our congress -- the one with the 8% approval rating -- in effect created the mortgage crisis by screwing with the markets by way of these oversight "companies".

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Yes what he said. ^^ that was my understanding also that they were government companies... sort of run privately but still created and funded by the government.

The whole spiritual revolution in my post was a comment on the state of the family and how GOVERNMENT can really do nothing about it. I never said that government needed to be spiritual. Of course, separation of church and state was said (not in the constitution) by Thomas Jefferson because he and the founding fathers did not want the US government setting up a state church. Not that all traces of religion needed to be wiped from our money or public buildings, or out of the pledge of allegiance, as it is so often misinterpreted.

I did not mean for my comment about spiritual revolutions to derail the political thread. It was said as an aside.

[CMJ]

Thomas Jefferson because he and the founding fathers did not want the US government setting up a state church. Not that all traces of religion needed to be wiped from our money or public buildings, or out of the pledge of allegiance, as it is so often misinterpreted.

The Pledge of Allegiance originally did not contain any reference to God. "In God We Trust" did not appear on currency until the 1950's.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

My point still stands, I think.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I just don't think religion should play a role in politics. I kind of like Jefferson's idea on the matter. Of course he was a agnostic/deist. That is just me but at the same time I don't want the whole thread to become a religious argument.

[Jedieb]

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee Palin talked about lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:


They've gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.

Will someone clue her in those are private companies, and not government agencies?

Actually... Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are oddities in that regard. Technically they are not government "agencies", but they are government created and ultimately funded by taxpayers. It's weird, and was not widely known until people started researching them in the course of trying to understand the housing crunch.



I'm wondering, how exactly are they funded by taxpayers? They're still privately run, but publicly chartered. Where's the money trail that shows taxes go directly into either company? Just curious. I know they were both started by the government, but neither is gauranteed by the government. Their securities aren't backed by the government. They're exempt from state and local taxes and get favorable rates, but I'm not aware of a money trail that shows federal or state taxes going directly into either company, which is what Palin was implying with her statement.

[Pierce Tondry]

They don't receive direct funding in any form from the US Government, however the government does provide "unpriced benefits" to those agencies. The best example of such a benefit is a tax break; it is money that the company wouldn't otherwise have, it isn't a direct payout of the US government, and it is something that the government and US taxpayers ultimately fund.

I'm not sure of the full list of benefits Freddie and Fannie get, but I think the wikipedia article I read on them the other day mentioned something to the tune of 6 billion or so in such unpriced benefits.

[Yog]

This next story really is upsetting:

Lose your house, lose your vote (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote)


The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed.

State election rules allow parties to assign “election challengers” to polls to monitor the election. In addition to observing the poll workers, these volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they “have a good reason to believe” that the person is not eligible to vote. One allowable reason is that the person is not a “true resident of the city or township.”

The Michigan Republicans’ planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being “true residents.”

Sounds like caging lists are on the menu this election as well.. :x

As someone else so eloquently put it:

Talk about adding insult to injury. Of course 60% of all sub-prime loans were made to African-Americans in Michigan and Detroit has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country. How anyone with any semblance of a conscience can condone this much less willingly remain a member of this morally bankrupt party I don't know.

[Liam Jinn]

Wow, that's pretty screwed up.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I just wish we could make sure dead people and illegal aliens weren't voting.

[Drin Kizael]

I just wish we could make sure dead people and illegal aliens weren't voting.
Then my vote from Chicago might actually matter. Kind of hard to beat an army of zombies and folks using the addresses of foreclosed homes where no one lives to get fake registrations.

[Cat X]

This next story really is upsetting:

Lose your house, lose your vote (http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote)



I dont get this trying to disenfracise as many people as possible along with fraudulent registrations. What is wrong with the picture here?

The wrong is that there is no good strong and independant election monitor. Who centralises the processes of electral rolls and gets it right. I mean really, it's not THAT hard to have a valid roll of voters. Most democracies dont seem to have this insanity. And with a good one...


I just wish we could make sure dead people and illegal aliens weren't voting.

Doesnt happen either.

So why doesnt the USA have that kind of election monitoring or am I missing something here?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

That is a good question. The paranoid answer is that illegals tend to vote democrat because the democrats are in favor of all the social welfare programs that they take advantage of, and also would love for them to stay here forever (because they vote overwhelmingly democrat)... so the dems make it hard and or impossible to police their ballots.

In Oregon we vote by mail-in ballot and it appears to be completely arbitrary as to what ballots are counted and which are thrown out. We have pefectly legal citizens with their ballots thrown out and bazillions of illegally cast ballots being counted. Ok, perhaps I exaggerate. But it is a real problem, regardless of if its a conspiracy or just a convenient 'oversight.'

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't think it's a major problem. Most illegals can't read so they wouldn't know who to vote for. Most of the dead people voting was usually people voting twice, at least that is what was going on in the past. And I think that goes on both sides.

[Cat X]

I don't think it's a major problem. Most illegals can't read so they wouldn't know who to vote for. Most of the dead people voting was usually people voting twice, at least that is what was going on in the past. And I think that goes on both sides.


Any election fraud is a huge problem and needs to be fixed, pronto. Dont make excuses or make it out to be small - get furious and get it fixed.

Election rigging has no place in a democracy.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Most illegals can't read? You mean, most illegals can't read ENGLISH. Good thing we have ballots printed in Spanish for them.

And if you are kicked out of your house, you should have your address updated at the DMV for your driving records, etc. This way your voting address is updated as well. (this may be different in other states) If houses that no one lives in have people voting using their addresses this is voting fraud.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Most illegals can't read? You mean, most illegals can't read ENGLISH. Good thing we have ballots printed in Spanish for them.


Actually I think when I swung through the USA, there was a shocking amount of USA legals who couldn't read or write English to save their lives. And when that she-who-wont-be-named went through Mexico, there was a surprising amount of people there who could read English quite well.

And in regard to not being at your registered address, I cant see that as a problem - vote in the country your registered to vote in and it's fine. Hell, it's quite legal for me to do that. I've done that for the last six years until last year. if you really want to be firmer on this, make the registered address to be equal to the one on your driver's licence.

The main point for me is that if your a citizen of your country, you should not be allowed to be disenfranchised except for very good specific reasons. If your illegal... well, you shouldn't be on the roll in the first place and the fault is the fact there's no electoral commission with proper rules and procedures.

The party's really shouldnt have anything to do with voter registration. That would actually be the first proper fix. Dunno if that could happen but that seems to be where a lot of the issues arise from.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184111&title=john-mccains-big-acceptance

I love John Stewart :D

[Daiquiri]

Our whole system reeks. I think what gets me most is the electoral college. Why the hell do I even bother to vote when some delegate can come in and vote the way he/she wants anyway?

We really need to get angry, America - shout, demonstrate, rally and even the shut the whole country down for a couple of days. Theres something really wrong when our Senators and Congressmen continually vote themselves fat pay raises and we have people starving on our streets!

One more thing - I have decided. McCain. Want to know what the deciding factor was? The fact that the man spent alot of time as a POW and refused to denounce his country or do what the enemy wanted. THAT is what keeps our country FREE. When Obama has put in his 4 years with the armed forces then he can have my vote.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I'd like to know how you knew they were legal citizens, Mark. Did you ask for their passports?

[Jedieb]

One more thing - I have decided. McCain. Want to know what the deciding factor was? The fact that the man spent alot of time as a POW and refused to denounce his country or do what the enemy wanted. THAT is what keeps our country FREE. When Obama has put in his 4 years with the armed forces then he can have my vote.


Not to be disrespectful, but you do know they broke him, right? By his own admission, they broke him and I believe made him sign one of those damn confessions. They even forced him to do communitst propaganda interviews in which he repeated some of the crap in his confession. He probably held out a hell of a lot longer than I would have, but they broke him. What I think is more admirable to him holding out as long as he did was not agreeing to be released before anyone else because of his status as the son of an admiral.

I like to believe that if Obama had been the son of an admiral or of age during the draft that he would have served as well. The only thing we'll ever know for sure is that Bush and Cheney didn't. Fee, fi, fo, I hate chickenhawks.

[Park Kraken]

Actually I think when I swung through the USA, there was a shocking amount of USA legals who couldn't read or write English to save their lives. And when that she-who-wont-be-named went through Mexico, there was a surprising amount of people there who could read English quite well.

In a recent church community meeting, we talked about doing missionary work in Monterey, Mexico, and one of the questions was whether or not we would need to take or hire translators if we went, and one of the people who had gone before said a resounding "no", that the vast majority of the population not only read English, but they also fluently spoke it as well.

So while the latter is certainly true, I have seen no evidence of the former, other than illegals that have become legal citizens sometime in the last four-five years. Matter of fact, I think you have to be able to fluently understand and speak Spanish to become a police officer in the Miami/Dade County area down south.

[Liam Jinn]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184111&title=john-mccains-big-acceptance

I love John Stewart :D

I posted that a bit earlier in this thread

[Daiquiri]

I like to believe that if Obama had been the son of an admiral or of age during the draft that he would have served as well. The only thing we'll ever know for sure is that Bush and Cheney didn't. Fee, fi, fo, I hate chickenhawks.

And we know Obama didnt.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I'd like to know how you knew they were legal citizens, Mark. Did you ask for their passports?


What, do you really think the entire cities of LA AND Miami are illegal? Even the whiteys that could hardly understand a word I said? Hell, I had LESS problems with being a English only speak in Finland. Even in Jyvaskala you could still at least get by. Miamai? LA? I'd be toast.

You should know well there's a lot of USA legals who cant speak English. Yes I am sure there's plenty of illegals who cant speak a drop of it. I'm also quite sure there's plenty who can speak it like they were born to it.

The whole issue of false registrations should not be linked into your ballots having Spanish on them. The issues of false registrations is solely and completely about election controls being lax, full stop. Direct the outrage there, as you should.



And we know Obama didnt.

Why would that matter? What to me would matter is the proper Judgement to put troops in harms way only when it mattered and was appropriate. We all know Bush and Cheny did not and started Iraq hen there was no justification to and are saber rattling Iran and prodding Russia. McCain has clearly made himself more of the same poor judgement. And yet, Obama was one of the very few who saud no to Iraq even when the pressure was at it's most extreme to say yes and when it was not politically safe to do so. He always said go for Afghanistan. He has always been earlier and louder in speaking military policy that has been found to have worked in Iraq and Afghanistan

(For examples, his Demcon acceptance speech is a good place to being research to fact check. Please, fact check, dont take mine or anyone else's word)

So while he may not have a military record, I think having someone who has the proper judgement to do the right thing and to act when it is needed is more apporpriate.

The other thing that bothers me about McCains judgement is the VP pick. He blatantly picked a bad politcal one that pandered to certain gorups without checking her suitability for office. Obama picked one who could actually be a President if needed in a long vetting process. Considering the VP pick is so important, the fact Palin got picked says McCain's judgement is doubtful.

[Jedieb]

I like to believe that if Obama had been the son of an admiral or of age during the draft that he would have served as well. The only thing we'll ever know for sure is that Bush and Cheney didn't. Fee, fi, fo, I hate chickenhawks.

And we know Obama didnt.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Sorry, but you can't equate Bush and Cheney dodging the draft and the Vietnam war with Obama not serving in the military. They're completely different. There was NO draft when Obama was 18 (for goodness' sake, he was around 14 when Saigon fell!) and the Vietnam war was over. It's clearly not the same thing. Now if you think military service is a prerequisite for the Presidency then the last few decades have been pretty dry for you. In fact, the last couple of Presidents to pass your litmus test were Bush Sr and Carter. Reagan, Clinton, Dubya (and please, anyone who equates his 60's era Guard service with today's is ludicrous) fail that test. And you must have a serious problem with McCain's VP choice as well and Obama's.

[Yog]

Why would that matter? What to me would matter is the proper Judgement to put troops in harms way only when it mattered and was appropriate. We all know Bush and Cheny did not and started Iraq hen there was no justification to and are saber rattling Iran and prodding Russia. McCain has clearly made himself more of the same poor judgement. And yet, Obama was one of the very few who saud no to Iraq even when the pressure was at it's most extreme to say yes and when it was not politically safe to do so. He always said go for Afghanistan. He has always been earlier and louder in speaking military policy that has been found to have worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.

----

So while he may not have a military record, I think having someone who has the proper judgement to do the right thing and to act when it is needed is more apporpriate.

Agreed. On that note, here is Joe Biden on foreign policy in Green Bay, WI talking about a couple of those issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XARNRk4bEOc

[Daiquiri]

Sorry, but you can't equate Bush and Cheney dodging the draft and the Vietnam war with Obama not serving in the military. They're completely different. There was NO draft when Obama was 18 (for goodness' sake, he was around 14 when Saigon fell!) and the Vietnam war was over. It's clearly not the same thing. Now if you think military service is a prerequisite for the Presidency then the last few decades have been pretty dry for you. In fact, the last couple of Presidents to pass your litmus test were Bush Sr and Carter. Reagan, Clinton, Dubya (and please, anyone who equates his 60's era Guard service with today's is ludicrous) fail that test. And you must have a serious problem with McCain's VP choice as well and Obama's.

I didnt equate it. I simply stated that Obama had not served, the same as you said that Bush and Cheney had not served. For what ever his reason(s) were, Obama made the choice not to join.

<!-- / message -->

[Yog]

Time for an update on live media coverage.

Stephanopoulos interviews Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD11Urqx3og&feature=PlayList&p=2F291E7866456AE2&index=0&playnext=1

Barack Obama on The O'Reilly Factor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJH2n4aFEhA&feature=PlayList&p=C7B69EE8F4A2055E&index=1&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL


Also, did anyone catch Palin's interview on ABC last night? While she did not make any major gaffes (I guess she was coached on recent events and on GOP talking points), she looked uncomfortable on several of the questions, especially when talking about the Bush doctrine. The tension was palpable:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/palins-abc-interview-stum_n_125818.html

It's frightening to think there is a chance she could be put in charge of your nukes and your military. Not to mention the economy. I was looking forward to the debates with Biden, but now, I suspect it could become more awkard than funny. >_<

[Jedieb]

I saw that she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. Gibson basically had to spell it out for her. And she's going to take some heat for the Russian answer. She didn't come across as someone who should be saber rattling that hard. She also contradicted one of McCain's positions on Pakistan. Overall, I thought Gibson did a much better job than people expected him to. It certainly wasn't a puff piece. But I've already heard a couple of complaints that he was too hard and... yep, 'sexist'! We'll how tonight's interview goes and what statements end up being memorable.

[Jedieb]

Sorry, but you can't equate Bush and Cheney dodging the draft and the Vietnam war with Obama not serving in the military. They're completely different. There was NO draft when Obama was 18 (for goodness' sake, he was around 14 when Saigon fell!) and the Vietnam war was over. It's clearly not the same thing. Now if you think military service is a prerequisite for the Presidency then the last few decades have been pretty dry for you. In fact, the last couple of Presidents to pass your litmus test were Bush Sr and Carter. Reagan, Clinton, Dubya (and please, anyone who equates his 60's era Guard service with today's is ludicrous) fail that test. And you must have a serious problem with McCain's VP choice as well and Obama's.

I didnt equate it. I simply stated that Obama had not served, the same as you said that Bush and Cheney had not served. For what ever his reason(s) were, Obama made the choice not to join.

<!-- / message -->

No, but he did make the decision to serve his community and country by passing on a high paying Wall Street job to make 12K a year for 3 years in Chicago. Which if you listened to McCain last night, was just as admirable as his military service.

And my problem isn't just with Bush and Cheney not serving, it's with them actively dodging a draft when their country was at war and then growing up to be old chickenhawks. Something that Obama certainly hasn't become.

[Yog]

But I've already heard a couple of complaints that he was too hard and... yep, 'sexist'! We'll how tonight's interview goes and what statements end up being memorable.

Heh, 'too hard'. They should look up those two interviews with Obama I just linked to. She is running for VP of the #1 superpower on the planet, not answering "serious" questions for miss Universe.

Also, they must have forgot Gibsons job as a moderator at ABC's debate during democrats primary...
In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html)

[Jedieb]

But I've already heard a couple of complaints that he was too hard and... yep, 'sexist'! We'll how tonight's interview goes and what statements end up being memorable.

Heh, 'too hard'. They should look up those two interviews with Obama I just linked to. She is running for VP of the #1 superpower on the planet, not answering "serious" questions for miss Universe.

Also, they must have forgot Gibsons job as a moderator at ABC's debate during democrats primary...
In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html)

Gibson and Snuffleupagus were widely panned for that debate. It was ridiculous. I'm just saying, you're going to hear this crap anytime someone gets tough with her. That's one of the reasons Biden has to tread carefully in their debate.

[Yog]

American Enterprise Institute

She had me at hello Charley-- had me scared to death. Not a single doubt that she is ready to be president-- everyone, no matter how experienced, should have doubts about the ability to take that job. A combination of utter inexperience and utter arrogance is about the worst possible combination I can imagine. Not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is would be bad enough, but saying unequivocally that Georgia should be in NATO-- meaning we would now perhaps be in a state of war with Russia-- and then without a beat saying that military action should be the last resort-- shows a series of knowledge and logic gaps that ought to shake every foreign policy specialist, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, to his or her roots. Maybe they can force feed her enough facts to skate through a debate, and maybe her self-confidence will still play well with many voters, but this first cut performance underscores our worst fears.

The first reviews are in:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/12/1382162.aspx

[Jedi Master Carr]

Sorry, but you can't equate Bush and Cheney dodging the draft and the Vietnam war with Obama not serving in the military. They're completely different. There was NO draft when Obama was 18 (for goodness' sake, he was around 14 when Saigon fell!) and the Vietnam war was over. It's clearly not the same thing. Now if you think military service is a prerequisite for the Presidency then the last few decades have been pretty dry for you. In fact, the last couple of Presidents to pass your litmus test were Bush Sr and Carter. Reagan, Clinton, Dubya (and please, anyone who equates his 60's era Guard service with today's is ludicrous) fail that test. And you must have a serious problem with McCain's VP choice as well and Obama's.

I didnt equate it. I simply stated that Obama had not served, the same as you said that Bush and Cheney had not served. For what ever his reason(s) were, Obama made the choice not to join.

<!-- / message -->
If military experience meant that much that would mean 2/3 of our presidents would be disqualified. And most of our presidents this past century never served in the military.

[Yog]

Apparently, Gibson's questions were too tough, so next up, Palin is going to be interviewed by Sean Hannity...

[Morgan Evanar]

I didnt equate it. I simply stated that Obama had not served, the same as you said that Bush and Cheney had not served. For what ever his reason(s) were, Obama made the choice not to join.

<!-- / message -->And what does this have to do with anything?

[Jedieb]

Apparently, Gibson's questions were too tough, so next up, Palin is going to be interviewed by Sean Hannity...

Well, we knew that was coming. The only question was who at FOX would give her her first media toungue bath. I wonder if she'll go on O'Reilly. I have to admit, I was impressed with his interview with Obama. Oh, he was his usually obnoxious self at times (interrrupting and talking over Obama, condescending comments), but it wasn't THAT bad. If he took the same tone with Palin or McCain I'd be stunned. And I'll tell you right now, if O'Reilly went after Palin the way he did Obama he'd DESTROY her. If she were a Dem with that background he'd tear her down in a heartbeat. Throughout the O'Reilly interview Obama kept his cool and never lost his temper. I can see McCain getting a bit testy under that kind of questioning. I guess we'll have to wait to see if he interviews either of them. And one thing you may want to avoid is the inevitable Miller Time segment. O'Reilly likes to interview a Democrat and then quickly have Dennis Miller on to ridicule the candidate. He did it with Hillary and he did it again last week with Obama. It almost made me vomit.

Obama has started rolling out the promised attack ads. There's a "1982" ad out today portraying McCain as out of touch and to be blunt, old. We'll see what else they roll out in the next few days.

[Darth McBain]

I didnt equate it. I simply stated that Obama had not served, the same as you said that Bush and Cheney had not served. For what ever his reason(s) were, Obama made the choice not to join.

<!-- / message -->And what does this have to do with anything?


I have to agree with Morgan... Since when does military service have anything to do with presidential qualifications? Last I checked, the requirements for being president are:

1) You must be a natural-born US citizen
2) You must be at least 35 years old
3) You must primarily have residency in the United States

That's it. No mention of military service at all... So why do people treat it as such? Military service, while commendable, doesn't grant any magical knowledge to someone to let them know how to run a country. There's much more to being president than having served.

Obama shouldn't be discounted because he didn't serve. Nor should McCain be beatified because he did. With all due respect to McCain and his military service, it has nothing to do with his ability to lead the country. I just wish his campaign wouldn't drum it up every two seconds...

[Yog]

Stuff about O'Reilly
100% agreed with everything you said there. I watch O'Reilly now and then. He enjoys a dynamite debate when his opponent can take it, and I can like that as well. He almost endorses Obama now after that debate. He already said if Biden or Palin shows up, he is not going to pull his punches. I know he is a bully and can be intolerable, but he is 150x better than Hannity. Hannity, I have absolutely no respect for. No class or integrity whatsoever. Just sickening bias and yelling out guests, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phEPwzptMes) little event a couple days ago. He is the sort of person who gives Fox News a terrible name.



Obama has started rolling out the promised attack ads. There's a "1982" ad out today portraying McCain as out of touch and to be blunt, old. We'll see what else they roll out in the next few days.
Here is a link to the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ae409tJEI


You know, I am not a fan of negative ads, or political ads altogether for that matter. Where I am from, airing political commercials is illegal, as it's either a giant waste of 1. taxpayers money or 2. campaign donators money. Political campaigns should not be about who spends the most money running ads. It should be about who is strongest on the issues. There are tons of other ways to communicate to the voters giving a more accurate basis to vote on (debates, town meetings, Q&A on the street, speeches, articles, interviews and various interaction with the media).

Believe it or not, voters over here actually obtain the political parties programs (usually between 50-100 pages), and read through them thoroughly, every election. And we have like 7 parliamentary parties here, so there is a lot to read. And during elections, we have debates with the party leaders almost EVERY day, and not only on TV, on radio too. Heck, every so often, we have those debates several times per day. And if a politician ever get caught twisting the truth, they first get roasted by the entire media, then they get a huge dip in the polls. The press here is relentless. Palin would not survived more than a few days here.

I have to admit though, as far as attack ads go, it was a good one. And I can't really blame Obama for going on the offensive after being bullied with distortions and lies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk) in McCain's attack ads and and increasing amount of Karl Rove talking points since the RNC. Of course, whenever the media challenge the GOP, they get the "liberal media" stamp on their foreheads. Go figure. That's where the liberal bias mythos is coming from. The republican party is running on issues and arguments that does not stand up to real journalistic scrutiny.

Both Obama and Biden have been playing Mr. Nice Guy a little too long now, and they suffered on the polls because of it. The sad reality seems to be, voters respond better to cheap talking points and flash with no substance, rather than intellectual honest discussion on what would improve the country. What the hell is up with that?

And it's going to be all downhill from now on. The campaigns are going to be dirtier by the minute. Just watch it.

Obama knows all this though, he is very clever. He would never get this far and beat the political dynasty that is the Clinton's in the primary if it were not for that. He had all the odds against him, but still won. Now that he faces the republican smear machine, he is forced to strike back in order to win. And he will have to strike harder and harder for every day closer to the election day. Some things never change in politics, I guess, no matter how much you want it to.

If you really wanna look at an attack ad with some punch, check out this one circulating on the Internet. Cruel, but to the point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iogEFNlRpg

[Yog]

While I am on the note of attack ads, here is the next from the Obama campaign, just released. About McCain lobbyists:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/obama-ad-calls-out-mccain_n_125995.html

Of course, McCain camp immediately released a response:


"Suffering at the hands of his own underperforming, deeply partisan, do-nothing record, Barack Obama has hastily resorted to blatant hypocrisy or simple ignorance to his own lobby-driven campaign," said spokesman Tucker Bounds, spokesman. "The truth is Barack Obama's campaign is saddled with former lobbyists, and John McCain is the only candidate who has led the fight to root out the influence of corporate money in politics..."


In the meanwhile, McCain was grilled on The View today:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/12/mccain-gets-grilled-on-the-view/#more-18270


Walters went on to press Palin's reformist credentials, noting McCain has served in Washington for more than two decades and asking repeatedly, "who's she going to reform, you?"

McCain began to answer by saying Democrats have held control of Congress for two years, before Walters quickly interrupted: “But tell me who she is going to reform — we aren't talking about the economy, we're not talking about housing, she was chosen to reform, who is she going to reform?"

"The Democrat Party, the Republican Party, even an independent," McCain said, appearing somewhat frustrated, "She'll reform all of Washington."

"How? What will she do," Walters appearing somewhat exasperated said. "What is she going to reform specifically, senator?"


McCain said Palin had a strong record on vetoing earmark spending. "The fact is she was a reform governor, she took on an incumbent governor of her own party and defeated him. She sold the airplane and fired the chef –" he began.

"She sold the airplane at a loss," an unrelenting Walters interrupted.
Here is the YouTube video of the show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQpmN-nH64

[Daiquiri]

I simply stated that McCain has swayed my vote by virtue of his having served in the military and by having been a POW. Thats what I stated. I did not try to influence any of you with it or by it. Its MY reason.

Im also done saying anything more in this thread which I know will make all of you happy.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Stuff about O'Reilly
100% agreed with everything you said there. I watch O'Reilly now and then. He enjoys a dynamite debate when his opponent can take it, and I can like that as well. He almost endorses Obama now after that debate. He already said if Biden or Palin shows up, he is not going to pull his punches. I know he is a bully and can be intolerable, but he is 150x better than Hannity. Hannity, I have absolutely no respect for. No class or integrity whatsoever. Just sickening bias and yelling out guests, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phEPwzptMes) little event a couple days ago. He is the sort of person who gives Fox News a terrible name.



Obama has started rolling out the promised attack ads. There's a "1982" ad out today portraying McCain as out of touch and to be blunt, old. We'll see what else they roll out in the next few days.
Here is a link to the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ae409tJEI


You know, I am not a fan of negative ads, or political ads altogether for that matter. Where I am from, airing political commercials is illegal, as it's either a giant waste of 1. taxpayers money or 2. campaign donators money. Political campaigns should not be about who spends the most money running ads. It should be about who is strongest on the issues. There are tons of other ways to communicate to the voters giving a more accurate basis to vote on (debates, town meetings, Q&A on the street, speeches, articles, interviews and various interaction with the media).

Believe it or not, voters over here actually obtain the political parties programs (usually between 50-100 pages), and read through them thoroughly, every election. And we have like 7 parliamentary parties here, so there is a lot to read. And during elections, we have debates with the party leaders almost EVERY day, and not only on TV, on radio too. Heck, every so often, we have those debates several times per day. And if a politician ever get caught twisting the truth, they first get roasted by the entire media, then they get a huge dip in the polls. The press here is relentless. Palin would not survived more than a few days here.

I have to admit though, as far as attack ads go, it was a good one. And I can't really blame Obama for going on the offensive after being bullied with distortions and lies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk) in McCain's attack ads and and increasing amount of Karl Rove talking points since the RNC. Of course, whenever the media challenge the GOP, they get the "liberal media" stamp on their foreheads. Go figure. That's where the liberal bias mythos is coming from. The republican party is running on issues and arguments that does not stand up to real journalistic scrutiny.

Both Obama and Biden have been playing Mr. Nice Guy a little too long now, and they suffered on the polls because of it. The sad reality seems to be, voters respond better to cheap talking points and flash with no substance, rather than intellectual honest discussion on what would improve the country. What the hell is up with that?

And it's going to be all downhill from now on. The campaigns are going to be dirtier by the minute. Just watch it.

Obama knows all this though, he is very clever. He would never get this far and beat the political dynasty that is the Clinton's in the primary if it were not for that. He had all the odds against him, but still won. Now that he faces the republican smear machine, he is forced to strike back in order to win. And he will have to strike harder and harder for every day closer to the election day. Some things never change in politics, I guess, no matter how much you want it to.

If you really wanna look at an attack ad with some punch, check out this one circulating on the Internet. Cruel, but to the point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iogEFNlRpg

Well U.S presidential campaigns have been dirty for a long time.

And Daiquiri everybody got testy with you because you seemed to be ridiculing the fact Obama chose not to serve. That is why I made my point. it seem very condescending to add that last line on.

[Yog]

Im also done saying anything more in this thread which I know will make all of you happy.
No, I for one will be sad. Debate is good. Don't take it personally.

[Jedieb]

I simply stated that McCain has swayed my vote by virtue of his having served in the military and by having been a POW. Thats what I stated. I did not try to influence any of you with it or by it. Its MY reason.

Im also done saying anything more in this thread which I know will make all of you happy.

First of all, I think it's completely legitimate for Daiquiri to be impressed with McCain's military record. And if it's the deciding factor for you Daq, then that's certainly your prerogative. I think his service is an asset and he should be commended for it. I just don't think it makes him more qualified for the job than Obama, that's all. And I certainly don't think Obama is any less of a candidate for not joining, especially in a time of peace where there was no draft.

I would still argue that Obama has shown plenty of solid judgment in regards to foreign policy. (The initial invasion, the mismanagement, the need for a withdrawal timetable, etc.) I also think Obama and other Democrats, especially Jim Webb, have done more for Veterans than McCain. He doesn't have the best of records when it comes to legislation that aids Veterans. For example, he voted against Webb's new G.I. Bill.

There's also this to consider. McCain has been using some of Bush's old neo-cons to prep Palin. At times, he's been just as hawkish, if not more aggressive than Bush. So, if someone is impressed with the way Bush has gone after people then McCain may just be your man.

[Wei Wu Wei]

I'm still paring down the issues myself. Right now I'm trying to decide who's economic policy I like better.

According to a friend of mine, Obama's taxes will be lower, but he will be increasing the death tax by quite a bit (apparently by nearly 45%).

McCain will be leaving the death tax alone, but will be instituting a flat tax or something similar.

None of this means terribly much to me. I don't like the idea of the government taking something you worked your whole life to give to your posterity for their own well-being, but last I checked a flat tax had the potential to do the little man a lot more harm than good, even if it is a low flat tax.

[Yog]

On a lighter note, Les Misbarack :)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3ijYVyhnn0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3ijYVyhnn0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Rossos Atrapes]

...Words fail me at this moment. I honestly have nothing to say. My world-view has been shattered, so please kindly refrain from scattering the shards while I try to piece it together again.

Les Misbarack indeed...

[Jedieb]

I'm still paring down the issues myself. Right now I'm trying to decide who's economic policy I like better.

According to a friend of mine, Obama's taxes will be lower, but he will be increasing the death tax by quite a bit (apparently by nearly 45%).

McCain will be leaving the death tax alone, but will be instituting a flat tax or something similar.

None of this means terribly much to me. I don't like the idea of the government taking something you worked your whole life to give to your posterity for their own well-being, but last I checked a flat tax had the potential to do the little man a lot more harm than good, even if it is a low flat tax.

I think one of the savviest things the Republicans did was to rename the Estate Tax the Death Tax, brilliant word play. I'd be interested in seeing how each of their plans address the estate tax. I've seen independent organizations break down each candidates tax plan. Basically, Obama is going to give people under 250K a tax break. People over that rate will have their taxes go up because he'll let Bush's tax cut expire. McCain will also cut taxes for people under 250K, but those cuts are smaller than the ones Obama would provide at every tax bracket. I think I saw one tax bracket was pretty close, but Obama provided much more significant tax breaks for the most part. I might look it up and post it...

[Jedieb]

Okay, this is from the Tax Policy Center. And to be honest, I have no idea how non-partisan this organization is.

Avg. Tax Bill
Income ...................McCain .........OBama -------- Difference (Obama - McCain)
$2.9M+ ............... -$269,364 .....+$701,885 -----+$971,249
$603k + ...............-$45,361 .......+$115,974 ......+$161,335
$227k - $603k ......-$7,871 .................+$12 ..........+$7,883
$161k - $227k.......-$4,380 .............-$2,789 ..........+$1,591
$112k - $161k.......-$2,614 .............-$2,204 ..............$410
$66k - $112k..........-$1,009 ............-$1,290 ..............-$281
$38k - $66k............-$319 ...............-$1,042 ..............$723
$19k - $38k ...........-$113 ..................-$892 .............-$779
< $19k ..................-$19 ...................-$567 ...............$548

If this is accurate, Obama gives everyone UNDER 161K a tax break. And it looks like he keeps taxes the same for 227K-603K. He hits your wallet big if you make over 600K. I don't know about you, but I can live with that. Now, McCain does provide tax breaks for lower incomes as well, just not as big as Obama's. But you can see the big difference are the huge tax breaks he's giving to those big wage earners.

[Yog]

Ok, here is the deal about Obama and Taxes, these income tax numbers are pretty much the same Jedieb posted:

http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/president-08/taxes2.gif

.. and here is one with dollar amounts:
http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/president-08/taxes.gif

None of these figures are disputed, not even by the McCain campaign. But McCain will try and tell you that Obama raises YOUR taxes, when in reality, chances are you will get more taxed under McCain. Unless you are in the top 1% income bracket, you have nothing to worry about. And those that are in the top 1% can afford it. It's not true that he raises taxes across the board either. The average drop under Obama is 0.3%.


About estate taxes, I'll quote the man himself in his book The Audacity of Hope (p.191) on the reasoning of the Estate Tax. I bolded and underlined the some text for emphasis.

"We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.

Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of 1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country."

It is also worth noting Obama favors reforms to protect family farms and small businesses. McCain does not support a repeal of the estate tax either, btw, so this really is a non issue comparing the candidates.

As for capital gains on owner-occupied housing (regular sales of homes), Obama's plan like McCain's, does not change much. Most home sales would remain tax exempt, because the first $250K of gain (profits) from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for married couple), results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.

Unfortunately, there are a lots of myths and false rumours about the Obama tax plan floating around on the Internet. This is a very good page refuting most of those:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

[Jedieb]

Outstanding job Yog. It's also worth noting that one of McCain's more inaccurate attack ads claims that Obama is going to raise taxes on the middle class. Something which is flat out NOT true. That ad, the 'lipstick' ad, and the 'sex ed' ad are starting to cause the McCain camp some grief. I hope they get raked over the coals for them.

[Yog]

^^ Yeah, the lipstick 'controversy' and the 'sex ed' nonsense is utterly ridiculous. It amuses me much to see it backfire.


You know, as much as I want to stop posting about Palin, the skeletons keep dropping out of the closet. Today, there is this article in the New York Times. I snipped out some of the more entertaining parts..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?em

In Office, Palin Hired Friends and Hit Critics


WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as one of her qualifications for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

...

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

...


In Wasilla, a builder said he complained to Mayor Palin when the city attorney put a stop-work order on his housing project. She responded, he said, by engineering the attorney’s firing.

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that it would cost $468,784 to process his request.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

...

Last summer State Representative John Harris, the Republican speaker of the House, picked up his phone and heard Mr. Palin’s voice. The governor’s husband sounded edgy. He said he was unhappy that Mr. Harris had hired John Bitney as his chief of staff, the speaker recalled. Mr. Bitney was a high school classmate of the Palins and had worked for Ms. Palin. But she fired Mr. Bitney after learning that he had fallen in love with another longtime friend.

“I understood from the call that Todd wasn’t happy with me hiring John and he’d like to see him not there,” Mr. Harris said.

“The Palin family gets upset at personal issues,” he added. “And at our level, they want to strike back.”

...

Laura Chase, the campaign manager during Ms. Palin’s first run for mayor in 1996, recalled the night the two women chatted about her ambitions.

“I said, ‘You know, Sarah, within 10 years you could be governor,’ ” Ms. Chase recalled. “She replied, ‘I want to be president.’ ”

...

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

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

Days later, Mr. Cooper recalled, a vocal conservative, Steve Stoll, sidled up to him. Mr. Stoll had supported Ms. Palin and had a long-running feud with Mr. Cooper. “He said: ‘Gotcha, Cooper,’ ” Mr. Cooper said.

...

In 1997, Ms. Palin fired the longtime city attorney, Richard Deuser, after he issued the stop-work order on a home being built by Don Showers, another of her campaign supporters.

Your attorney, Mr. Showers told Ms. Palin, is costing me lots of money.

“She told me she’d like to see him fired,” Mr. Showers recalled. “But she couldn’t do it herself because the City Council hires the city attorney.” Ms. Palin told him to write the council members to complain.

Meanwhile, Ms. Palin pushed the issue from the inside. “She started the ball rolling,” said Ms. Patrick, who also favored the firing. Mr. Deuser was soon replaced by Ken Jacobus — then the State Republican Party’s general counsel.

“Professionals were either forced out or fired,” Mr. Deuser said.

Ms. Palin ordered city employees not to talk to the press. And she used city money to buy a white Suburban for the mayor’s use — employees sarcastically called it the mayor-mobile.

The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

...

Restless ambition defined Ms. Palin in the early years of this decade. She raised money for Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from the state; finished second in the 2002 Republican primary for lieutenant governor; and sought to fill the seat of Senator Frank H. Murkowski when he ran for governor.

Mr. Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat, but as a consolation prize, he gave Ms. Palin the $125,000-a-year chairmanship of a state commission overseeing oil and gas drilling.

...

Ms. Palin entered the 2006 primary for governor as a formidable candidate.

In the middle of the primary, a conservative columnist in the state, Paul Jenkins, unearthed e-mail messages showing that Ms. Palin had conducted campaign business from the mayor’s office. Ms. Palin handled the crisis with a street fighter’s guile.

“I told her it looks like she did the same thing that Randy Ruedrich did,” Mr. Jenkins recalled. “And she said, ‘Yeah, what I did was wrong.’ ”

...


Not deeply versed in policy, Ms. Palin skipped some candidate forums; at others, she flipped through hand-written, color-coded index cards strategically placed behind her nameplate.

Before one forum, Mr. Halcro said he saw aides shovel reports at Ms. Palin as she crammed. Her showman’s instincts rarely failed. She put the pile of reports on the lectern. Asked what she would do about health care policy, she patted the stack and said she would find an answer in the pile of solutions.

...

Half a century after Alaska became a state, Ms. Palin was inaugurated as governor in Fairbanks and took up the reformer’s sword.

As she assembled her cabinet and made other state appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear. She surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.

Mr. Parnell, the lieutenant governor, praised Ms. Palin’s appointments. “The people she hires are competent, qualified, top-notch people,” he said.

Ms. Palin chose Talis Colberg, a borough assemblyman from the Matanuska valley, as her attorney general, provoking a bewildered question from the legal community: “Who?” Mr. Colberg, who did not return calls, moved from a one-room building in the valley to one of the most powerful offices in the state, supervising some 500 people.

“I called him and asked, ‘Do you know how to supervise people?’ ” said a family friend, Kathy Wells. “He said, ‘No, but I think I’ll get some help.’ ”

The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.

...

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

Mr. Bailey, a former midlevel manager at Alaska Airlines who worked on Ms. Palin’s campaign, has been placed on paid leave; he has emerged as a central figure in the trooper investigation.

...

Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show.

During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.

Many politicians say they most often learn of her initiatives — and vetoes — from news releases, including her decision to veto $237 million from last year’s budget.

Mayors across the state, from the larger cities to tiny municipalities along the southeastern fiords, are even more frustrated. Often, their letters go unanswered and their pleas ignored, records and interviews show.

...

At an Alaska Municipal League gathering in Juneau in January, mayors across the political spectrum swapped stories of the governor’s remoteness. How many of you, someone asked, have tried to meet with her? Every hand went up, recalled Mayor Fred Shields of Haines Borough. And how many met with her? Just a few hands rose. Ms. Palin soon walked in, delivered a few remarks and left for an anti-abortion rally.

The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.

Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”

It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”

...

As Ms. Palin’s star ascends, the McCain campaign, as often happens in national races, is controlling the words of those who know her well. Her mother-in-law, Faye Palin, has been asked not to speak to reporters, and aides sit in on interviews with old friends.

At a recent lunch gathering, an official with the Wasilla Chamber of Commerce asked its members to refer all calls from reporters to the governor’s office. Dianne Woodruff, a city councilwoman, shook her head.

“I was thinking, I don’t remember giving up my First Amendment rights,” Ms. Woodruff said. “Just because you’re not going gaga over Sarah doesn’t mean you can’t speak your mind.”

[Jaime Tomahawk]

^^ Yeah, the lipstick 'controversy' and the 'sex ed' nonsense is utterly ridiculous. It amuses me much to see it backfire.


You know, as much as I want to stop posting about Palin, the skeletons keep dropping out of the closet. Today, there is this article in the New York Times. I snipped out some of the more entertaining parts..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?em


Why stop posting about Palin? You should be doing whatever you can to show up just how bad a choice she really is. It just shows just how shocking McCain's judgment is to pick her, which is after all somewhat important given what he wants too be in control of

[Yog]

Why stop posting about Palin? You should be doing whatever you can to show up just how bad a choice she really is. It just shows just how shocking McCain's judgment is to pick her, which is after all somewhat important given what he wants too be in control of
Well, the reason I want to stop posting about Palin, we really should be talking about Obama / McCain (those are the ones running for President) and the issues. That is what this election is really about. The choice between continuing the last 8 years of misery or trying something different. There is a lot I could write about McCain that really bothers me, but lo and behold, Palin pops up every day with some clownery to steal the headlines away.

[Cat X]

Why stop posting about Palin? You should be doing whatever you can to show up just how bad a choice she really is. It just shows just how shocking McCain's judgment is to pick her, which is after all somewhat important given what he wants too be in control of
Well, the reason I want to stop posting about Palin, we really should be talking about Obama / McCain (those are the ones running for President) and the issues. That is what this election is really about. The choice between continuing the last 8 years of misery or trying something different. There is a lot I could write about McCain that really bothers me, but lo and behold, Palin pops up every day with some clownery to steal the headlines away.

She has a 1 in 3 chance of becoming President if elected and she is a direct link and proof about McCain's ability to make important decisions. She BETTER be talked about.

Frankly, I think she's more likely than anyone to continue the misery.

[Yog]

She has a 1 in 3 chance of becoming President if elected and she is a direct link and proof about McCain's ability to make important decisions.
I know, and that terrifies me. The percentage chance is even higher due to McCain's age. I would also add, even in the absence of a worst case scenario, the position as president is one of the most stressful in the world. McCain is 72 years old. How much of the workload will he be able to take before having to delegate responsibilities to his VP? I am betting he will have to delegate powers a whole lot. VP also has a lot more power and influence nowadays besides being ready to step in. Just look at Dick Cheney..

In the end though, it seems many voters pick the candidate they would like to have a beer with rather than thinking about the issues and rational factors. Maybe they don't even pay attention? I mean, how else can Palin have higher approval ratings than Biden in the polls? How else could Kerry lose to Bush in 04?

Dan Quayle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle) has been mentioned as an example of VP pick that was much criticised. Yet, Bush senior won 53–46 with him as running mate anyway. The question is if Palin will be viewed as terrible enough to affect the final election outcome in a significant manner. It seems to me, there would have to be some scandal big enough that she has to resign as VP nominee. If all that has been revealed about her is not enough to change people's mind about the validity of the GOP ticker, then what will? Maybe troopergate, maybe she will collapse in the debates. But until then, what else can be done?

So that is why I think, while it is important to underline Palin's blatant lack of qualification for the position as VP, it would be a huge blunder to lose focus on McCain himself and the issues. Palin is a distraction, she is spinning the narrative from being focused on 8 years of more of the same, to some kind of tabloid circus with gossip press headlines and shallow talking points. And that is dangerous territory, because no one master dirty campaigning better than the republicans.

[Jedieb]

Yog's right, at the end of the day, this has to be about McCain and Obama. But she's dominated the coverage since their convention. I think this next week we'll finally start to see the Palin coverage subside. Ike has sent gas prices rocketing towards $4. That and more economic bad news will start to dominate the news, and that's not going to be good news for McCain. Greenspan gave a particularly dour assessment of the economy today. I'd expect to see Obama and surrogates hammering away with that this week. We should start to see McCain's bounce deflate this week. If it doesn't, then McCain is going to go into the debates with a ton of momentum.

[Jedieb]

The Swift Boaters are coming!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302270.html

So the nastiness is going to escalate. They'll be going after Obama's links to Ayers and eventually I'd wager they're going to resurrect Rev. Wright. Now, to be fair, a few left wing groups are going to be rolling out ads as well. In 04 these kinds of groups spent almost $100M by this point in the campaign, this time around they've only spent about 1/10 of that. I think a lot of left leaning groups are still angry about how effective the Swift Boaters were 4 years ago. Ugh, this is just going to get nastier and nastier.

[Cat X]

The Swift Boaters are coming!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302270.html

So the nastiness is going to escalate. They'll be going after Obama's links to Ayers and eventually I'd wager they're going to resurrect Rev. Wright. Now, to be fair, a few left wing groups are going to be rolling out ads as well. In 04 these kinds of groups spent almost $100M by this point in the campaign, this time around they've only spent about 1/10 of that. I think a lot of left leaning groups are still angry about how effective the Swift Boaters were 4 years ago. Ugh, this is just going to get nastier and nastier.

Look on the bright side. Those idiots are about to be seriously hit where it hurts - in the pocket

http://business.smh.com.au/business/lehman-collapses-wall-st-fights-meltdown-20080915-4gse.html?page=1

Pity is, so are we all. I'm wearign a 40% writedown of my portfolios. Thanks to this totally avoidable sub-prime crisis, the troubles of the USA are affecting savings, retirement plans etc all around the world.

I'm sure the rest of the world will recover pretty quick, but the USA is seriously screwed if it keeps going and the Feds keep doing what they are doing. You need some re-regulation and badly.

And someone who will burn any remnants of the screwup that is Regeanomics (Which is better called Voodoo Economics) and get some fiscal disciplne back into the budget. And stop kotowing to Wall St with deregulation.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Crap, even 40 minutes before Wall Street opens, it's looking already like I'm going to lose a bet between Yog and myself. AIG down 40% in the Futures market.

Whelp, this is gonna be one wild day. How about that regulation them dam liberals always said we should have? Coulda been really nice about now.

[Yog]

^^^Just for clarity what the bet is about, I bet Wall Street (New York Stock Exhange) will have dropped 5% by the end of monday trading. The Aussie above bet against. The loser will have to wear avatar of Sarah Palin for a day...

[Jedieb]

Wall Street is going to be dominating the headlines today. This has to be front and center for both candidates. The question is which one of them is going to be able to address this Wall Street meltdown more effectively. Obama should have an edge because he's consistently polled as stronger on the economy, but he hasn't sealed the deal on this issue and McCain has made some inroads. Both campaigns must be working overtime right now. McCain is probably going to push the "Reform" image as the only way to right the economy while Obama will try to blame him and Bush for the mess Wall Street is in. Who's message will the undecideds listen to?

And I'm really curious to see how the beating McCain took over the weekend for going negative is going to play out on the polls. Members of his campaign have just about admitted that they're going negative and they don't care what the press thinks about it. They tried the honorable way in 2000 and all they did was get beat by a Bush campaign that could care less about who it slimed as long as it got them in office. And now McCain has many of those same South Carolina slimers working for him. We'll see if the public blinks.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Wall Street is going to be dominating the headlines today. This has to be front and center for both candidates. The question is which one of them is going to be able to address this Wall Street meltdown more effectively. Obama should have an edge because he's consistently polled as stronger on the economy, but he hasn't sealed the deal on this issue and McCain has made some inroads. Both campaigns must be working overtime right now. McCain is probably going to push the "Reform" image as the only way to right the economy while Obama will try to blame him and Bush for the mess Wall Street is in. Who's message will the undecideds listen to?

And I'm really curious to see how the beating McCain took over the weekend for going negative is going to play out on the polls. Members of his campaign have just about admitted that they're going negative and they don't care what the press thinks about it. They tried the honorable way in 2000 and all they did was get beat by a Bush campaign that could care less about who it slimed as long as it got them in office. And now McCain has many of those same South Carolina slimers working for him. We'll see if the public blinks.

Still don't think this election will get as dirty as the 1800 one. Unless Obama is called a baby killer and such. Of course that election had the vicious Alexander Hamilton attacking John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. I am not sure if there has been a man like him since. Although I have a friend who compared Karl Rove to him.

[Miranda Tarkin]

I am so lost with all of what is happening today @_@

[Yog]

<=== New avatar today.

I lost that bet.. :shakefist

S&P had a 4.7% drop, which was 0.3% from my prediction. Still, it was the biggest drop in 7 years. Oh well, I'll suck it up and take my punishment. :lol

[Pierce Tondry]

Merril Lynch and Lehman Brothers, two financial services firms who were previously noted as industry powerhouses, have fallen on dire times. Lynch was purchased by Bank of America in a takeover bid and Lehman is filing chapter 11 bankruptcy. Chapter 11 is not the worst form of bankrupcty, but it is still not good.

Both Lehman and Lynch are extremely old firms. Lynch clocks in at 94 years old and Lehman is 158. When firms as old as these fall on hard times, investors get spooked something fierce and that spells (even more) bad news for anyone trying to raise capital in this market.

If people vote with their wallets as they so often do, that bodes ill for the McCain campaign.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Hey you guys do know that Palin has more executive office experience than both McCain and Obama put together, right? Right? Just saying.

Your ways of 'discussing' things really chaps my hide.

[Jedi Master Carr]

It is Alaska you know, plus I have never gotten that whole more executive stuff. It isn't like it gives you foreign policy experience. I vote for a military general over a governor myself.
And what is wrong in how we discuss things? I am just curious because this is how I have always discussed politics since at least when I started college.

[Yog]

Unfortunately, her executive experience is eerily resembling the executive experience of running a student council (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?em) in high school. I mean, when was the last time you saw a polician firing highly qualified people and put their class mates in? When was the last time you saw the state legislators on both side of the political spectrum wearing "Where is Sarah?" pins in frustration of the Governor's absence. And when was the last time you saw a Vice President not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is?

McCain, Biden and Obama trumps her in relevant experience by every metric that matters. I honestly don't think she is qualified for being a Governor even. Only 2 years ago, she was running a 5,000 people town into ~20M dept. It is like McCain actively tried to find the republican in Congress / Senate / Governor that had the least amount of experience. If he wanted to pick a woman, he could have picked Olympia Snowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe).. expert on foreign policy, highly respected and excellent overall qualification.

As for foreign relations expertise, if the proximity to Russia counts, then I must be a foreign policy expert, seeing as I have Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Finland bordering, and close proximity to the baltic states, Germany, UK and Holland and Iceland. I bet McCain won't call me for that Secretary of Forreign affairs position though :)

[Jedieb]

Hey you guys do know that Palin has more executive office experience than both McCain and Obama put together, right? Right? Just saying.

Your ways of 'discussing' things really chaps my hide.

Hey, let's discuss things like Karl Rove who said executive experience doesn't count for squat when you've only been a governor for 3 years, a full term as Lt. Governor, and mayor of a city of over 200,000. Of course, Rove said that months ago when Tim Kaine was rumored to be on Obama's short list. And do I have to point out that Kaine's experience dwarfs Palin's? He's got her beat on all counts. Chapped hides indeed. ;)

(And I'm sure we've all seen the Daily Show bit I got that Rove gem from. Classic.)

And speaking of Rove, what the heck was he thinking basically admitting McCain has been stretching the truth with his latest ads? He can back pedal all he wants now and say he said the same thing about the Dem ads, but that was a rare misstep from the master of evil. Dems had a field day with that today and McCain's early morning "strong" economy statement didn't help him today either.

It looks like McCain's bounce is now over. His RCP lead is down to 1.6, and CNN's poll of polls has the race tied at 45. It looks like the last few days are starting to take a toll on McCain and it could continue to slip away a bit as the week progresses. A bad financial week does not bode well for McCain.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Hey you guys do know that Palin has more executive office experience than both McCain and Obama put together, right? Right? Just saying.


Pretty much everything wrong with Palin has nothing to do with her "experience" which is dubious at best - hell in her time as mayor she ran the budget into the ground AND had an administrator appointed on her, let alone the cronyism and poor policy of her very short time as Governor - and all to do with shocking judgement and poor ability to govern.

Plus, someone who decided to put a tanning bed in the Governor's mansion isn't exactly instilling confidence she actually did anything other than generate pork like Bridge to Nowhere for Alaska. She's lied about that, she was quite for it before she realized it was political poison.

A VP picked as a politcial pander should be a gross insult, especialyl one so overwhelmingly incompetent to handle even mild crisis - Lord help us all if she was in charge today, I'd be looking fondly back on the days of Bush as a paragon of competent. Now THAT's why we so deeply scared of her, she knows less than Bush, she lies more than Bush and she's a far worse pander verging on insult than Bush.

There needs to be a stop on pandering to issues that don't matter - they dont matter because if you dont have jobs or a functioning economy, issues kinda take a back seat to food. And if the economy gets worse, crime gets a lot worse as people get desperate.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree I think things are changing. The debates are now the next key.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I agree I think things are changing. The debates are now the next key.

I dont think the debates are going to matter as much in the end. This week is what matters and how McCain responds from an Obama camp that's suddenly come out swinging (Obama: "If you think those lobbyists are working for John McCain to put themselves out of business... well... I've got a bridge to sell ya up in Alaska") (Biden : "Folks, we've seen this movie before, and we know the sequel is always worse than the original.") to a media that's calling McCain out on lies, plus an economy in obvious signs of turmoil while the McCain camp still insists it's fundamentally sound. Let alone the next Palin scandal.

THIS week I think will make or break McCain. And right now, it looks bad.

[Cat X]

This was posted on SA and I got this email too from one of those evil Liberals. Happy to share it.


I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."

* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.



* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.



* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.



* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and next in line behind a man in his eighth decade.



* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and then left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a true Christian.



* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.



* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.


OMG, damn Liberals spreading vicious smears.

[Yog]

The latest moment of Palin genius (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_el_pr/palin)...

"I've got another idea that I think Senator McCain likes. In Alaska, we took the state checkbook and put it online, so everyone can see where their money goes. We're going to bring that kind of openness to Washington,"
Now THAT is a very good idea! A maveric reform! Finally, we can make Government more open and transparent. Why have no one thought of this before..?




... wait... what is this?

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006)


Shoot, someone already thought of that.





But who?





The bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, for himself and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain on April 6, 2006.[1] After a "secret hold" was revealed and removed, it was passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and by the House on September 13, 2006. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 26, 2006.[4]

On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along with Senators Carper, Coburn and McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.[5]

Shenanigans! :shakefist




But surely, the Alaska state checkbook (http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/checkbook_online/index.jsp) with sophisticated technology like downloadable excel spreadsheets is clearly superior to whatever Obama and his liberal goons cooked up?






http://www.usaspending.gov

Foiled again. :(

[Wei Wu Wei]

McCain is on that list of people credited for the transparency act. I wonder how he feels about Palin coming up with an idea he apparently co-wrote?

[Cat X]

McCain is on that list of people credited for the transparency act. I wonder how he feels about Palin coming up with an idea he apparently co-wrote?

Potentially, I think it can be spun pretty well so any ill feelings about not knowing McCain was part of this wont last. It is a good idea after all, no matter who came up with it.

It's more for us who are more politically aware to laugh at as it just shows again how little Palin knows about what job she's up for. Some with a clue would have been linking their policy with the Washington one in a positive light. No one else but political tragics is going to care.

Fun McCain facts of the day -

1) McCain's chief economic adviser Phil Gramm literally wrote the bill that was the root cause of the present banking collapse.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

2) Another of McCain's economic advisers is the CEO of Merryl Lynch.

3) Another adviser is Carly Fioroni who as any tech person knows helped screw up Lucent and then HP

[Stern]

Even so, I know I'd be thinking, "I already did that! Come up with an idea that makes me look good!"

So far the best thing I like about McCain is his nuclear power plan.

[Cat X]

Even so, I know I'd be thinking, "I already did that! Come up with an idea that makes me look good!"

So far the best thing I like about McCain is his nuclear power plan.


If his nuclear policy is "JUST BUILD THE DAMN THINGS!!!", even if he bends over for the lobbists on this one and gives them unjustified tax breaks.... I'm actually all for it. We need nuclear energy and we need it 10 years ago.

[Wei Wu Wei]

For the most part it is. He wants to increase the number of nuclear plants in the US and set up facilities for the fabrication of parts and materials for those plants inside the US. The idea is to avoid relying on other countries for the maintenance and well-being of those plants.

It's exciting to me. Cleaner, better energy and tons of new jobs sounds like a very good idea to me. His economic plan doesn't do much to excite me. Neither does Obama's though. A bigger tax cut might be nice, but if I only see that money when I file my taxes, then I'm going to say "it's not getting to me fast enough!"

I'm going to keep reading up on both of them. As I said before, I'd love to see the Income tax go out the window. I hate being punished for making money.

[Cat X]

I'm going to keep reading up on both of them. As I said before, I'd love to see the Income tax go out the window. I hate being punished for making money.


If you dont pay income taxes, you dont get a military. Or hospitals. Or roads. Or government services that cant be done via private industry. And you get a government in massive debt, which is exactly what the Bush tax cuts did.

You might not like them but income taxes make your country a better place.


His economic plan doesn't do much to excite me.

See post about five up about why it his plans should scare you. Look who wrote them and then look at what the work of those people resulted in.


It's exciting to me. Cleaner, better energy and tons of new jobs sounds like a very good idea to me

It IS exciting IF the country can afford them. I'm not very sure the USA could afford it given it's present train wreck economic problems. This is why big defiect spending is so bad - it ruins the ability to pay for such programs.

And why Reagan's voodoo economics was the beginnign of this mess - big defiect spending with fabrication of income to try to book balance. Which I add is what lead Enron to fail. Voodoo economics always comes back to bite you.

[Cat X]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

Was this already posted...?

I'm having trouble believeing it's real




<!-- Title and meta --> New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role In Charging Rape Victims For Exams (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html)

Despite denials by the Palin campaign, new evidence proves that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin had a direct hand in imposing fees to pay for post-sexual assault medical exams conducted by the city to gather evidence.
Palin's role is now confirmed by Wasilla City budget documents available online (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136).
Under Sarah Palin's administration, Wasilla cut funds that had previously paid for the medical exams and began charging victims or their health insurers the $500 to $1200 fees. Although Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella wrote USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm) earlier this week that the GOP vice presidential nominee "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test...To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice," Palin, as mayor, fired police chief Irl Stambaugh and replaced him with Charlie Fannon, who with Palin's knowledge, slashed the budget for the exams and began charging the city's victims of sexual assault. The city budget documents demonstrate Palin read and signed off on the new budget. A year later, alarmed Alaska lawmakers passed legislation outlawing the practice.
News of the controversial policy has leaked slowly into the press this week as the presidential campaign has heated up and Palin's record has been subject to increasing scrutiny. The practice of charging rape victims has called into question Palin's stated commitment to women's issues, her judgment as an executive and her honesty about her record.
The story of the Wasilla policy has made its way from comments (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/9/6/12251/86155/16#c16) on Daily Kos to the pages of USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm). But clear evidence suggesting Palin knew Wasilla was charging the victims of sexual assault has been hard to find. Placing the city budget records, however, alongside a timetable of Palin's firing Chief Stambaugh and hiring Chief Fannon makes it clear the policy was put in place as a direct result of Palin's leadership.
The mayor of Wasilla before Sarah Palin, John C. Stein, was also a Republican, though the office was and continues to be non-partisan. Mayor Stein was defeated by Sarah Palin in a campaign that brought in the NRA, Republican partisans, and a whisper campaign that Mayor Stein was Jewish (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008163431_palin070.html) (he is a Christian, but is "proud of such a reputation"). He now runs the Sitka Sound Science Center, a marine research facility in Sitka, Alaska.
Mayor Stein told OffTheBus that he didn't "think victims were billed while [he] was mayor," but that he wasn't certain. He did mention that "Wasilla participated in establishing a Sexual Assault Response Team to set-up a one-stop forensic exam room for victims," evidence of a pro-victim police department. In order to confirm his assertion about the billing policy, he recommended I contact current police chief Angella Long for confirmation. She did not return my request for comment.
However, I was able to eventually track down Irl Stambaugh, police chief of Wasilla from the founding of the department until Sarah Palin fired him (http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2008/08/vetting-sarah-palin-irl-stambaugh-walt.html) for "not fully supporting her efforts to govern." Stambaugh sued for breach of contract, but lost when a federal judge ruled that "police chiefs serve at the behest of the mayor unless otherwise specified." He later served as the executive director of the Alaska Police Standards Council (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=html&cd=9&url=http%3A%2F%2F64.233.169.104%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcac he%3AIP8WsLXz7GsJ%3Awww.gov.state.ak.us%2Fomb%2F04 _OMB%2Fbudget%2FPublicSafety%2Fcomp519.pdf%2BIrl%2 BStambaugh%2B-Palin%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26cd%3D9%26gl%3Dus%26c lient%3Dfirefox-a&ei=3LzJSLycDaKqetawmNAL&usg=AFQjCNENxoCiVXlizQcZmtO0pspCGhsR3g&sig2=gtwXaq-FmekfwP0Lvf8wpg).
It turns out that Wasilla did not bill sexual assault victims for the cost of rape exams while Irl Stambaugh was chief of police. As chief, he had included a line item in the budget to pay for the cost of such exams. He had only just heard about the Mayor Palin/Chief Fannon policy today, and was just as shocked to hear about it as I was.
Checking the budget confirmed former Chief Stambaugh's claim. He had included a contingency of $15,000 in his budget for the department's 1st year of existence (1993-1994), $5,000 for 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, and $13,000 for his final year as police chief in 1996-1997, spending $11,625.
Duwayne Charles Fannon, his replacement, halved the budget request in 1997-1998, with a request of $7,298, spending $3,454. However, it seems he began the "victim pays" policy in the 1998-1999 fiscal year. That year, he requested $3,000 but spent only $205. This data can be found in the Document Central (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136) section of Wasilla's website.
The Document for the 1998-1999 fiscal year begins with a message "To the Citizens of the City of Wasilla:"
The comprehensive annual financial report of the City of Wasilla for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999, is hereby submitted. The City's Finance Department prepared the report. Responsibility for both the accuracy of the data, and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the City. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the enclosed data is accurate in all material respects and is reported in a manner designed to fairly present the financial position and results of operations of the various funds and account groups of the City. All disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the City's financial activities have been included. ... At the end of the letter, under the words "Respectfully submitted," is the signature of Sarah Palin. Unless she made a false claim about the data being accurate to the best of her knowledge, she was aware of the change in billing policy orchestrated by Police Chief Fannon. The McCain/Palin campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-09-12-signature.jpg
To see Palin's signature in Wasilla's 1999 Financial Report, download the full report here (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/WasillaAnnualReport.pdf). [The 7-page letter written by Sarah Palin and the city's finance director as an introduction to the 1998-1999 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report makes it clear that the City of Wasilla, and hence the mayor, is responsible for oversight over the report. The letter discusses certain minor city actions, such as an extension by the city of the East Wasilla Water Main in order to serve the newly built Wal-Mart. The rest of the letter is a summary of the information contained in the report. However, it is notable that "the City of Wasilla is required to undergo an annual single audit in conformity of the Federal and State Single Audit Acts." Under the most recent amendments to that act at the time, an entity had to expend $300,000 (http://www.ignet.gov/single/saamend.html#300k) in federal funds to be subject to the Single Audit Act; a look at page 88 of the full financial report shows the federal share of Wasilla city expenditures to have been $1,145,753, nearly $200/resident.

[Daiquiri]

Cant stand it anymore :lol

Nuclear plants = nuclear meltdowns = massive radiation. The Chernobyl plant is the only example needed and I dont care how many have performed flawlessly since. Solar and wind power is the only way to go. (look up 'Chernobyl Heart)

Could be wrong but anytime I go to the doctor/hospital, Im charged for it (insurance is great tho and pays for almost all of it!). I will admit I dont know if there is a town/city/state/national whatever that doesnt bill rape victims for the test. While Im TOTALLY sympathetic to the terrible act theyve gone through, why wouldnt they be charged a bill the same as everyone else? If someone came into my home and shot me, Im sure the doctors and hospital Id be taken to wouldnt hesitate to charge. Whats the difference? Its still a terrible crime.

[Wei Wu Wei]

The reason why all those nuclear power plants went down back in the day was due to poor planning.

It actually takes quite a bit of screw-ups to actually cause a nuclear meltdown.

The reason why nuclear power never took off in the US is because the US engineers who developed the plants didn't standardized the plant layouts. Anytime a nuclear engineer got transferred to a new plant, he had to relearn the whole thing.

There are several other countries who have been making brilliant use of nuclear power for years and have never once experienced a meltdown and massive radiation. If I remember rightly, France is one of those countries.

Chernobyl was one example of nuclear power done very poorly. It's an exception, not the rule. Fear shouldn't be a factor in this. Solar power and Wind power only work in very sunny and windy places. Solar power doesn't work in Seattle where it rains most of the time. Likewise, it's not always windy enough in certain places of the country to make great use of Wind generators.

As much as Americans like to pick on the French, they kick our butts when it comes to nuclear power.


Back to the income tax. The reason why I'm so against it is because of the Fair Tax. Not a fairer tax, but the Fair Tax. Any president who dares to install the Fair Tax in the US would stand a likely chance of getting my vote automatically.

As for the economy in general, my country spends too much and can't balance a budget. It must represent its people pretty well in this regard because if the statistics are true, Americans tend to do a really crappy job of managing and balancing their own budgets. If the current state of affairs didn't resemble a toilet bowl and my government could demonstrate some restraint in their spending and responsibility with their budget, I might not complain as much. Then again, I figure if the US was responsible about money I would get taxed less.

Real or imagined, this is my perception.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Cant stand it anymore :lol

Nuclear plants = nuclear meltdowns = massive radiation. The Chernobyl plant is the only example needed and I dont care how many have performed flawlessly since. Solar and wind power is the only way to go. (look up 'Chernobyl Heart)


I'm a very big nuke proponent, so allow me to calm your fears about Chenobyl type events. It's cause was never to do with the dangers of nuclear use. In fact the Chenobyl reactor is in fact quite a safe design and did not fail.

Chenobyl was a completely man made disaster because the scientists in charge deliberately turned off every safeguard and also delibeatly put the reactor in a critical state. Thence, it was no accident - Chenobyl would never have happened if it wasnt for human stupidity. And I'm afraid human stupidity is something that kills, destroys and maims far worse every year than Chenobyl ever will. The radiation and fallout caused by Chenobyl was also a lot less than generally publicised.

However, be that as it may, the new reactors can not be put into unstable states and will automatically shut off when the safety systems fail. That is because the moderator that keeps the reaction going IS the safety. If it is absent, the reaction stops. Thence there is simply no chance of a reactor meltdown. None.

The new pebble bed reactors that are used in Canada are basically idiot proof safety wise. They are very likely to be the safest power source on the planet. They are also the cleanest. Thence the issue that really caused Chenobyl - human stupid - is removed completely. Nuclear is in fact very safe. It is also proven in France and Japan and in fact France has Europe's cleanest air.

However, coal and oil production releases more radiation per year than Chenobyl ever did. It kills more than Chenobyl ever did. And we know what the pollution is like. Nuclear basically is zero emissions. It is the only base load solution that does nto harm the enviroment.

Wind and solar are not base load solutions. They simple can not and will not handle the constant Mw required guarentteed. This is why Coal, hydro and gas are used as baseload. You can guarenttee the power will be there. Solar also uses a great deal of highly toxic chemicals and is very expensive to set up and usually you cant do either wind or solar cloase to population centers. If you cant get close, transmission losses become too expensive. Nuclear can be put close to cities very easily and one nuclear plant can handle enormous baseloads.


As such and with another 40 years of design work since Chenobyl was designed, nuclear energy has become much safer with the focus on removing human stupid. With the stupid gone as a factor, I'd be highly happy to live next to a nuclear reactor.

In fact, member of Greenpeace are now starting to work this out and realizing the opposition they had to nuclear was not based on anything rational. Any arguments they do put up that have not been throughly shredded and debunked are quite lame.

Of course human stupid will find a way to make the safe unsafe - but nuclear is a challenge we must face as it is the only truly clean and environmentally friendly baseload energy source we have.


Any president who dares to install the Fair Tax in the US would stand a likely chance of getting my vote automatically.

Fair Tax will also send the budget into a black hole. Not exactly something you want :)

As much as income tax sucks, it's an evil you have to have. However do what I do - structure your affairs to take advantage of legal tax minimization schemes so that for instance my cars are a tax deduction in full, my investments are 85%, my day to day costs are also claimable - last year I claimed back 65,000 in expenses without any problems. It's actually not that hard. Despite probably having the top income here by quite some margin, the tax I pay is very low. But I've also made sure what I do is 100% legal and ethical. I invest in primary industry and I also invest for my own super (What you would call a 401K)

Read your tax codes and speak to accountants would be the advice I would give.

I'm not an employee of course but you get the idea.


As for the economy in general, my country spends too much and can't balance a budget. It must represent its people pretty well in this regard because if the statistics are true, Americans tend to do a really crappy job of managing and balancing their own budgets. If the current state of affairs didn't resemble a toilet bowl and my government could demonstrate some restraint in their spending and responsibility with their budget, I might not complain as much. Then again, I figure if the US was responsible about money I would get taxed less.

Real or imagined, this is my perception.

This is in fact quite true, so you are not imagining things. If the budget was balanced then the Bush tax cuts wouldnt have been such a budget disaster. And further tax breaks McCain proposes would be fine. But the fact is, the budget up the creek and the wars along with finacial mismanagement by Republican congress has put a huge interest burden on the budget. This is the primary reason why the budget is blowing out even worse.

While the Democrats have had Congress for the last 18 months, it's not a fair call to say much of the present meltdown is their fault. The sad fact is, the Democrats have been limp wristed in their attempts to keep things under control to make themselves as small a target as possible with this election coming up. I can understand that, so to be fair we should reserve judgment for another 2 years as it's always the first two years of an election cycle when real work is done. The second two years is all about keeping your job.

There is also the Republicans still have the Senate to derail stuff and a President who is also likely to veto spending cuts. You probably will have the Democrats in a veto proof majority in Congress and a good majority in the Senate after November so yeah, they should have more power to prove themselves.

The Republicans had 14 years. They also had all three of the Senate, Congrees and President at the one time, so their efforts can be fairly judged as they had no obstructions. They have been abject failures and the proof is what you have today.

Will that continue under McCain? By his own admission he doesnt understand the economy.

will that continue under Obama? I dotn know, he has plans. Plans have a habit of failing. But....! But....! Can I ask why on earth anyone voting on economic issues would reward Republican failure? I mean LOOK at what they have done. Is it not a mess? So if the Republicans have stuffed things up, then the answer is you should send a message that you wont tolerate that and hand the baton over to the Democrats.

I mean, if someone is kicking you in the nuts, would you give them a cookie and another free shot?


Could be wrong but anytime I go to the doctor/hospital, Im charged for it (insurance is great tho and pays for almost all of it!). I will admit I dont know if there is a town/city/state/national whatever that doesnt bill rape victims for the test. While Im TOTALLY sympathetic to the terrible act theyve gone through, why wouldnt they be charged a bill the same as everyone else? If someone came into my home and shot me, Im sure the doctors and hospital Id be taken to wouldnt hesitate to charge. Whats the difference? Its still a terrible crime.

Victims of crime - ANY crime - should not have to pay if they have to go to a hospital. That's the case here with victim compensation and if that's not the case there, you really gotta get your elected officials to fix that out because that's morally wrong. And rape especially... I mean surely something as bad as that you really gotta help the victim out, right?

To me, it's the decent and Christian thing to do.

My Lord, that's a wall of words!

[Yog]

About Chernobyl, that was because of Soviet using ancient technology that is irrelevant today, and blatant negligence. Decisive factors were the almost non existing shielding, no backup reactor coolant (American reactors have 2), design of the control rods and using a dangerous positive coefficient of reactivity. An accident like that is physically impossible nowadays because of the way reactors are constructed.

Let's talk about the radioactive coefficiency, for example. All American reactors have a no coefficient of reactivity or they have a negative coefficient. [look up void coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient)]

In a positive coefficient rector (Chernobyl), it goes something like this:

Temperature Increase ==> Reactivity Increase ==> Fission Products Increase ==> Power Increase ==> Temperature Increase ==> Reactivity Increase ==> endless loop.

So when the temperature increases uncontrollably, power also increases uncontrollably. They feed on each other. This is one of the reasons Chernobyl was so dangerous.

American reactors use negative coefficients or none at all. This means, if there is no control of the temperature, after a certain point, power begins decreasing. Per the laws of physics, no American reactor can get as bad as Chernobyl.

In Chernobyl, when they had an uncontrollable increase in temperature, they also had an incontrollable increase in power.. it turned into an infinitive cycle. But they also had no backup means of controlling reactor temperature. They had planned on it, but hadn't installed the piping. And their shielding was terrible too.

Hell, Three Mile Island was actually a far worse catastrophe than Chernobyl, in terms of number of things that went wrong. But, because of the shielding, and vastly superior American reactor technology, it did not do much. It was the absolute worst case nightmare scenario for a reactor, yet no one got hurt, and the environmental impact was minimal. You could not make that incident worse if you tried on purpose.

Chernobyl, on the other hand, was not nearly as bad as Three Mile Island. Yet that turned into an environmental disaster. Why? Because Russians were careless and used extremely dangerous technology.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Chernobyl, on the other hand, was not nearly as bad as Three Mile Island. Yet that turned into an environmental disaster. Why? Because Russians were careless and used extremely dangerous technology.


Actually I have to disagree with you there - the Russian tech in Chenobyl was in fact quite safe. It was the fact the engineers turned OFF the safegaurds and ignored all protocols that made the the incident happen, they deliberately also put the reactor in the unstable state that resulted int he runaway meltdown and explosion. If they had not done so, the reactor would never have exploded.

The difference now is that reactors are designed to make sure human stupid cant do that again.


At this low power output it was impossible to carry out the test. The operators seem to have been unaware of the xenon poisoning, perhaps believing that the rapid fall in output was due to a malfunction in one of the automatic power regulators. To increase power, control rods were pulled out of the reactor core, beyond the correct position for normal operations, and also beyond what is allowed under safety regulations. To do this, staff had to use manual controls to override the automatic system.[17]

Slowly, the reactor's power only increased to 200 MW, less than a third of the minimum required for the experiment. Yet the experiment was continued. As part of the test plan, at 1:05 a.m. on 26 April extra water pumps were activated, increasing the water flow. The flow exceeded the safe limit at 1:19 a.m. The extra water lowered the core temperature and reduced steam voids. However, since water also absorbs neutrons (and the higher density of liquid water makes it a better absorber than steam), this decreased reactor power further. This prompted the operators to remove also the manual control rods.

This produced an extremely unstable condition with nearly all of the control rods removed; a setup for a run-away reaction. The only thing holding the reactor at such a low power level was the high levels of neutron-absorbing xenon. The increased water flow led to a fall in steam production and other changes in the operating parameters. At this point the automatic control system should have shut the reactor down. To avoid this, the operators had disabled the shut down system.[18]

At 1:23:04 a.m. the experiment began. The extremely unstable condition of the reactor was not known to the reactor crew. The steam to the turbines was shut off. As the momentum of the turbine generator drove the water pumps, the water flow rate decreased, leading to the formation of steam voids. The control rods that were removed earlier were never fully removed and were still partially in the reactor, preventing the heat from reaching the cooling water. The great rise in temperature resulted in a massive steam build up, and, due to the fact that the RBMK type reactors are largely positive void coefficient, the power within the reactor only increased. As the reactor power increased, so did the neutron generation. Soon it exceeded what could be absorbed by the xenon poisoning, starting a dangerous cascade. With the manual and automatic neutron absorbing control rods removed, nothing prevented a runaway reaction.

With reactor output rapidly increasing, the operators pressed the AZ-5 ("Rapid Emergency Shutdown 5") panic button at 1:23:40 (36 seconds into the experiment), that ordered a "SCRAM" — a shutdown of the reactor, fully inserting all control rods, including the manual control rods that had been incautiously withdrawn earlier. It is unclear whether it was done as an emergency measure or simply as a routine method of shutting down the reactor upon the completion of an experiment (the reactor was scheduled to be shut down for routine maintenance). It is usually suggested that the SCRAM was ordered as a response to the unexpected rapid power increase.[19]

The control rod insertion mechanism operated at relatively slow speed (0,4 m/s) taking 18–20 seconds to travel the full ~7 meter core-length (height). A worse problem was a flawed graphite-tip control rod design, which initially reduces the amount of coolant present. In this way, the SCRAM actually increased the reaction rate. At this point a massive energy spike occurred, the core overheated and some of the fuel rods fractured, blocking the control rod columns. The control rods became stuck after being inserted only one-third of the way. At this point nothing could be done to stop the disaster. Within three seconds the reactor output rose above 530 MW.[20] By 1:23:47 (seven seconds after the AZ-5 panic button was pressed) the reactor jumped to around 30 GW thermal, ten times the normal operational output. The rapid increase in steam pressure destroyed fuel channels and ruptured the large diameter cooling water pipes. Fuel rods began to melt and reached the cooling water in the flooded basement.[21] At 1:24, only 20 seconds after the panic button had been pressed, the first powerful steam explosion took place.

Notice the persistent references to the STAFF disabling the safety features.




To avoid this, the operators had disabled the shut down system.

[/quote]

Is what should be read over and over again. The operators were the ones at fault, not the reactor.

So in reality, the design was not flawed. The reactor was safe. It was the human stupid that deliberatly negated the safeties and allowed this senseless explosion to occur. to happen. That cant be underlined enough.

As you said tho that the new reactors just do not allow this to occur. Removal of safeties WILL shut the reactor down as the reaction is simply not self sustaining. There wont be another Chernobyl because the designers realized that nuclear must have the possible human stupid element removed.

[Yog]

Actually I have to disagree with you there - the Russian tech in Chenobyl was in fact quite safe. It was the fact the engineers turned OFF the safegaurds and ignored all protocols that made the the incident happen, they deliberately also put the reactor in the unstable state that resulted int he runaway meltdown and explosion. If they had not done so, the reactor would never have exploded.
Look up the article on Wikipedia, there were massive design flaws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Possible_causes_of_the_disaster

Of course, I agree with you, none of that would have happened if safety procuedures were followed. It's just that the way it was built made it vulnerable to human idiocy.

I think you missed my main point of all this though: Put a madman, say Osama Bin Laden in the control room of an American reactor, and let's see how much havok he can cause. As it turns out, it would not be a whole lot. It is basically the Three Mile Island scenario.



As you said tho that the new reactors just do not allow this to occur. Removal of safeties WILL shut the reactor down as the reaction is simply not self sustaining. There wont be another Chernobyl because the designers realized that nuclear must have the possible human stupid element removed.
Yes, that was my main point. :)

[Wei Wu Wei]

As for the advice on filing my taxes: duly noted.


Fair Tax will also send the budget into a black hole. Not exactly something you want

Would you elaborate on this statement? I have to admit, I'm still learning about the Fair Tax, but out of what I've learned so far most of it sounds like this is a very good idea. I haven't run across much criticism of the Fair Tax yet, and I'd like to see what pitfalls there are to this system.

So far I have heard that Ireland (I think) utilizes a Fair Tax system and they are in fact doing quite well. Besides the total lack of paper work to file once a year, and the apparent simplicity of the system, I have to admit that my grasp is pretty basic. But from what I do know it sounds interesting.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The big problem with Nuclear power are really two things. The darn things are expensive to build. It cost billions just to build one. Second there is still a huge problem in getting rid of the waste. That hasn't been an easy problem to solve. It take like a trillion dollars to put the country on nuclear and that is a bad idea. I rather see us spend money on solar, wind, and water. And then use more natural gas for cars.

[Jedieb]

It was interesting to see how the candidates responded to the Wall Street meltdown yesterday. IMO, McCain wasn't completely off base in how he responded. There are portions of our economy that are strong, it's not a total meltdown. But he's going to get hammered by Obama and surrogates for being out of touch with the dropping portfolios and mortgage struggles of millions of Americans. And I'm telling you, as more and more Americans look at their 401ks this week the adjective "strong" is not one that they're going to want to use to describe their finances. I haven't looked our 403b's yet. Frankly, I'm afraid to do so.

[Jedieb]

The big problem with Nuclear power are really two things. The darn things are expensive to build. It cost billions just to build one. Second there is still a huge problem in getting rid of the waste. That hasn't been an easy problem to solve. It take like a trillion dollars to put the country on nuclear and that is a bad idea. I rather see us spend money on solar, wind, and water. And then use more natural gas for cars.

I'm just not comfortable with the idea of nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live near one. And make no mistake, where these things get built matters. You'll see cases of NIMBY break out all over the country once these things are approved. I know current designs are probably better and safer than the ones of decades past, but the more complex a system the more chances it has to fail. It's still going to be run and managed by HUMAN beings. And I don't care how impressive the degree, it can still lead to disaster. Remember, there are plenty of MBAs behind the current Wall Street meltdown. There's also the current threat of terrorism. An attack on the Indian Point plant or a meltdown in New York state would be devastating. But, even some environmentalist have argued that the risks are small compared to the benefits. Nuclear power is cheap, and it could probably be run quite safely. It's that "probably" that makes me nervous. Because if I'm not willing to have one a few miles from my house, then I don't think it's right for me to support one as long as it's in someone else's backyard.

[Yog]

But he's going to get hammered by Obama and surrogates for being out of touch with the dropping portfolios and mortgage struggles of millions of Americans.
Check out the latest Obama ad. :)
http://dailykos.com/story/2008/9/16/7641/09404/732/600333



The big problem with Nuclear power are really two things. The darn things are expensive to build. It cost billions just to build one. Second there is still a huge problem in getting rid of the waste. That hasn't been an easy problem to solve. It take like a trillion dollars to put the country on nuclear and that is a bad idea. I rather see us spend money on solar, wind, and water. And then use more natural gas for cars.
They are expensive to build (huge upfront cost), but once they are up and running, they produce laughable cheap energy with very low operational costs for a long time.

As for the waste, in France and Japan, it's more a resource than waste. The waste / used fuel is recycled in breeder reactors. Waste can be deposited safely with minimum risk, all it requires is political will. Yuca Mountain nuclear waste respository (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain) should take care of the waste concerns.

Don't get me wrong though. Nuclear fission is not a permament solution. There are problems, and you have to make compromises. But it is a good transitional technology until renewable energy gets cheaper, and in the long term, fusion power. The problems with nuclear energy are trivial compared to energy production from coal. The health risks and environmental impact associated with coal plants and mining of coal, is far worse.

Btw, one of the more promising future nuclear tech is the use of Thorium as fuel:
http://www.thoriumpower.com


From their website:

1. Thorium is a naturally occurring, slightly radioactive metal, and it has been considered as an alternative nuclear fuel to
uranium.
2. Unlike uranium, thorium is non-proliferative: The key advantage of the thorium fuel cycle is that it does NOT produce
plutonium and is non-proliferative for that reason.
3. The energy contained in one kilogram of thorium equals that of four thousand tons of coal.
4. The energy stored in the earth's thorium reserves is thought to be greater than that available from all other conventional
(fossil) and nuclear fuels combined.
5. Thorium is cheaper and more abundant than uranium (approx three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than all
forms of uranium combined).
6. The thorium fuel cycle produces less radioactive waste than uranium (1,000 to 10,000 times less than in conventional
reactors).
7. Unlike natural uranium where only the 0.7% sliver of isotope 235 is fissionable, thorium is fully used in the fuel cycle.
8. Unlike uranium, thorium can burn plutonium waste from traditional nuclear reactors with additional energy output.
9. Unlike uranium, thorium is not suitable for the production of weapons-grade materials.
10. Global reserves of thorium (India, Australia, Norway and the U.S. possess the largest reserves) could cover the world’s
energy needs for thousands of years.

[Yog]

I'm just not comfortable with the idea of nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live near one.
Would you rather have coal plant next door? I sure as hell would not.

I can only speak for myself, but I would have no issues with having a nuclear plant built nearby, knowing what I know of safety of nuclear tech today.

[Jedieb]

I'm just not comfortable with the idea of nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live near one.
Would you rather have coal plant next door? I sure as hell would not.

I can only speak for myself, but I would have no issues with having a nuclear plant built nearby, knowing what I know of safety of nuclear tech today.

Nope, wouldn't feel great about a coal plant, but a wind or solar plant wouldn't cause me to blink. I'm very impressed with what you and others have presented on nuclear power, I'm just still not ready to take up its cause.

And I looked at my portfolio. It's dropped 20% since the same time last year. :cry I'm afraid to look at my wife's.

[Morgan Evanar]

I live near a nuclear power plant. It's less than 8 miles away.

It's getting old, though. I hope we can build new reactors on the same land soon.

[Figrin D'an]

I would much rather live near a nuclear power plant than a "clean" coal plant (and, in fact, there is a nuclear power plant about 25 miles away from my current residence). The risk of adverse health effects is far lower from current nuclear fission technology than it is from any sort of fossil fuel source.

Handling nuclear waste should not even be an issue anymore... any discussion about dealing with it as a major environmental disaster is completely outdated scientifically and is little more than fodder for fear-mongering. As has been stated, breeder reactors allow for significant recycling of spent fuel, and the small amount of wast product that does remain can be rendered all but inert through vitrification. The Yucca Mountain sit is still a point of contention, admittedly, primarily because of transportation concerns.

I've stated before that I feel that any responsible comprehensive energy policy must include nuclear power as part of the plan to ween the nation off of fossil fuels. Solar, wind and biofuels must be a part of this as well. There is no single method that is the ultimate answer at this point, and increasing the scale of nuclear power is something that can be implemented right now. We just have to have the will to accept the up front costs.

[Jedieb]

Holy crap in a hat, the Feds are taking over AIG! Wow, this is NOT good. AIG has massive holdings around the globe. If it had folded it would have sent shock waves throughout the global financial markets. Earlier in the week the government said it wasn't bailing out anyone else, but I guess AIG was too big to allow it to fail. Well, you know what tomorrow's news is going to be; 'Strong Economy Sees AIG Bailout'

McCain's RCP average lead is down to 1.3. It could be gone by the end of the week.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Reading what the Feds have forced AIG to accept in return for the bailout is interesting. It basically dismembers AIG and forces an asset sell off, while returning 11% interest to the Feds and they get 80% on ALL asset sales.

it shows how close AIG was to failing if they had to accept those kind of terms. i suppose the Feds had the whip hand tho. AIG's asset base is worth more than 80 billion so even if taxpayers do have to wear it in the short term, they get it back eventually.

It completely screws shareholders of course. And creitors will be reamed, they wont see much money back. . And I expect a lot of staff to be turfed. And it will be messy breaking up the assets for a sale. But the fact AIG basically went broke and had to be bailed out in the first place is just plain shocking.

[Figrin D'an]

But the fact AIG basically went broke and had to be bailed out in the first place is just plain shocking.

More frightening yet is that AIG will not likely be the last casualty in this economic nightmare.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

But the fact AIG basically went broke and had to be bailed out in the first place is just plain shocking.

More frightening yet is that AIG will not likely be the last casualty in this economic nightmare.


You are quite right, it wont be the last. There's a few UK banks looking bad and some German ones too. Not sure about who's next to fall on Wall street but you can be fairly sure they wont be bailed out now - AIG was just simply too large to let fail.

[Yog]

Question: Who would do the best job handling the economy?

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/7808/whowoulddothebestjobhanva3.jpg


Obama addressed the economy in his Colorado speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlZt5iN96iM

AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD938ATIO0) reports Obama is buying a two minute national ad outlining his economic plan. Here is the ad:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/planforchange_ad/

[Park Kraken]

As far as alternative power sources go, I may just have had a crazy idea. Position a series of oil rigs between the Florida East Coast and the Bahamas, but modify them. Each rig has two poles that extends to the bottom of the ocean, but no screw drills. Instead, the two poles hold in place a series of turbines to harness the power of the Gulf Current as it flows northward. A bit of modified hydro-electric tech. I guess power would reach the mainland via underwater cables.

[Jedieb]

The Palin Convention Bounce is officially OVER. McCain's RCP lead is down to 0.6 and it'll will likely dissappear by the end of the week. And I call it the Palin bounce because I think she had more to do with McCain's improved numbers than McCain did. She was the star of that convention, not him. And as the shine and novelty wore off and her numbers dropped, so did the ticket's. But the real kick in the teeth has been the bad economic news and McCain's reaction to it. You could argue that the last 2 days have been the worst McCain has had during this entire election, certainly the worst since the end of the convention. And to make matters worse, Monday and Tuesday won't show up completely in most polls until tomorrow and Thursday. McCain should get his typical Friday mini-bounce, but I'm guessing that Obama will have a 1-2pt RCP lead by early next week, if not the end of this week. Which means that the numbers will have returned to where they were before the conventions began.

[Jedieb]

Wow, it happened even faster than I thought. The RCP is now TIED thanks to a couple of really strong polls by Obama. And when a few of these polls from last week get dropped Obama will jump out to the same kind of lead he had before the conventions. McCain just keeps stumbling with this economic meltdown. He gave a really awkward speech in Minn. today where he kept looking at cue cards and giving a stilted speech.

I heard some pretty chilling stuff about AIG today. Basically, the costs of letting it go under were even worse than I'd heard. It could have had a massive domino effect that would have spread from financial institutions to industries. I heard that during the meeting between Congressmen and the chairman of the Fed, it was discussed that letting AIG fail would be a catastrophe. The businesses that could fail sent a chill down the spine of many who attended. It was so bad that the person I heard interviewed declined to mention the names of those companies because he didn't want to spread any more panic.

Deregulation is clearly at the heart of this mortgage meltdown that's trashing the economy. McCain has been a "deregulator" for his entire Senate career. He's just not going to be able to run away from this. About the only thing he can do is try to scare people into thinking it's so scary that only an old pro like himself can save the country from this "crisis." That's the word McCain and his surrogates will keep using these next few days. It's a crisis and the junior senator from Illinois can't possibly handle it. While Obama will point out it's been McCain supported deregulation that got us into this mess.

[Cat X]

Pity then for McCain he's been recorded as saying "I dont understand the economy" PLUS his surrogates are the people that put that deregulation thru in the first place AND his VP choice is a complete flaming retard with no credibility at all on anything other than cronyism and being a modern day Pharasee.

His economic credibilty is a massive crater. Obama will make mincemeat of him on this issue. And IS in the process of doing exactly that.

Jedieb, the businesses that would have failed if AIG went down is basically.... read the S&P 200. yes, it would have been that bad and the fallout around the world just shocking. As it is, there are at least three more well known banks that will fold this week - Morgan and Stanley are the next ones beign looked at closely. There is a major telco going broke. Expect one of Chrysler, Ford or GM to declare bankrupt.

I'm afraid you have only really seen the tip of the iceberg in how frail a lot of companies really are.

How much more has to happen before the Religious Right crowd wake the hell up and see how screwed their country really is and see how badly the Republicans have dudded them??? Come on, this is just getting beyond ridiclous. This crap is hurting us ALL.

And mark my words, considering the losses I've made in the last week, I toned this outburst down a lot. Because of the ineptitude of your bloody Administration, I'm looking at 60% losses this year. It's about time America woke up and saw just how bad things truly are - Unfortunatly, it took this to do it.

Edit - Teach me for checking the trades. 3.5% down today -_-

[Jedieb]

How much more has to happen before the Religious Right crowd wake the hell up and see how screwed their country really is and see how badly the Republicans have dudded them??? Come on, this is just getting beyond ridiclous. This crap is hurting us ALL.


The Religious Right is not waking up from this Palin dream. Look, the Palin choice was simply brilliant for McCain in many respects. It energized the evangelicals that helped elect Bush. These voters didn't trust McCain, they're now in love with this ticket. Palin could get busted with a crack pipe and they'd still love her as long as "Bong Hits For Jesus" was carved into it. The Palin pick also gave McCain a bigger than expected convention bounce and it probably did help pick off a few Hillary supporters.

But unfortunately for McCain, I think the Palin pick will eventually hurt him with Independents. And it's also helped to energize many of Obama's supporters. I know I sent money a couple of times during these last two weeks to help combat the Palin bounce. But again, they're called bounces for a reason. They eventually come DOWN. And the economic news of the week has kicked McCain in the nads. He's been inconsistent and at times contradictory. There's also the tone of his campaign these last few days. I mean, every politician will stretch the truth, pull things out of context, etc. But McCain has crossed the line more than a few times recently. And when his campaign gets called on it, they just ignore the press doing it and keep repeating the message over and over and over. Palin is still using that Bridge to Nowhere line. Who on this planet doesn't know that's been debunked? McCain gets called on the lipstick ad and he doesn't budge. Same thing with the Sex Ed ad. I know the Republican diehards won't blink, but I think it's going to kill him with Independents.

It's a bad week and it could get worse, but no one has won this election. We've got 4 debates and who the hell knows what October surprise we might be in for.

Possible October Surprises
Terrorist Attack
Bin Laden Finally Captured/Killed
Reverend Wright Resurfaces
Health Scare For McCain
Palin TrooperGate Investigation Results
Wall Street Recovery

Something is coming. But unlike 4 years ago, I think that the Obama campaign will do a much better job of handling it that Kerry did. Hell, they might even be the ones behind it. They've shown me more fight this week than Kerry did for most of his campaign.

[Cat X]

How much more has to happen before the Religious Right crowd wake the hell up and see how screwed their country really is and see how badly the Republicans have dudded them??? Come on, this is just getting beyond ridiclous. This crap is hurting us ALL.


The Religious Right is not waking up from this Palin dream. Look, the Palin choice was simply brilliant for McCain in many respects. It energized the evangelicals that helped elect Bush. These voters didn't trust McCain, they're now in love with this ticket. Palin could get busted with a crack pipe and they'd still love her as long as "Bong Hits For Jesus" was carved into it. The Palin pick also gave McCain a bigger than expected convention bounce and it probably did help pick off a few Hillary supporters.


The religious right are blinded by their own delusions. And coming from a Christian, I hope this really stings - they are modern day Pharasees who would be the first to be told to go to Hell (Literally) by Jesus - He told us over and over again what awaits those who are the goats. The Pharasees were insulted and angered by Jesus, so having the truth flung in ther face that they are ntohign more than the ones Jesus took so much time and pains to be critical of is exactly what should be done. Let them with ears, hear. Why should we play with words if we see our faith being hijacked by politicans for their own gain? No, fracking ENOUGH, my faith not a politcal plaything. Get your filty hands off my faith.

I aint no paragon of Christian living, but I know hypocritical BS when I see it. You know what? I'm divorced. A girl I know had an abortion when she was 17. All these Right wing bigots hate those. Jesus doesnt. He came for people like me who need Him. So excuse me isnt there somethign just a tiny bit fracking wrong here? And frankly as poor as I am a servant of Jesus (and I am a dman bad one) my sins and her sins are forgiven. It's about high time the religious right woke up and realised the Jesus they proclaim is not the one of the Bible.

So basically, you can see why I am getting more and more hostile to Christians who have swallowed this BS hook line and sinker. It is obviously wrong and yet again they get a Republican con job and they fell for it. Again.

WAKE THE HELL UP AND LOOK AT HOW YOU HAVE BEEN BETRAYED

Good Lord, how much more blatant does it have to get before the Religios Right sees how bad things really are....? How they are being lied to? How these so called Chriatians in power have robbed the poor to pay for the rich? Have started unjust wars murdering 4500 of their own countrymen in the process as well as squanderign billions?

How much longer do we have to put up with unqualified morons in power?


Something is coming. But unlike 4 years ago, I think that the Obama campaign will do a much better job of handling it that Kerry did. Hell, they might even be the ones behind it. They've shown me more fight this week than Kerry did for most of his campaign.

There's been a few hints from Obama that he indeed does have something up his sleeve. And considerign how good his campaign has been, I dotn doubt it. I'm hopign for it to be a beauty.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The stock market is a mess. I am waiting for it to go below 10k that would be a horrible moment.

[Liam Jinn]

Hey Mark, tone down your religious gospel in this thread a bit. We get it.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet - http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/hackers-break-in-to-palins-email/2008/09/18/1221330972701.html

[Morgan Evanar]

Hey Mark, tone down your religious gospel in this thread a bit. We get it. Liam's right. Please :twak.

[Jedieb]

Hey Mark, tone down your religious gospel in this thread a bit. We get it.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet - http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/hackers-break-in-to-palins-email/2008/09/18/1221330972701.html

I saw that e-mail story yesterday. I hope they catch the hackers responsible. It's just a stupid and petty attack and totally unnecessary.

Another gaffe for McCain, but this time on foreign policy.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842156,00.html?cnn=yes

Now, I heard a recording of the interview in Spanish. The interviewer clearly gave McCain a chance to clarify his response to Spain. McCain's response to Cuba and Venezuela was tough and clear, but he basically dissed Spain. And when the interviewer followed up with a clarification that she was talking about a European country in case McCain had thought they were still talking about Latin America, McCain still gave the Spanish Prime Minister Prime Minister the cold shoulder. Zapatero did pull Spanish troops out of Iraq as soon as he took office, but Spain is still an ally. An ally that has their own terrorist problems. I would expect the Obama campaign to address this later today.

Obama has reclaimed the RCP average lead, it's 1.0. It will increase as the week progresses. He will probably head into the debate with a small lead.

[Yog]

I saw that e-mail story yesterday. I hope they catch the hackers responsible. It's just a stupid and petty attack and totally unnecessary.
I agree with you, it was immoral. More than that, these morons are disrupting the media narrative on McCain and the economy. Though, there are other aspects of this story that are worth noting:

- word is, she used her ZIP code as PW retrieval question. Sounds like a case of pure account stupidity on Palin's part.

- her yahoo email address had been known in the media and on the Internet. No effort was done to improve security.

- the 'hackers' were from 4chan of all places. O'Reilly is on fire about the liberal bloggers and hackers of the Internet.. :lol

- the hack was reported to authorities by a "white knight" before a full retrieval of her inbox was complete.


- she had TWO yahoo accounts:

1. gov.palin (private) account. Her personal email with family photos and whatnot. This is the one that was hacked.

2. gov.sarah ('official' government account). Her "circumvent investigation" government account. If there is anything incriminating in her email, it is likely to be there. This has not been hacked (but I believe it was locked down by yahoo).

- her "circumvent investigation" yahoo email account may contain evidence for the troopergate scandal, among other things. She and her staff used yahoo for confidential Alaska state matters because she thought this would protect them from subpoena.


Thread on SA on this mess (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2960524&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

Also, this from 4chan:

I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family

I then started a topic on /b/, peeps asked for pics or gtfo and I obliged, then it started to get big

Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing, and it finally set in, THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this (censored) ever got to the FBI I was (censored), I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to rapid(censored) all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state

Then the white knight (explicit word) came along, and did it in for everyone, I trusted /b/ with that email password, I had gotten done what I could do well, then passed the torch , all to be let down by the douchebaggery, good job /b/, this is why we cant have nice things

[Jedieb]

This whole e-mail fiasco is like you said, off point for me. McCain is the key here. Palin is already starting to fade and the TrooperGate story doesn't need this to sustain itself. Right now, McCain has sent a lawyer to Alaska to try to help her derail an investigation that SHE started. McCain/Palin are saying that the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats controlled by Obama. Even though it's a Republican controlled legislature and the investigation has a Republican majority. It's a joke.

Obama's RCP lead has jumped all the way up to 2 points. It's likely to get around a point bigger by the end of the week and stay there before the debates. Democrats can now take a breath and climb off the ledge. They need to make room for stockbrokers and shareholders of whatever big firm is going under today.

[Yog]

Some fresh polls.. :)

Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110446/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-45.aspx)
Obama 47
McCain 45


Time/CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/17/battleground.poll/index.html)
Florida: Obama 48, McCain 48 :eek
Indiana: McCain 51, Obama 45
North Carolina: McCain 48, Obama 47 :eek
Ohio: Obama 49, McCain 47 :cool:
Wisconsin: Obama 50, McCain 47


SurveyUSA Election Poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=edc4d070-fb0f-43a8-b19c-6b32c3ad36f7[/url)
New Mexico:
Obama 52%
McCain 44%


New CBS poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/opinion/polls/main4456249.shtml)
Obama: 48
McCain: 43

(CBS) In a sign that John McCain's convention bounce has dissipated, Barack Obama has taken a 48 percent to 43 percent lead over his Republican rival among registered voters in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.

...

Obama's advantage can be traced in part to independents, who favored Obama in late August, swung to McCain just after the Republican convention, and have now returned to Obama. Obama now leads McCain among independents 46 percent to 41 percent.

Obama now also leads McCain among women, a group that favored McCain by five points in polling taken just after the Republican convention, where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin became the second woman ever to be nominated to a major party ticket.

Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago.

...

The Candidates For Vice President:

While Palin remains popular among McCain voters, the poll suggests that the McCain campaign may have cause for concern. More than half of registered voters do not think Palin is prepared for the job of Vice President, and even McCain supporters cite “inexperience” as what they like least about her.

As suspected, Palin's favorability rating is dropping though the floor. 12 point swing here, and I seen another poll where there was an 18 point swing. Outside of the evangelical base, I think the initial excitement about her is rapidly turning into public disapproval, especially among Independents.


The way I look at it, 260 is the magical number. That is the electoral count you get after taking the Kerry states plus NM and IA, and minus NH since it's a swing state. He will then only need 10 more electoral votes to reach 270.

Assuming the very likely scenario Obama wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Iowa, Obama needs to win one of the following to become President:
- Virginia (tie)
- Ohio (tie)
- Colorado (tie) + NH or NV (NH looking good)
- Florida (edge McCain)

I am not including North Carolina or Indiana in those winning scenarios yet, because I think McCain will win those, but they are within the realm of possible to win for Obama.

[Yog]

TrooperGate story doesn't need this to sustain itself. Right now, McCain has sent a lawyer to Alaska to try to help her derail an investigation that SHE started. McCain/Palin are saying that the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats controlled by Obama. Even though it's a Republican controlled legislature and the investigation has a Republican majority. It's a joke.

Palin also turned a 180 on the question of subpoenas. She pledged to cooperate, but now she refuses to do so. There are all kinds of delay tactics being played.

Aides to Sarah Palin won't comply with subpoenas (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/17/palin.investigation/index.html)

Troopergate probe appears to be unraveling (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_TROOPERGATE?%20%20%20SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-09-11-22-40-45)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- The abuse-of-power investigation of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was unraveling Wednesday, with most key witnesses refusing to testify, new legal maneuvering and heightened Republican pressure to delay the probe until after Election Day.

Monegan was on TV earlier commenting. He made it clear Palin is lying in her ABC interview about troopergate..
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PlB3iJ7yobE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PlB3iJ7yobE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

^^ Edit: That video is pure gold, so I embed it. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

The email things is horrible and shouldn't be blamed on democrats. 4 Chan are bunch of anarchists. They hate democrats too. The polls are looking good for Obama now. I think it will take a slight lead into the first debate.

[Yog]

Turns out, there is an even fresher Gallup out there, and the news is good for Obama. I think this graph tells better than words what is happening momentum wise.. :D
http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/president-08/gallup-sept-18.jpg


Also, the latest National Journal poll verifies previous results on critical battleground states. Remember when I talked about those states that could give Obama the winning edge? Turns out Obama is rebounding in those all important swing states that McCain is forced to win to have a chance:
CO O45 M44
FL: O44 M44
OH: M42 O41
(if one of those turn blue election day, McCain is in deep trouble)

InsiderAdvantage gives an even more astonishing result, a 10% lead in Colorado. The margin of error is supposedly 4.3% so take it as you wish. It is nevertheless a huge warning sign for the McCain camp:
Colorado - Obama +10 (O 51, M 41)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/IA_Colorado_Poll91808.pdf

Bottom line, the RCP averages are not fully accounting the change of momentum here. This change is HUGE. Obama could very well get the kind of lead he had during DNC...

[Figrin D'an]

4 Chan are bunch of anarchists.


Please... 4channers just do stuff "for the lulz" 95% of the time. They'll pick on anyone they can pretty much purely for their own amusement. They don't have a collective political alignment in any tangible sense.

[Jedieb]

4 Chan are bunch of anarchists.


Please... 4channers just do stuff "for the lulz" 95% of the time. They'll pick on anyone they can pretty much purely for their own amusement. They don't have a collective political alignment in any tangible sense.

Then maybe we can describe them as 'playful anarchists.' I know absolutely nothing about them. Never heard of them before today.

The electoral maps out there still reflect McCain's post convention bounce. It'll take a few days before this week starts to have an impact on those models. If you look at the long term RCP graph of the race, it really looks bad for McCain. He's probably going to need something dramatic to shake it up. He shook it up by choosing Palin, but that was a quick fix whose only long term benefit will likely be an excited evangelical base.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jedieb/RCP918.jpg
If you look at the history of this race, Obama has been ahead for the vast majority of it. He's been consistently between 43-49%. McCain has been far more erratic. His longest and biggest lead is now over. The race isn't over, but it really is Obama's to lose if you just look at those numbers. McCain is going to have to pull something amazing off to win this thing. I think the best he can hope for is to keep it close and hope that he can pull out a narrow electoral win with a late surge. Not to mention some voter shenanegans (sp?) on election day in places like Ohio and Florida.

[Jedi Master Carr]

4 Chan are bunch of anarchists.


Please... 4channers just do stuff "for the lulz" 95% of the time. They'll pick on anyone they can pretty much purely for their own amusement. They don't have a collective political alignment in any tangible sense.


Well I know only a little bit about them. I just remember them wearing those V masks which I know the graphic novel represented he represented anarchy. What you say is probably true though.

[Yog]

The hacker explains how he found the password:

after the password recovery was reenabled, it took seriously 45 mins on wikipedia and google to find the info, Birthday? 15 seconds on wikipedia, zip code? well she had always been from wasilla, and it only has 2 zip codes (thanks online postal service!)

the second was somewhat harder, the question was "where did you meet your spouse?" did some research, and apparently she had eloped with mister palin after college, if youll look on some of the screenshots that I took and other fellow anon have so graciously put on photobucket you will see the google search for "palin eloped" or some such in one of the tabs.

I found out later though more research that they met at high school, so I did variations of that, high, high school, eventually hit on "Wasilla high" I promptly changed the password to popcorn and took a cold shower...

http://www.appscout.com/2008/09/hacking_sarah_palin_what_we_ca.php#more

[Yog]

So, did any of you guys hear Palin's nonsensical answer on energy policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvUsdmqGYV8)? Her answer is an eerie reminder to Miss South Carolina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww)... :lol


"Oil and coal? Of course, it's a fungible commodity and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's going and where it's not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first," Palin said. "So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first."


On a similar note, McCain campaign tried to change the format of the VP debates because they are terrified she won't handle it. Their campaign openly admitted she is not experienced enough for that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.


In other news, the troopergate investigation is stalling because the McCain campaign is doing everything it can to slow it down:
No-shows stall hearing in Palin inquiry (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/19/palin.investigation/index.html)


- Witnesses fail to show up for hearing in Palin trooper investigation
- Todd Palin, two aides to Sarah Palin are among the no-shows
- Of the 13 people subpoenaed, only one has given a statement

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5844710&page=1

Exclusive: New Doubts Over Palin's Troopergate Claims
Internal Government Document Contradicts Sarah Palin, Campaign


The last few days, there have been a lot of waffling on regulation of the markets and bailouts from the McCain camp, to the point it's hard to understand what they really are saying. Basically, it went something like this:
Wednesday: "I am against bailouts!"
Thursday: "I am for bailouts!"
Friday: "I am against bailouts!"
Satuday: "I am for bailouts!"

I can only imagine what the voting public must think. Of course, all of this does not help McCain in the polls:

http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/president-08/favorable.jpg

The last daily gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110551/Gallup-Daily-Obama-50-McCain-44.aspx) shows a 50-44 gap.

Even North Carolina may be in play here:
PPP poll NC, 1,060 LV
Obama 46
Mccain 46
Barr 5
Undecided 4
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_92168.pdf

[Jedieb]

Starting on Tuesday Obama is going to start hunkering down and prepping for Friday's debate. I know he's going to be doing most of his prep work in Florida to try to grab some press there. I assume McCain will be spending plenty of time getting ready as well so we should see less of these guys on the stump. I expect surrogates will be working overtime as a result. Plus, both candidates need to stay on top of the bailout and get their reactions out to the media.

[Yog]

It appears investment banks will be a thing of the past on Wall Street. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are converting from investment banks to commercial ones:
Wall Street wiped out: Goldman and Merrill to change structure (http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/22/wall-street-wiped-out-goldman-and-merrill-to-change-structure/print/)


Bloomberg News reports that Washington pulled another Sunday night special -- wiping out Wall Street as we have known it. Ironically, this move will put Wall Street back where it was prior to the Great Depression. How so? Last night the Fed approved changing Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) from investment banks to commercial ones. Morgan Stanley -- which may sell up to 20% of itself to Mitsubishi UFJ and may put merger discussions on hold -- and Goldman Sachs now have greater odds of remaining independent.

Most significantly, the change will allow both banks to take consumer deposits and get short-term loans from the Fed. In exchange for that cheap money, they will need to increase the amount of capital they have, take less risk, and submit themselves to tighter regulatory scrutiny. The capital increases are the most significant piece of this new puzzle. According to the New York Times, "Goldman Sachs has $1 of capital for every $22 of assets; Morgan Stanley has $1 for every $30. By contrast, Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) has less than $11 for every $1 of capital." Goldman and Morgan will be required to raise significant capital to reach that 11 to 1 ratio. How they do that still remains a mystery.

Ironically, prior to the Great Depression, banks like JPMorgan operated both commercial and investment banks -- taking deposits from consumers and doing stock offerings for business. I was surprised to learn that they already have billions in deposits. "Morgan Stanley had $36 billion in retail deposits as of August 31 and Goldman Sachs had $20 billion," according to the Times. Now, they'll need to add branches and invest in marketing and systems to expand that amount. So, although the industry will return to its pre-Great Depression structure -- it will be more tightly regulated than it was back then.

The implications of this change are significant for bankers and the cities where they live. That's because enormous bonuses for Wall Streeters are history. In addition, this change will leave a huge hole in the economy of New York which depends so heavily on those big investment banking bonuses to fuel its real estate market, not to mention its expensive restaurants and other "finer things in life".

And this raises big questions about what will happen to all the MBAs who formerly streamed to Wall Street after graduation. If the global financial markets can survive this crisis, it would not surprise me to see investment banking revive in its current form through start-ups capitalized by institutional investors. Some of these MBAs could go into hedge funds or private equity -- but a regulatory crack down on those market players could also be in the offing. This could mean that MBAs actually have to manage businesses instead of shuffling financial papers.

Huge questions remain about whether we can make it through the current catastrophe. And for now this change in Wall Street is a bit of a side show.

I talked to my father yesterday about the current crisis, he is a professor in economics. While he thinks the $700B in loans to save banks was absolutely necessary, he has doubts it will be enough in the long run. He foresees a domino effect where more banks will be falling, and this will eventually spread to Europe and Asia. He put most of the blame for this situation on the Bush administration (for the reckless spending and deregulation), but also the Federal Reserve + SEC has part of the blame for not intervening years ago. Because nothing was done when it should have been, there will hard as nails regulation now instead, whether you want it or not.

Also, the economic slump will continue, with recession likely to follow, and high unemployment rate. At some point central banks will be forced to lower the interest rates (to stimulate the economy), but that will lead to inflation and the spending power drops through the floor. It's a no win situation, and whoever becomes President will have one hell of a mess to clean up.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think we are already in a recession. Oh this news about JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs is really hurting the market today. It is already down 200 some points.

[Jedieb]

I don't know how either of these candidates would be able to afford their tax plans. Obama probably has a better chance because his is close to neutral because of he repeals the Bush tax cuts for higher wage owners. McCain's, while giving less to the middle class than Obama, has an across the board tax cut. I don't see how his administration could possibly afford that.

I don't expect to see much of a move in the polls this week. Obama's lead will probably stay right around 2. When I mentioned Friday's debate to my wife she asked; "When is the Palin debate?" I think that will undoubtedly be the highest rated VP debate ever. Half the country tuning in to see the lovely Sarah defend herself against the evil Biden and mean interrogator and the other half to see if Biden trashes her. Biden really has to watch himself. He has to beat her without being overly aggressive. All she has to do is not embarrass herself and she'll come away with a minor victory. It'll be a show, but I doubt it'll move the numbers as much as the other 3 debates.

[Yog]

Hey, Carr are you living in Virginia, or am I thinking of someone else?

Check out the latest poll from Virginia:

SurveyUSA Virginia numbers (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c16bc98c-8d29-4b28-8aae-fc8aac9471ad)
45% McCain (R)
51% Obama (D) :eek
2% Other
2% Undecided

Time to phonebank and get organised, Carr. I am sure you have some friends / relatives on the fence.. ;)

Seriously though, if Virginia flips blue, I think it is game over for McCain.

Edit - there is another brand new poll indicating almost exactly the same result for Virginia:
ABC/WaPo Virginia Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5856414&page=1)
Obama 50, McCain 45.

I would say Virginia has just as good, if not better chance than Colorado to go blue. This is a tremendous problem for the McCain campaign, because if Obama wins either of those, he will likely become President looking at the electoral college map. Also, if Obama wins Virginia, I'd say the chances are good he wins Ohio too, which of course makes it even better, or worse, depending on your perspective.

Previous to these polls, this is what I considered the most likely scenario. I give McCain a favorable margin of error, granting wins in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia:

RCP Electoral Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=1&save=3-3-3-3-1-2-1-1-1-4-3-1-3-1-4-2-3-3-3-1-1-1-2-2-3-4-4-3-4-2-2-2-1-4-4-4-3-2-2-1-3-3-3-3-3-1-4-2-3-2-3)
Obama: 273
McCain: 265




... and this is what happens if Virginia turns blue (now a likely proposition)
http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/president-08/map-22-sept.png

The last time Viginia went democrat in a Presidential election was in 1964. Looking at that map, you probably realise why the candidates spend so much time campaigning in the rust belt. So many swing states on the edge. The presidency is not won though nationwide polls, but through the ground game. And that is exactly what Obama has been doing. Hell, the campaign headquarters don't even look at the nationwide polls any more. They campaign in the swing states, and work on getting people registered to vote.

Keep in mind, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Indiana are dead even right now. Obama is even tracking ahead in Ohio. McCain needs to win all of those stand a chance, and he probably has to score an upset or two somewhere. Where? Maybe Pennsylvania, maybe Michigan, maybe Minnesota.

Nationwide, Obama is currently +4 on the Gallup (48-44) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110578/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-44.aspx) and +5 on the CNN poll (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/22/republicans-blamed-obama-gains-over-financial-crisis/). But like I said, this race is really a battle for the swing states.

[Cat X]

I don't know how either of these candidates would be able to afford their tax plans. Obama probably has a better chance because his is close to neutral because of he repeals the Bush tax cuts for higher wage owners. McCain's, while giving less to the middle class than Obama, has an across the board tax cut. I don't see how his administration could possibly afford that.

Tax cuts would be irresponsible on both sides - it's okay when there is cash to spare. But the budget doesnt have any, full stop. Your very likely to see taxes go UP because of the trainwreck Bush will leave behind.



I don't expect to see much of a move in the polls this week. Obama's lead will probably stay right around 2. When I mentioned Friday's debate to my wife she asked; "When is the Palin debate?" I think that will undoubtedly be the highest rated VP debate ever. Half the country tuning in to see the lovely Sarah defend herself against the evil Biden and mean interrogator and the other half to see if Biden trashes her. Biden really has to watch himself. He has to beat her without being overly aggressive. All she has to do is not embarrass herself and she'll come away with a minor victory. It'll be a show, but I doubt it'll move the numbers as much as the other 3 debates.

No, I think that this will change polling a lot more than you think. Palin has some remaining popularity with Independants and Republicans who could still yet switch. She will still get the 30% of idiots who still like Bush and with them all Palin has to do is not have too much problem in breathing - actually put lipstick on a dead fish and they would vote for that if it was OMG ABORTION AND GUNS!!!. BUT there's an awful lot of room from there.

What I think Biden will do is hit her with something like the classic "Noun, Verb, 9/11" he did to Guiliani. That one line was perfect in how it defined Guiliani in a way he could not recover from politically. That's what the Republicans are really scared about and rightly so - Biden is superb at generatign sound bytes that stick. And if he does nail her with somethign like that.... Long term damage will result.

The immediate risk is that the Independants and soft-R vote finds out why she has been removed from the campaign trail and why the McCain camp has denied media access to her, limited to soft and easily handled settings - she is fundamentally NOT even worth beign a Mayor in a crap hole wasteland - then that's worth a few percent points. And as well as the Republican shrills will harp on her "unexpectedly good performance", Indepents and soft-R wont agree. All she has to do is give a glimpse of why political tragics are deeply scared of what she will mean if elected.

If she does that (and I suspect she will because she's simply not good enough to do otherwise), 3-5 % swing nationally as well as handing at least two states to Obama, which is what's most important - it's all about electoral votes after all.


I think we are already in a recession. Oh this news about JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs is really hurting the market today. It is already down 200 some points.

It's not just the banking news - its people having a second look at the Bush resuce plan and readign between the lines. You should have a look at it too - it makes for ugly reading. It's badly inflationary with little or no oversight and also has a dangerous hint of Ron Paulesque economic stupidity. It wont fix anything is the basic thing financial analysts are seeing.

It's a short term money pump that does not change the fundamental issues.

[Jedieb]

I don't know how either of these candidates would be able to afford their tax plans. Obama probably has a better chance because his is close to neutral because of he repeals the Bush tax cuts for higher wage owners. McCain's, while giving less to the middle class than Obama, has an across the board tax cut. I don't see how his administration could possibly afford that.

Tax cuts would be irresponsible on both sides - it's okay when there is cash to spare. But the budget doesnt have any, full stop. Your very likely to see taxes go UP because of the trainwreck Bush will leave behind.



I don't expect to see much of a move in the polls this week. Obama's lead will probably stay right around 2. When I mentioned Friday's debate to my wife she asked; "When is the Palin debate?" I think that will undoubtedly be the highest rated VP debate ever. Half the country tuning in to see the lovely Sarah defend herself against the evil Biden and mean interrogator and the other half to see if Biden trashes her. Biden really has to watch himself. He has to beat her without being overly aggressive. All she has to do is not embarrass herself and she'll come away with a minor victory. It'll be a show, but I doubt it'll move the numbers as much as the other 3 debates.

No, I think that this will change polling a lot more than you think. Palin has some remaining popularity with Independants and Republicans who could still yet switch. She will still get the 30% of idiots who still like Bush and with them all Palin has to do is not have too much problem in breathing - actually put lipstick on a dead fish and they would vote for that if it was OMG ABORTION AND GUNS!!!. BUT there's an awful lot of room from there.

What I think Biden will do is hit her with something like the classic "Noun, Verb, 9/11" he did to Guiliani. That one line was perfect in how it defined Guiliani in a way he could not recover from politically. That's what the Republicans are really scared about and rightly so - Biden is superb at generatign sound bytes that stick. And if he does nail her with somethign like that.... Long term damage will result.

The immediate risk is that the Independants and soft-R vote finds out why she has been removed from the campaign trail and why the McCain camp has denied media access to her, limited to soft and easily handled settings - she is fundamentally NOT even worth beign a Mayor in a crap hole wasteland - then that's worth a few percent points. And as well as the Republican shrills will harp on her "unexpectedly good performance", Indepents and soft-R wont agree. All she has to do is give a glimpse of why political tragics are deeply scared of what she will mean if elected.

If she does that (and I suspect she will because she's simply not good enough to do otherwise), 3-5 % swing nationally as well as handing at least two states to Obama, which is what's most important - it's all about electoral votes after all.


I think we are already in a recession. Oh this news about JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs is really hurting the market today. It is already down 200 some points.

It's not just the banking news - its people having a second look at the Bush resuce plan and readign between the lines. You should have a look at it too - it makes for ugly reading. It's badly inflationary with little or no oversight and also has a dangerous hint of Ron Paulesque economic stupidity. It wont fix anything is the basic thing financial analysts are seeing.

It's a short term money pump that does not change the fundamental issues.

I'm keeping my expectations for the VP debate low. I would welcome a Palin meltdown, but I think that she may be able to get out of it without totally embarrassing herself. The McCain camp was very aggressive about the format of the debate and the Obama camp didn't put up much of fight. You're not going to see long answer periods. I think Obama's advisors gave in so they could get more favorable formats for the Prez debates.

And Yog, I think you're thinking of me. I'm in SW Virginia. This part of the state is heavily Republican, but I'm sending money and volunteering to drive voters to the polls on election day. I've got some bumper stickers on the way and I've got some fence sitters (upset Hillary voters actually) who I'm working on. The registration deadline is rapidly approaching and I'll be going out this weekend to help register voters. I'm not a phone bank kind of guy, but I may do some door to door stuff one weekend.

Obama's RCP average is up to 2.7, and it may actually go above 3 before the debate on Friday. I think he and the Democrats did the smart thing by putting up some kind of fight on this bailout. I'm all for it, but you just can't give Paulson and company a blank check. There has to be more oversight than what we saw presented today.

I just found the passage of today's proposed bailout that has many people, both Republican and Democrat very worried;

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Say what? So Paulson's decisions are "non-reviewable" by any court or Congress itself? I'm sorry, BUT NO FRIGGIN' WAY! Dodd has already introduced legislation that provides for some oversight. Look, I know that this has to be done quickly, but the Dems better put up some kind of fight before this bailout gets greenlit.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Hey, Carr are you living in Virginia, or am I thinking of someone else?

Check out the latest poll from Virginia:

SurveyUSA Virginia numbers (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c16bc98c-8d29-4b28-8aae-fc8aac9471ad)
45% McCain (R)
51% Obama (D) :eek
2% Other
2% Undecided

Time to phonebank and get organised, Carr. I am sure you have some friends / relatives on the fence.. ;)

Seriously though, if Virginia flips blue, I think it is game over for McCain.

Edit - there is another brand new poll indicating almost exactly the same result for Virginia:
ABC/WaPo Virginia Poll (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5856414&page=1)
Obama 50, McCain 45.

I would say Virginia has just as good, if not better chance than Colorado to go blue. This is a tremendous problem for the McCain campaign, because if Obama wins either of those, he will likely become President looking at the electoral college map. Also, if Obama wins Virginia, I'd say the chances are good he wins Ohio too, which of course makes it even better, or worse, depending on your perspective.

Previous to these polls, this is what I considered the most likely scenario. I give McCain a favorable margin of error, granting wins in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia:

RCP Electoral Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=1&save=3-3-3-3-1-2-1-1-1-4-3-1-3-1-4-2-3-3-3-1-1-1-2-2-3-4-4-3-4-2-2-2-1-4-4-4-3-2-2-1-3-3-3-3-3-1-4-2-3-2-3)
Obama: 273
McCain: 265




... and this is what happens if Virginia turns blue (now a likely proposition)
http://www.mneh.org/pics/debatt/president-08/map-22-sept.png

The last time Viginia went democrat in a Presidential election was in 1964. Looking at that map, you probably realise why the candidates spend so much time campaigning in the rust belt. So many swing states on the edge. The presidency is not won though nationwide polls, but through the ground game. And that is exactly what Obama has been doing. Hell, the campaign headquarters don't even look at the nationwide polls any more. They campaign in the swing states, and work on getting people registered to vote.

Keep in mind, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Indiana are dead even right now. Obama is even tracking ahead in Ohio. McCain needs to win all of those stand a chance, and he probably has to score an upset or two somewhere. Where? Maybe Pennsylvania, maybe Michigan, maybe Minnesota.

Nationwide, Obama is currently +4 on the Gallup (48-44) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110578/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-44.aspx) and +5 on the CNN poll (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/22/republicans-blamed-obama-gains-over-financial-crisis/). But like I said, this race is really a battle for the swing states.

I am living in Tennessee right now, and am from South Carolina. You aren't far off. Glad to see him winning Virginia like that I hope he can take that state. And oh you might be thinking of Jedieb he is from Virginia.

[Jedieb]

If Obama were to win a state like Virginia then I don't see how he could lose. That would have to reflect that would probably carry over to most battleground states; Obama winning more white votes than previously thought possible. Not a majority mind you, but a stronger showing than many thought possible.

His RCP lead looks like it will be 2.5 by the end of the day. He's holding up well this week. Man, Friday is going to be huge, but probably won't have any effect on polls until early next week. And then the VP debate will be right on top of us.

[Yog]

And Yog, I think you're thinking of me. I'm in SW Virginia. This part of the state is heavily Republican, but I'm sending money and volunteering to drive voters to the polls on election day. I've got some bumper stickers on the way and I've got some fence sitters (upset Hillary voters actually) who I'm working on. The registration deadline is rapidly approaching and I'll be going out this weekend to help register voters. I'm not a phone bank kind of guy, but I may do some door to door stuff one weekend.
Great job! Keep it up! :D


I am living in Tennessee right now, and am from South Carolina. You aren't far off. Glad to see him winning Virginia like that I hope he can take that state. And oh you might be thinking of Jedieb he is from Virginia.
Yeah, I was probably thinking of both of you and Jedieb actually. I had I rough idea of where you were from. Unfortunately, Tennesse is solid red. North Carolina might turn blue though, and the polls are actually closer in South Carolina than one would think looking at the polls, because the polling institutes are using the wrong ratio of democrats and republicans there.



Say what? So Paulson's decisions are "non-reviewable" by any court or Congress itself? I'm sorry, BUT NO FRIGGIN' WAY! Dodd has already introduced legislation that provides for some oversight. Look, I know that this has to be done quickly, but the Dems better put up some kind of fight before this bailout gets greenlit.
Yeah, that was stunning. I think the democrats in the congress put forward some conditions for the loan, and the White House and Republicans were not pleased about it. Details here (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aeajy5clwT4g&refer=home).




.. anyway, here are todays polls:

NBC News/Mason Dixon
Florida 47 Obama, 45 McCain

Quinnipiac
COLORADO: Obama 49 (44) – McCain 45 (46)
MICHIGAN: Obama 48 (46) - McCain 44 (42)
MINNESOTA: Obama 47 (46) - McCain 45 (44)
WISCONSIN: Obama 49(50) - McCain 42 (39)

ARG
Arkansas: McCain 53, Obama 41
Massachusetts: Obama 55, McCain 39
Oregon: Obama 52, Mcain 41
Pennsylvania: Obama 50, McCain 46
Vermont: Obama 56, McCain 38

PPP Poll of Colorado
Barack Obama 51 (+4)
John McCain 44 (-2)

Oregon (http://www.pollster.com/polls/or/08-or-pres-ge-mvo.php) is now solid blue. Colorado gains a couple points on average, as does Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Wisconsin looks rock solid now. And that Florida number made me smile (although, I think realistically, McCain still has the edge there). Overall, some very good trends, especially in the critical swing states.

Unfortunately, the Daily Gallup is only +3 today, and I don't know what is wrong with Rasmussen, but they've consistantly been tracking lower for Obama than any other poll out there.

Edit - Ohio update:
Insider Advantage 46-46.

[Cat X]

Lie and decieve those damn LIBERAL MEDIA types, along with sheltering your VP and refusing to speak to them while accusing them of BIAS!!!! and they might eventually get a spine and do their job of exposing more McCain BS, lies and conenctions to the people who were responsible for the economic trainwreck.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/23/212335/090/21/608147

And it also mentions FBI investigation into Fannie Mae et all.

You know, I think accusing the NYT of lying and bias (when it was clear they weren't) was a bad idea. I wonder which media organisation is going to bite back next?

Damn LIBERAL MEDIA!!! might even do their job for once and leave a smoking crater where these idiots who did this economic vandalism used to be. Must be hard to report while seeing your life saving under threat.

[Yog]

^^ Not to mention, the New York Times ran at least 40 stories on Obama that were really critical and searched him with a microscope. NYT have been one of the major quote sources of the McCain campaign. It's convenient to suddenly blame NYT for 'liberal bias' whenever their non compromising investigative journalism does not fit the republican agenda. That's why they are one of the most respected newspapers in the world: They have journalistic integrity. Something very rare nowadays.

McCain Was For The NYT Before He Was Against It (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/mccain-was-for-the-nyt-be_n_128397.html)

.. also, on a related note, Campbell Brown of CNN once again hit the ball out of the stadium. I might be in love with this woman... :love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSNkloIFTQ0

Seriously, don't think I ever seen a political campaign shielding one of their candidates from the press as this. At least not in the western world. It's getting beyond ridiculous.

[Daiquiri]

.. also, on a related note, Campbell Brown of CNN once again hit the ball out of the stadium. I might be in love with this woman...:love

Must be related to Murphy Brown ;)

[Jedieb]

Speaking of VP's, Biden stuck his foot in his mouth yesterday. He basically said that Obama was against new coal plants in the U.S. He was actually stating his own position from the primaries. Biden's gotten some grief over the last couple of days for that statement and the Ohio State trash talking he did earlier in the week. Still, at least he's not hiding from anybody.

Obama's RCP lead has jumped to OVER 3 this morning. And if it weren't for a consistently contrarian Battleground poll which has had McCain ahead all week his lead would be closer to 4. The economy is obviously killing McCain. The Foreign Policy debate couldn't have come at a better time for him. But if he can't get any kind of traction after Friday night he might be in some serious trouble.

[Yog]

Speaking of VP's, Biden stuck his foot in his mouth yesterday.
Yeah, Biden had some gaffes. The ones I heard about were about contradicting Obama on AIG bailout and criticising an Obama campaign ad. I have not seen much of an impact on Biden's favorable rating though. Biden is Biden. He'll speak out no matter what is on his mind for the moment.



The economy is obviously killing McCain.
The economy is killing McCain big time. Check out this latest fantastic poll from Washington Post / ABC News.. Obama 52 - McCain 43

Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303667.html?hpid=topnews)


Turmoil in the financial industry and growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll.

Just 9 percent of those surveyed rated the economy as good or excellent, the first time that number has been in single digits since the days just before the 1992 election. Just 14 percent said the country is heading in the right direction, equaling the record low on that question in polls dating back to 1973.

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

More details on the numbers here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_092308.html). Of the more interesting statistics were, 50% of the responders chose the economy as the single most important issue. Of course, the McCain camp immediately started a press conference to try and discredit those numbers (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/mccain_campaign_poll_showing_o.php).

It's probably an outlier, yet the trend can't be brushed off. Several other polls have shown increasing leads.. like this Hotline poll from today:


The Early Line: Diageo/Hotline Tracking Poll
Obama/Biden 48%
McCain/Palin 42%
Undec 8%

- Obama/Biden's 6% lead is their largest in the Diageo/Hotline tracking poll yet.

- Obama/Biden are moving ahead among white women. The Dems now hold a 1% edge, 46-45%; in the poll completed one week earlier (on 9/16), McCain/Palin led 53-37%.

- Among the 56% of RVs who say the economy is their #1 issue, Obama/Biden are up 51-39%. Last week they led the group, which at the time only represented two-fifths of RVs, 49-40%. Among all RVs, 45% say Obama can best handle the economy, while 39% say McCain; Obama held just a 1% lead the previous two surveys.

Today's poll, conducted 9/21-23 by FD, surveyed 903 RVs and has a margin of error of +/- 3.3%.

Look for full results in today's Latest Edition, and checkout Keys To The White House at anytime to see how Obama and McCain are doing among key demographic groups.

Hell, even the bastion of fair and balanced, the "no spin zone" say the same thing:
Fox News: Obama 45, McCain 39 (http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/24/obama-45-mccain-39/)


Another national poll suggests a semi-Obama surge.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll from early September had McCain 45, Obama 42.


... also leak from the NBC poll later today:

Are the runningmates qualified to be president if the need arises?

Qualified: Biden 64, Palin 40

Not Qualified: Palin 49, Biden 21

[Jedieb]

I just read a headline that I found to be stunning. I'm still having trouble believing it's true. There are reports that McCain will announce later this afternoon that he wants to postpone Friday's debate! The report said he would be suspending his campaign tomorrow to return to Washington to work on the bailout legislation. If this is true I think it's amazing. I have no idea how Obama, the press, or the public would respond to this. I can't EVER recall something like this happening. Not with a debate this close to being held. Wow.

[Jedieb]

CNN just confirmed it, McCain wants out of Friday's debate and he's suspending his campaign today so he can "focus on the economy." And he's calling on Obama to do the same. Wow, there's a number of ant-McCain slams running through my brain right now, but that's not what I'm really curious about. How is everyone else going to respond to this bombshell?!

[Yog]

CNN just confirmed it, McCain wants out of Friday's debate and he's suspending his campaign today so he can "focus on the economy." And he's calling on Obama to do the same.
I am not into baseball, but the term "curve ball" springs to mind.

CNN: "Obama Campaign: No reason to cancel debate on friday, suspend campaign"

From what I hear, Obama called McCain this morning asking McCain if he would make a joint statement with him about the economy. Then McCain does this. Wow.

[Jedieb]

I can see McCain doing this to once again jolt the race, just as he did with Palin's nomination. If and when the legislation passes he'll take credit for it. He'll trumpet the "Country First" slogan over and over again. Saying he even put his pursuit of the Presidency behind the "good" of the country. This could be the game changer than McCain needs to improve his numbers in regards to the economy. I really have no idea how Obama is going to respond.

[Yog]

If and when the legislation passes he'll take credit for it.
He can't take credit for it, since it was Obama's idea. The "delay debates!" thing sounds like a curveball though. McCain camp is in panic mode, and yeah, they are probably looking for some kind of game changer.

Edit: Also, after watching some networks and various reactions, the consensus seems to be delaying the debate is unnecessary. The "I put country first, Obama did not" talking point is not going to work, and would probably backfire. Obama already said he wants to be present at the vote and is constantly in contact with the leaders of the legislation working this deal out. Remember, it was Obama who proposed a joint statements some hours before McCain made this announcement. I just saw an online poll of 30K participants with 73.7% saying they disagree or strongly disagree delaying the debate is a good idea. Also, here is why I think it's a bad idea. The debate takes place at 9 pm on friday, so it really should not conflict with any vote. Both McCain and Obama can be present in Washington the same day, and take their private jet to make the debate. This is a non issue, really.


Watching Obama on CNN.com live now:

"This is exactly the time America needs to hear a debate".

"Part of the president's job to do more than one thing at once".


"Senator, are you going to be at the debate on Friday?"

"Yeah. I'll be there. Next question."

[Jedieb]

Obama just spoke, he wants the debate to continue and when asked if he were suspending ads and campaign stops he basically said no. I think continuing ads while McCain pulls his is a mistake. Keep the campaign stops, but yanks ads, especially negative ones. You can bet next week, AFTER the legislation has passed, McCain will say I dropped everything to help get this legislation passed and Obama decided to "ignore" what has happening and it was just business as usual.

I'm now hearing that some Reps and Democrats were asking McCain to come back because many Republicans were getting cold feet about the bailout. After the initial shock many Republicans were ready to vote against this bill. I don't know what Bush is going to say tonight, but he's apparently trying to get the public to support this bill. This bail out has been getting less and less positive buzz as the week has gone on. If you're a fiscal conservative, this is a massive socialized nightmare. McCain may very well have to beg for some Republicans to vote for this bill.

[Yog]

MSNBC poll (http://james-eng.newsvine.com/_question/2008/09/24/1906168-agree-or-disagree-fridays-presidential-debate-should-be-postponed-so-the-candidates-can-focus-on-the-economy-instead-of-campaigning)


John McCain's request to delay campaigning and this week's debate is:

An effort to help the economy 27% 13623
A political gimmick 68% 34715
Something else 5% 2402
Total Votes: 50740



"Very very risky for McCain..you just dont suspend campaigns. When do you start up again, 1 week? 2?""



The first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama is scheduled to take place in two days. Should the debate be held as scheduled? Should the debate be held, but the format changed to focus on the economy? Or, should the debate be postponed?

Hold as scheduled 50
Hold with focus on economy 36
Postpone 10


Is the right response to the turmoil on Wall Street to suspend the campaigns for president? To continue the campaigns as though there is no crisis? Or, to re-focus the campaigns with a unique emphasis on the turmoil on Wall Street?

Suspend 14
Continue 31
Refocus the campaign 48


If Friday's presidential debate does not take place, would that be good for America? Bad for America? Or would it make no difference?

Good for America 14
Bad for America 46
No difference 35





EXCLUSIVE: LETTERMAN MOCKS MCCAIN CANCELLATION
Wed Sep 24 2008 17:41:58 ET

David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.

Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

"He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sara Palin. Where is she?"

"What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"


I have a hard time imagining any big political gain for McCain on this. Looking at some of these polls and responses, it might even do more worse than good.

[Yog]

McCain's internal "Talking Points" just leaked out to the press. Whooops! :lol
What McCain's campaign wants you to know about their gambit (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/What_McCains_campaign_wants_you_to_know_about_thei r_gambit.html?showall)

Anyone want to bet this was just a ploy to get the debate delayed? October 2 is the suggested date.


McCain camp to propose postponing VP debate (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/24/mccain-camp-to-propose-postponing-vp-debate/)


Posted: September 24, 2008 1828 GMT
(CNN) — McCain surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there’s no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.

In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.

Graham says the McCain camp is well aware of the position of the Obama campaign and the debate commission that the debate should go on, but both he and another senior McCain adviser insist the republican nominee will not go to the debate Friday if there’s no deal on the bailout.


... also the press finally got hold of Palin for some minutes...
CBS Interview YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ)


Sarah Palin: My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I was - I would hope that's not the case.

Katie Couric: But he still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest?

Palin: ............... :uhoh (long pause)
..again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made.



Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find ya some and I'll bring them to ya! :D

[Rutabaga]

I decided a while ago that I needed to leave this thread because the issue had simply become too emotional and draining for me, but I decided to make a reappearance momentarily to say that McCain wanting to suspend his campaign and delay the debate is basically ridiculous. There have been so many things going wrong for the campaign, especially in the last 10 days or so, that it seems pretty obvious to me that they are in complete panic mode and just don't know what to do next. They're grasping for any straws they can possibly find, no matter how slender or tenuous they might be.

I sincerely hope that most voters in the country see this for the political gimmick that it is and aren't fooled. *fingers crossed*

[Cat X]

McCain... wants to suspend campaigning to focus on the economy...?

Isnt that kinda the point of the campaign, to show who can deal witht he issues? Isnt Obama still attending votes in Washington and liasing with his party to get a deal done so.... umm......

Okay, I have no idea. Either this is brilliant by McCain or political suicide.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think it is stupid. Like he can't do two things at once. I think it is a political ploy on his part or he knows Obama will kick his butt.

[Yog]

Either this is brilliant by McCain or political suicide.
I was wondering the same at first, but now I think it is more leaning to the latter. This is political posturing, but it's really transparant. McCain got the worst Senate attending record (http://www.mccainfactcheck.com/facts/11/343893.shtml) of the current Congress. Yet all of a sudden he is delaying the highly awaited Presidential debate, shutting down his entire campaign, cancelling appointments and interviews, and rushing off to Washington... to do what exactly? Shaking his fists angrily demanding immediate action?

We never even got a clear answer of what his position is on the issue. Last week, he was debating himself on government regulation and bailouts, shifting position on a daily basis. Prior to that, he was strongly opposing regulation, for most of his political career. Government should not intervene with the free market was his view. The market knows best to regulate itself etc. And look what happened. This week, he is suddenly a strong proponent of regulation of Wall Street. Or is he? I don't even know. He wants congress to approve of the $700B loan, but it is unclear what kind of conditions he wants to set.

If McCain wants to stick out in Washington to push $700B transfer to Secretay of Treasury Paulson with unrestricted access, that is one thing. That does not mean he should stop his entire campaign while he is away. The normal thing to do in such a situation is delegating responsibility to your second in command, the VP ticket. If you are going to delay the debate (unneccesarily), hey let's have Biden / Palin debate eachother instead then. But no, he delays it to the day VP debate is scheduled, so the VP debate gets delayed too, giving more time for Sarah Palin to cram. And if McCain thinks the political campaign is a distraction, then why did he use prewritten talking points and spent the entire day talking to the press? It's all political posturing and tactical shenanigans.

To end my rant, I don't buy it, the public won't buy it, and neither does David Letterman:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XjkCrfylq-E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XjkCrfylq-E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Jedieb]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and try to speak up for McCain. There's a good possibility that this Bail Out needs McCain in Washington or it has little hope of passing. More and more Republicans are turning against this bailout and even the public is starting to turn against it. This legislation already has all the Democratic support it needs. Obama doesn't need to go and rally Democratic support, but McCain may be the only one who can get enough Republicans to get this thing passed.

Now, I'm not sure that McCain is the right guy for this. Republicans who oppose this legislation are probably Republicans who have grudges against McCain for everything from campaign finance reform to immigration. I'm not sure he's the guy who can rally the troops behind this.

Well, I'm watching the Olbermann repeat to get my McCain bashing in. I really urge any McCain supporters to give us their take on today. I just want to know what they think of McCain suspending his campaign and canceling the debate. And when you hear that he wants to reschedule it for Oct. 2 and pushing back the VP debate... I know what that makes me think, again, I'm just wondering what his supporters think.

[Cat X]

Well, frankly unlike usual I just dont know what to think and I cant really relate to anythign to guage what now. So I'm lost for words.

But could it be to do witht eh Democrats have forced McCain's hand? I see the Dems are refusing to vote for anything unless McCain votes. Which in this case is a damn good idea, not just for political posturing but for the fact in 5 weeks, McCain could be President - he realyl should be involved in passing legislation he will support if he is elected.

Forceing McCain to vote is really good politcs by the Democrats.

Okay, I'm outta ideas and thoughts. I'll just watch whatever happens to see if it's the trainwreck or masterstroke. Looks like trainwreck so far tho

[Morgan Evanar]

Too many posts, closing thread.