Next President of the United States

[Onkel Neal]

Here it is, the official Subsim presidential poll. Who do you think will be the next President of the United States? Not necessarily who you want to be President, but if you had to bet a steak lunch, who you think will actually win.

[Von Tonner]

Gee, Obama 100% McCaine naught .... oh, wait, I am the only one who has voted so far:D

[Thomen]

Gee, Obama 100% McCaine naught .... oh, wait, I am the only one who has voted so far:D

Lets balance that out a bit, shall we? :up:

[Sailor Steve]

I'm probably going to write in somebody more to my liking than either of them, but I suspect that Obama's going to take it. Either way it's going to be a history-making presidency, with either a black president or a woman veep. And either way, politics and opinions aside, the country will get along just as it always has, for better and for worse.:sunny:

[geetrue]

Just tied it up at five and five ...

Need a tie breaker :up:

[Peto]

I'm sticking with my vote in the original thread. And hoping for the best for all of us. Other nations included.

[Platapus]

I think it will be Obama, but I still think it will be a close election.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm tired of thinking about it because no matter who wins...we are still hosed. I voted Obama as the likely winner anyway. Pelosi said he was sent by God and I believe her. Just like most of the stuff she says:up:

[Platapus]

Pelosi said he was sent by God and I believe her. Just like most of the stuff she says:up:

When did she say that? Do you have a citation for this?

[Von Tonner]

I'm tired of thinking about it because no matter who wins...we are still hosed. I voted Obama as the likely winner anyway. Pelosi said he was sent by God and I believe her. Just like most of the stuff she says:up: :rotfl:

Speaking of which (referring to God and Obama in one sentence), who said this?

“As far as I’m concerned is a ‘Baruch,’ which means a blessing. He is a blessing to the United States Senate, to America, [B]and to our shared hopes for better, safer tomorrows for all our families. The gifts that God has given to Barack Obama are as enormous as his future is unlimited. As his mentor, as his colleague, as his friend, I look forward to helping him reach to the stars and realize not just the dreams he has for himself, but the dreams we all have for him and our blessed country.”

[AVGWarhawk]

Third quote fellas....."God has blessed us with Obama at this time". Maybe I'm a bit more direct with 'sent by God' but the general idea is there.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_I_will_win.html

If you want to see more commentary on this statement, google Pelosi God Obama. Settle in for some long reading.....

And this is just classic.....the party of change and giving out hugs.........

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/31/former-dnc-chief-apologizes-for-gustav-is-a-sign-from-god-comment/

[NealT]

No matter who wins, history in the making.

[STEED]

Looks like Obama has got the KKK vote. :huh: :lol: ;)

The Times Newspaper on Saturday.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00390/PeterBrookes385_390761a.jpg

[Tchocky]

Clocked up well over a hundred posts on the other thread, so this one will be short.
I'd be voting for Obama. I can't vote, so one of ye will have to do it for me, hopefully in a swing state like Florida or (hopefully) Georgia :p

I think he'll get it too. Comparing how the campaigns have been run, message control, gaffes etc, there's no contest. The stories about how badly Obama is doing relative to the election year being so anti-Republican bear a reminder that the country has become a lot more entrenched politically in the last 8-10 years.

I'm going to be sorry once November comes, this election is like crack to me.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm voting McCain. Cindy is cute and she owns a beer factory. Credentials I can live with:up:

[STEED]

I'm voting McCain. Cindy is cute and she owns a beer factory. Credentials I can live with:up:

Are they bought your vote for free beer. :cool:

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm voting McCain. Cindy is cute and she owns a beer factory. Credentials I can live with:up:

Are they bought your vote for free beer. :cool:

Nah, since Cindy had someone fix her hair and get away from that hard looking women motif she has become quite lovely. Beside, I do not think I can stomach looking at Michelle for the next four years. She is nice and bright but...... To me, we are hosed no matter which way we go. So, might as well attempt to find another reason to vote for either one. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

How did this suddenly turn into "Who I'll vote for" and "who's wife does what"?

Not necessarily who you want to be President, but if you had to bet a steak lunch, who you think will actually win.

[mapuc]

Here's my version

After Obma is selected(he's not my choice)

He fire Biden, call McCaine and ask if he want's to be his(Obama's) vicepresident

So says the rest of my coffe in my cup :D

Markus

[Thomen]

I'm voting McCain. Cindy is cute and she owns a beer factory. Credentials I can live with:up:

didnt she sell her share in Anheusser-Busch? Can't remember.

[bookworm_020]

Obama pulling ahead.:hmm:

I thiink it will be his choice of VP that wins it for him. McCain selected a outsider runner and I think that will come back to haunt him.

[Sailor Steve]

Here's my version

After Obma is selected(he's not my choice)

He fire Biden, call McCaine and ask if he want's to be his(Obama's) vicepresident

So says the rest of my coffe in my cup :D

Markus
Actually he can't. The electors cast a vote for president and a vote for vice president. The VP is technically elected separately and the Pres can't do anything about it one way or the other.

[Onkel Neal]

How did this suddenly turn into "Who I'll vote for" and "who's wife does what"?

Not necessarily who you want to be President, but if you had to bet a steak lunch, who you think will actually win.

No kidding! The poll is for who you think will win.

Sheesh, these guys cannot follow simple instructions :doh:

[geetrue]

I think, I act, I do, but I don't really know who will win in November.

Sure is fun to wonder though ...

Will Obama wind up back on the floor of the Senate with Kerry and Biden and Clinton too?

All ploting on how to defeat VP Palin in November 2012?

1. President McCain would be too old to run for a second term
2. VP Palin would have a very strong following by then
3. 54% of all of the voters in 2004 were women

Seeds for thought

[Tchocky]

Assuming women will vote for Palin just because she's a woman is rather insulting. It's also a bit silly to expect women to switch to an almost completely opposite candidate on grounds of gender.

I've been seriously out of the loop for the last week or so, only seeing this piece now. Does this kind of thing inspire confidence?

With time running out -- and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable -- he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain's list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months. "They didn't seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before," said a Republican close to the campaign. "This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn't get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge."

[geetrue]

Assuming women will vote for Palin just because she's a woman is rather insulting. It's also a bit silly to expect women to switch to an almost completely opposite candidate on grounds of gender.

To assume means to make a fool out of you and me.

What if you change the words in your brief statement?

To this:

"Assuming blacks will vote for Obama just because he is black is rather insulting ..."

[Happy Times]

Assuming women will vote for Palin just because she's a woman is rather insulting. It's also a bit silly to expect women to switch to an almost completely opposite candidate on grounds of gender.

Wish it wouldnt be true but i know many women who voted, just for a woman, in our past two presidential elections. Women that normally vote for the polical right voted for a extreme left candidate. That makes one very worried, the fact is most women are emotianally driven and that makes them unstable and hard to predict.

[AVGWarhawk]

How did this suddenly turn into "Who I'll vote for" and "who's wife does what"?

Not necessarily who you want to be President, but if you had to bet a steak lunch, who you think will actually win.
No kidding! The poll is for who you think will win.

Sheesh, these guys cannot follow simple instructions :doh:

I did vote for who I think will win. Not who I want to win. But if I did not comment, that would be un-American:D

[Konovalov]

I voted for Obama/Biden to win the election. Having said that I was of the belief that Clinton would breeze through and win the Democratic nomination. How wrong I was. :damn:

[Digital_Trucker]

I voted for Obama/Biden to win the election. Having said that I was of the belief that Clinton would breeze through and win the Democratic nomination. How wrong I was. :damn:

I think that's how she felt, too:rotfl:

[Onkel Neal]

How did this suddenly turn into "Who I'll vote for" and "who's wife does what"?

Not necessarily who you want to be President, but if you had to bet a steak lunch, who you think will actually win.
No kidding! The poll is for who you think will win.

Sheesh, these guys cannot follow simple instructions :doh:

I did vote for who I think will win. Not who I want to win. But if I did not comment, that would be un-American:D

Good point! :lol:

[Onkel Neal]

Well, never heard much from Palin before tonight, but she nailed the speech with poise. Sweet!

[dean_acheson]

McCain / Palin

FTW!

;)

[1480]

Well, never heard much from Palin before tonight, but she nailed the speech with poise. Sweet!

She did a hell of job. Can't wait to see her and Biden....:up:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, never heard much from Palin before tonight, but she nailed the speech with poise. Sweet!

You are stating that too lightly. If this were baseball, she just hit a grand slam. Very confident, well spoken and I'm thinking the brightest crayon in the box at the moment. I think she took some pokes for sure but the pokes were the truth. Perhaps the Obama camp does not know what to make of this:hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, never heard much from Palin before tonight, but she nailed the speech with poise. Sweet!

She did a hell of job. Can't wait to see her and Biden....:up:

McCain found his answer to the attack dog that Biden is portrayed as.

[Peto]

She speaks well but IMO didn't say a thing of substance. 1 point for Obama here after listening to her. She didn't do anything but dance around issues or ignore them completely. McCain better say something of substance tomorrow... None-the-less, I'm still really looking forward to the debates where maybe someone will talk about issues :yep:!!! (Both sides included).

Just My independant opinion which is leaning more to the left the more I hear the right speak.

I liked Huckabee's speach though! It had some good shots that I thought were pretty good.

Just livening the conversation with no ill will intended so have at me :lol:!

Cheers!

:up:

[STEED]

In the name of Freedom and the American flag vote Republican. :D

Don't let those Communist Democrats in if you don't want the Red Army marching outside the White House. :p

[Tchocky]

Palin was pretty clever in making "the media" into the evil guys, That way, when they start picking apart her bs-laden speech, the Republicans can cry "There they go again!"

That said, Obama is further ahead on polls than ever before. Hmph, convention bounce or result of McCain's VP selection? y'all decide.

[Platapus]

Well, never heard much from Palin before tonight, but she nailed the speech with poise. Sweet!

You are stating that too lightly. If this were baseball, she just hit a grand slam. Very confident, well spoken and I'm thinking the brightest crayon in the box at the moment. I think she took some pokes for sure but the pokes were the truth. Perhaps the Obama camp does not know what to make of this:hmm:


Actually a better analogy would be that Palin did wonderful in batting practice. This was a prepared speech to a friendly audience.

Before we can hand out "grand slams" we need to play a game against an opponent (debates).

We need to see how McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden do with unscripted questions and not in an environment of sycophants.

Then we can see who gets on base and who strikes out.

[geetrue]

I've never met a woman like Sarah Palin ... I never liked the stero typed business women I met back when I was in the business world, cough, cough, 25 years ago that is.

She has so much personality it was like she was making love to the whole audience, the news media, the camera and yes even all of America last night.

I enjoyed her performance :yep:

[Tchocky]

Ya'll have a giggle at Rove

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8uGenNjOAI

[Tchocky]

Thinking about Palin and her speech, it very much looks like base-mobilisation. I'm nto sure if such a strategy will work this year, especially with a fired-up and more numerous Democratic Party. The Republicans should at least be trying to reach out to swing voters, instead of reinforcing culture-war barriers that Obama's campaign (at least) seems to eschew.
Thoughts?

[DeepIron]

She has so much personality it was like she was making love to the whole audience, the news media, the camera and yes even all of America last night.
Yeah, the "Brittany Spears" of politics... SHE SAID NOTHING... folks. She played the part perfectly and impressed those who won't take the time to REALLY look at what she has done politically. Go ahead. I dare you to take a few minutes and examine her political history. I think you'll see an entirely different Sarah Palin than the one schmoozing on stage...

Here's a headstart (from a commentary on CNN which I wholeheartedly agree with):

1. McCain and Palin get their health insurance paid for by the government (hers in Alaska and his in Washington). Yet they oppose giving the nearly 46 million uninsured Americans the same access to affordable health care.

2. John McCain's kids don't have to worry about paying for college. Yet he has opposed every single education support program to help others.

3. McCain and Palin say they will stand up to oil companies. Yet the only energy policy they support gives millions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies to do more drilling and he has opposed every piece of federal legislation to explore alternative fuel sources.

4. McCain and Palin say they will revamp how Washington does business. Yet his campaign is filled with lobbyists and she has cooperated with Sen. Ted Stevens in funneling federal money for useless projects in Alaska for years. And McCain and Palin have no solutions for Americans worrying about their jobs in a fragile economy.

5. McCain and Palin want us to leave their families alone. Yet they want to make rules for our families by eliminating our right to make our own choices over abortion, eliminate our access to family planning education or domestic partner benefits, and our freedom from discrimination.
They want to control what our kids learn in school about sex and about science. In short, through the policies they promote and the judges they support, they want the government to have more control over our private lives than at any time in history.

6. McCain and Palin now say their campaign is about change, too. Yet the only real change they have proposed is a change from a suit to a skirt in the vice president's office and one man fighting a misplaced war for another in the Oval Office.

I enjoyed her performance :yep:
Years ago I enjoyed a really talented hooker too... :shifty:

Sarah Palin is "window dressing" for McCain. It's the "Look, a black guy is running for President. So what? I've got a woman... "... Obama SHOULD have picked Clinton and he could have had the whole enchilada. As it is, I'm not unhappy with Biden. At least he's got some foreign policy experience...

I don't care WHAT McCain or Palin do with/for their families. What I care about is how their choices will affect MY family...

Besides, do YOU want Sarah Palin in charge of the US Military if McCain "checks out"?

[Tchocky]

You were never going to get that from the convention, DI. "Issues don't matter". That's not me being cynical or disparaging, but the obvious strategy for the Republicans over the week has been to hammer home biographies that will stick, and hit the tested cultural non-specifics. No substance necessary right now, yourself and Peto have hit it. Issues will come later, maybe.

[Platapus]

I enjoyed her performance :yep:
Years ago I enjoyed a really talented hooker too... :shifty:



That's one to write down in the book. :up:

I nominate that as the response of the day :rock:

[DeepIron]

No substance necessary right now, yourself and Peto have hit it. Issues will come later, maybe.

That's scary T. It would be really poor timing to find out just how these people REALLY react to issues, say, sudden nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, AFTER the fact. As I watched the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, I couldnt' help but think about the ancient Roman Empire and it's "Bread and Circuses". :lol:

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, the "Brittany Spears" of politics... SHE SAID NOTHING... folks.



I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support. :yep:

[Platapus]

Yeah, the "Brittany Spears" of politics... SHE SAID NOTHING... folks.



I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support. :yep:

But Neal how can she be in support of lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending when she ran her mayoral and governor positions by enticing more and more federal funding to be given to her city/state? She was a taker of federal earmarks. This is not in line with lower taxes/smaller government/lower spending rhetoric.

She was able to "lower" taxes in Alaska by increasing what the rest of us tax payers had to pay Alaska. Alaska ranks number one in absolute federal funding and number one in relative federal funding per capita.

This is why I am not buying the "she is for lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending" line. Her own history betrays her hypocrisy.

[Digital_Trucker]

Alaska ranks number one in absolute federal funding and number one in relative federal funding per capita. .
References, please? <skulks off to attempt to verify claims>



Edit : BTW who passes the legislation containing the earmarks, the Governor of the state? I don't think so. I think that would be Congress, wouldn't it?

[Peto]

Alaska ranks number one in absolute federal funding and number one in relative federal funding per capita. .
References, please? <skulks off to attempt to verify claims>



Edit : BTW who passes the legislation containing the earmarks, the Governor of the state? I don't think so. I think that would be Congress, wouldn't it?

Platupus' statement is correct regarding the per capita pork-barrel receipts. I blieve it amounts to $90 per person in Alaska (Illinois was $23 per capita). I'll have to verify that later when I can look it up but I think it's on factcheck (not positive). She worked very closely Sen Ted Stevens.

I agree though. Sources are always a good thing and I don't have them at my finger-tips right now. It's good to be suspicious of claims without sources...

@ DT: Yep. Congress passes earmarks. Probably the only way to get rid of those is by introducing line item veto power. Unless politicians can all agree to stop abusing the system. I don't see either side of the aisle doing that without being forced to though.

This election cycle would be a lot more fun if it wasn't so critical...

[Digital_Trucker]

Thanks, Peto. I read a bit about the rankings of the states in per capita federal earmarks. I also happened to notice that Arizona gets the least per capita earmarks. Since McCain would be in a position to influence that figure, I think it's a little more telling that his home state is the lowest than using the fact that Alaska is the highest to question Palin's views, since she isn't a member of Congress.

[mookiemookie]

I just found it funny that she brought up PTA experience in her speech. Just like I personally wouldn't put my college job as a banquet waiter on my resume for my professional career, I wouldn't go bringing that up if I were Palin.

Saying PTA experience qualifies you for the VP spot is like saying that you're a chef de cuisine because you made Jello once.

[Digital_Trucker]

Maybe we listened to different speeches, but when did she say that PTA experience prepared her for VP? It was more of an introductory speech in many ways. Speeches are just that, speeches. I can't wait for her and the "honorable" Joe Biden to actually debate. Same for McCain and Obama. That is, if they are real debates (no teleprompters, no script, etc.) instead of photo and sound bite opportunities.

[DeepIron]

Yeah, the "Brittany Spears" of politics... SHE SAID NOTHING... folks.


I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support. :yep:
And all laudable goals I agree...

However, I consider it just typical Republican rhetoric and precisely what McCain has been espousing throughout his campaign. Politically, Palin is just McCain in drag...

Sure, everyone wants to see terrorism stamped out (or at least kept off US soil) and it follows that to be "secure" we need a strong national defense. But let's face it. Bush's War on Terrorism has exacted a huge price on this country, both in human lives and $$$. McCain and Co. will simply continue the war. I guess you could call that "an aggressive stance"...

As well, the "pipe dream" of a "smaller government" is totally not going to happen... When was the last time in our history that we "downsized" instead of "super-sized" our government? Never has happened AFAIK.

How can we have a smaller government with all the other issues we have not resolved? Health care, Social Security, trade deficits, immigration reform, foreign policy, foreign aid, ad nauseum... If anything, I expect the size of the FED to grow to handle all these issues.

No, Obama will sell us "change" that he's too inexperienced to construct and manage and McCain is just a mirror image of George Bush and his policies...

The biggest ray of hope I have is that if Obama/Biden get elected, 'ol Joe will be able to repair at least part of the foreign policy damage created by the Bush Administration.

Cheers!

[Peto]

Thanks, Peto. I read a bit about the rankings of the states in per capita federal earmarks. I also happened to notice that Arizona gets the least per capita earmarks. Since McCain would be in a position to influence that figure, I think it's a little more telling that his home state is the lowest than using the fact that Alaska is the highest to question Palin's views, since she isn't a member of Congress.

That kind of thinking certainly does make some sense :hmm:.

I'm still reading and poking around for more info (I'm nosy) about her dealings with Sen Stevens though. While many were impressed with Palin's performance, (IMO) most that were, wanted to be impressed. Looking at it from the middle ground--actually with an initial negative and suspicious attitude of anyone who runs for higher office (they must be nuts) I wasn't impressed by her at all. Except for the fact that she has skill as a public speaker--something I have done and hate doing personally. She started strong but about 2/3's of the way through her speech--about when she just touched on any real issues--she began to falter somewhat. Considering what she was doing though (speaking to millions) I'm willing to cut her some slack on that point. I'll make up my mind when she debates with Biden.

The thing I least like about McCain Palin right now is that they are too much alike in basic attitudes of right and wrong. I fear if anyone crosses them in any way, they'll start out with confrontation and completely dismiss the Clarification and Discussion option. That ain't gonna work with many countries anymore and could actually be one of the causes of a new cold war. Strong negotiation skills will be very important to me when it comes time to make my vote. I lean a little more toward Obama/Biden because they would be more prone to act as a check and balance than I think McCain/Palin would.

The economy sucks right now. Again--tossing out my opinion--the economy will take MUCH longer to fix if we continue an isolationist posture. the world is much smaller than it was even 10 years ago. The Industrial Revolution is over and we're beginning a new period which may likely be called the Communication or Information Age. That's because of the internet and expanding technology. I'm not sure how many people really grasp the significance of what this change means. I'm not sure I do... But I'll bet history books will reveal that countries who understood it best and leveraged the new tools provided most effectively were the ones who gained the most. Countries who resist this change will become Islands. Glamorous to dream about being on a Desert Isle but the reality is quite different.

:hmm: How's that for digressing :lol:?

Anyhoo: Being an Independant this year kind of sucks. It's the 1st time I really do feel :shifty: caught in the middle. Not to mention getting a double dose of political calls and mailers :nope:.

Cheers!

Peto

[dean_acheson]

Actually a better analogy would be that Palin did wonderful in batting practice. This was a prepared speech to a friendly audience.



I like that. I don't suppose you have seen clips with the O and his fans fainting have you? Maybe you missed O refusing to do town halls with McCain.

[dean_acheson]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/welcome_back_dad.html

red meat alert!!!

[DeepIron]

As governor of Alaska, Palin has won praise for backing tough ethical standards for politicians. During the first legislative session after her election, her administration passed a state ethics law overhaul.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/palin.investigation/index.html

Looks "Sarah Barracuda" better get her own people in line *before* she starts in on the rest of the politicos... :shifty:

[Stealth Hunter]

Yeah, the "Brittany Spears" of politics... SHE SAID NOTHING... folks.



I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support. :yep:

I disagree.

The bigger question is can she and McCain accomplish these goals that they have set? All these politicians make these grand claims, yet they hardly ever accomplish them (and Obama is no exception; yet after viewing his voting record in Congress, he has TRIED). Given the stances McCain has taken in the past and present, no. I could not vote for the man. I fear that the failed tactics of Bush would continue under the McCain/Palin administration, and the country would only run further into the ground.

However, I don't think he'll win once the chips are down. He's selected a woman for a VP who has no experience whatsoever in the workings of government, beyond being a governor at the most (and he just met her about two weeks before he selected her as his running mate), her daughter is pregnant at 17, and a lot of McCain's supporters (about 38 million to be exact) have drawn the conclusion that he just selected her to have Clinton's supporters rally around him (which did not work).

However you look at it, something's up. Why would he select Palin? There are/were better choices that he was offered, yet he chose her...:hmm:

I sense a plot involving offshore drilling.

With that said, the election is just two months away. Unless McCain can pull some amazing stunt, it's really not looking too good for him right now.

One last thing, though... how aggressive would he be with terrorism?

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, the "Brittany Spears" of politics... SHE SAID NOTHING... folks.



I disagree. Granted, she is the VP candidate and as such will not be setting policy, but she made it very clear she supports an aggresive stance toward terrorism, strong national defence, lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. That's what I support. :yep:

I disagree.



You disagree that I support those princicples? What?


The bigger question is can she and McCain accomplish these goals that they have set? All these politicians make these grand claims, yet they hardly ever accomplish them (and Obama is no exception; yet after viewing his voting record in Congress, he has TRIED). Given the stances McCain has taken in the past and present, no. I could not vote for the man. I fear that the failed tactics of Bush would continue under the McCain/Palin administration, and the country would only run further into the ground.

However, I don't think he'll win once the chips are down. He's selected a woman for a VP who has no experience whatsoever in the workings of government, beyond being a governor at the most (and he just met her about two weeks before he selected her as his running mate), her daughter is pregnant at 17, and a lot of McCain's supporters (about 38 million to be exact) have drawn the conclusion that he just selected her to have Clinton's supporters rally around him (which did not work).

However you look at it, something's up. Why would he select Palin? There are/were better choices that he was offered, yet he chose her...:hmm:

I sense a plot involving offshore drilling.

With that said, the election is just two months away. Unless McCain can pull some amazing stunt, it's really not looking too good for him right now.

One last thing, though... how aggressive would he be with terrorism?

Yeah, but her level of experience is still greater than Obama's, and he's the one the Democrats have selected for President. Palin is the VP candidate.

[DeepIron]

Who would you want in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet if either Obama or McCain were killed or incapacitated?

I'll choose Biden...

[Onkel Neal]

I'll choose Palin...

[DeepIron]

I'll choose Palin...

Ain't democracy wonderful?!:up:

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah. Entertaining, too :)

[Stealth Hunter]

You disagree that I support those princicples? What?

I disagree with your choice for who should carry out solving the problems; nothing more.:up:

Yeah, but her level of experience is still greater than Obama's, and he's the one the Democrats have selected for President. Palin is the VP candidate.

How so? Obama is the Senator here; Palin was a governor and a mayor. IMO, Obama would be more qualified for that very simple reason. I have my doubts about Palin's ability to run the country should anything happen to McCain. She hasn't been exposed enough to Congressional politics.

With that said, Joe Biden and Obama seem to get along just fine, and Biden has plenty of experience under his belt. I think they'll make a good duo in the White House.


On a less serious side, it's good to see we're finally getting some clean debating.:)

[Platapus]

Maybe you missed O refusing to do town halls with McCain.

Personally I agree with Senator Obama refusing to have town hall meetings with Senator McCain before either of them were nominated.

I would rather there not be any town hall meetings in fact. They demonstrate nothing at all. A formal debate where the candidates do not have the questions before hand (and everyone shows up at the same time) will be much better than any salted audience town hall where loaded questions can be asked.

Town hall meetings are great for one candidate to showcase their position. But it can not take the place of a formal political platform debate.

[Platapus]

Alaska ranks number one in absolute federal funding and number one in relative federal funding per capita. .
References, please? <skulks off to attempt to verify claims>

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008porkpercap

I was mistaken It is Texas with the highest absolute number of earmarks, it is Alaska with the number one per capita. My apologies.

Btw Senator McCain makes a big deal about how he does not lobby for earmarks for the State of Arizona. He can make that claim because he has the other Arizona state representatives do it for him.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008_database

[STEED]

Sarah Palin is the new Wonder Women. :D

[TDK1044]

The choice is between a man who is half black and a man who is half dead. We'll make history either way! :D

Sarah Palin is impressive.

[Digital_Trucker]

Btw Senator McCain makes a big deal about how he does not lobby for earmarks for the State of Arizona. He can make that claim because he has the other Arizona state representatives do it for him.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008_database

Yet Arizona is still the lowest per capita in earmarks. I don't see anything on that site that shows that McCain coerced the other state representatives into doing it either.

[Platapus]

I don't see anything on that site that shows that McCain coerced the other state representatives into doing it either.


Did anyone say he coerced? I think the other Arizona state representatives were most eager to snuffle in the federal trough. :yep:

[Digital_Trucker]

I don't see anything on that site that shows that McCain coerced the other state representatives into doing it either.

Did anyone say he coerced? I think the other Arizona state representatives were most eager to snuffle in the federal trough. :yep:
Perhaps I misunderstood the following?:hmm:

He can make that claim because he has the other Arizona state representatives do it for him.

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah, but her level of experience is still greater than Obama's, and he's the one the Democrats have selected for President. Palin is the VP candidate.

How so? Obama is the Senator here; Palin was a governor and a mayor. IMO, Obama would be more qualified for that very simple reason. I have my doubts about Palin's ability to run the country should anything happen to McCain. She hasn't been exposed enough to Congressional politics.
Obama is a Senator. That gives him an inside knowledge of how it works, which can be good or bad but does give him experience making laws and glad-handing opponents. Palin is a Governor, which gives her experience at actually running a large group of people and political machinery. Arguably she is better prepared to be president than any of them.

I'm still as up-in-the-air as I was six months ago.

[geetrue]

All analytical people seem to have the same problem ...

They are either right or wrong

John McCain is raising up a rare breed of woman to take over when he retires in 2012.

After four years of training under his leadership she will make a fine president.

You just wait and see ... I've heard too many women say it's time someone represents them in the white house, besides the first lady.

Clinton will gloat and say, "I told you so" and run again in 2012.

[DeepIron]

Clinton will gloat and say, "I told you so" and run again in 2012.

Clinton vs. Palin in 2012: Don't Miss the Cat Fight of the Century! ;)

[Tchocky]

VP has to be two things

1 - Ready to take command of the nation at a moments notice. This may be in a state of extreme emergency or confusion.
2 - Beneficial to the ticket.

Regarding Palin, I don't think anyone can make a convincing argument that she's got the requisite familiarity with the apparatus of government. It's worth remembering John McCain's physical state and age. This isn't about being a Washington "insider" or not, it's about knowing immediately what to do and who to talk to. What helps here is a sense of cooperation and compromise. I'm not sure Biden has this, and going on her convention speech, Palin certainly doesn't.

Oh, and is it really beneficial for the VP pick to be dominating the ticket as Palin is now? just a thought.

EDIT - Another thought - will Biden or Palin continue the huge expanse of power and secrecy of the VP office begun by Cheney? Or will the role be phased back to the bucket of spit?

[Onkel Neal]

Regarding Palin, I don't think anyone can make a convincing argument that she's got the requisite familiarity with the apparatus of government.

As a big state governor, she has more familiarity with executive administrations than Obama, and his disciples are setting him up to be President, not VP.

[Tchocky]

Not disciples, the Democratic Party. It's official by now :p

The familiarity I'm talking about is really of a national kind, a safe pair of hands for insurance. Even relative newcomers like JFK or GWB pick solid, permanent ffixtures like Lyndon Johnson or Cheney. One of America's most active policy areas is foreign policy, and Palin has zero familiarity with any of it. Zero. Obama has at least got legislative experience with the issue, and has expressed substantive opinions.
Having a total newcomer in the emergency seat is unsettling when considering foreign policy/terrorism/war. If Republicans are going to keep waving the bloody shirt about 9/11 they've got to think about Life imitating Bad Campaigning.

The argument over executive experience is messy and strange. There's no quantification of what "executive experience" is supposed to mean, with those making the argument falling back on the sheer amount of time spent at it.

[DeepIron]

Personally, I don't think either of them have the prerequisite experience for the offices that they have been nominated for.

Obama is a "first term" senator who hasn't even had the luxury/trauma/opportunity to be re-elected for a second term by his own constituents let alone the "national mob" of US voters. All he knows is that he wants to instigate "change"? Well, what the heck is that? AND.... how is he going to garner support to bring about his "change" NOW... when Americans need it the most. At best, Obama spends 4 years in "job training" and hopefully things don't deteriorate much further...

Palin, while she may be adequate for Alaskan needs (and I'm originally from Alaska so I know a bit about it's politics) she's been managing a huge piece of real estate with a very small population. Sure, theres a huge amount of Federal bureaucracy in AK but she's not interfacing to it directly... Not to mention that bringing the "Alaskan style" of political wrangling to WashDC isn't going to make her too many friends IMO... Telling someone to "suck my oosik" is just, well, baffling (at first)... :huh:

[Digital_Trucker]

About "executive experience" :

Palin's put-down of Obama that he lacks executive experience (unlike her own superior Mean Girl self) makes it sound as though she had run something bigger than he had. But Obama has been head of a political campaign with hundreds of thousands of workers and volunteers. Doesn't a campaign head organize people and give orders and plan strategy and tactics, i.e., act in an executive capacity? Isn't that what Barack Obama has been doing for two years and hasn't he proven that he is an excellent executive in this endeavor? Only 114,000 or so people voted to make Palin governor (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/bidens_vote_total_higher_than.html) in 2006. In contrast, Obama's executive performance as head of his presidential campaign garnered him 18 million votes.
Not very balanced but something to think about.

I wonder what those numbers would work out to as a percentage of total voters in the two cases? I hate numbers that are "out of context", so to speak.:hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

I wonder what those numbers would work out to as a percentage of total voters in the two cases? I hate numbers that are "out of context", so to speak.:hmm:
Ok then let's consider only that part :

Palin's put-down of Obama that he lacks executive experience (unlike her own superior Mean Girl self) makes it sound as though she had run something bigger than he had. But Obama has been head of a political campaign with hundreds of thousands of workers and volunteers. Doesn't a campaign head organize people and give orders and plan strategy and tactics, i.e., act in an executive capacity? Isn't that what Barack Obama has been doing for two years and hasn't he proven that he is an excellent executive in this endeavor?
:D

But Obama isn't a campaign head, he pays someone to do it for him. He does not have to make financial decisions regarding how to spend the millions of dollars that are being contributed, his campaign managers do it for him. He probably doesn't even make decisions on strategy and tactics, either, he has strategists telling him what will get him elected and what won't.:D

[DeepIron]

A president doesn't do everything by himself either, so the ability to pick the right people is the key IMO.

Yeah, look at Bush. He picked all the "right people" and they're going to leave him holding the "sh*tbag of history" for all the cr*p they did while running his administration... :shifty:

[Digital_Trucker]

But Obama isn't a campaign head, he pays someone to do it for him. He does not have to make financial decisions regarding how to spend the millions of dollars that are being contributed, his campaign managers do it for him. He probably doesn't even make decisions on strategy and tactics, either, he has strategists telling him what will get him elected and what won't.:D
Sure thing, but what you're describing here is just the way big companys work. Of course "little hands" do most of the job, but they didn't just hire themselves, someone had to choose them for their qualities. If they're succesful then it means their boss knows how to run his thing. He's the driver, you don't expect him to hand stickers in the streets, but to make wise choise and pick the right people to help him. A president doesn't do everything by himself either, so the ability to pick the right people is the key IMO.

We could go around and around for days about what is or isn't "Executive" experience. When he has to debate, without a script and a teleprompter and previous knowledge of the questions, we'll see how knowledgeable he is. I'm betting we're gonna a hear a lot more "Uh, you know, yes we can" than we care to.

[Carotio]

Here it is, the official Subsim presidential poll. Who do you think will be the next President of the United States? Not necessarily who you want to be President, but if you had to bet a steak lunch, who you think will actually win.

Difficult to say, since the medias report about 50-50, with one week in fervor of the one, and the next week of the second.
But with McCains choice of Palin as VP candidate, he may have shot himself in the foot, giving advantage to Obama/Biden regarding the voters not yet decided.

How about another (offical subsim) poll:

Who would you vote for?

1) Obama/Biden US-citizen
2) McCain/Palin US-citizen

3) Obama/Biden non-US-citizen
4) McCain/Palin non-US-citizen

5) Undecided, both US and non-US-citizens

[Takeda Shingen]

As a big state governor, she has more familiarity with executive administrations than Obama, and his disciples are setting him up to be President, not VP.

Yes, but either Biden or Palin would be little more than a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It is not pleasant to say, but given McCain's age and medical history, this is a much greater concern than it is for the younger and healthier Obama.

Alaska is certainly ranked first in geographic area, but 47th in populace, so it's hardly Texas, California or the states of the northeast. I'd venture to say that it's more than a leap from management of a tiny state to Commander in Chief of the free world. She's also been in the job for less than two years. Prior to this, she was clearly in the pocket of special interest, even going as far to support the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'. This flies in the face what had been one of McCain's strongest hallmarks: The defiance of special interest. Perhaps some more time should have been spent in the vetting process, as Palin continues to appear an increasingly odd selection as her background is explored.

The McCain campaign's most successful attacks on Obama have been in regard to his lack of experience. Palin's selection, although pleasing to the base of the party, has now rendered that strategy obsolete. This is compounded by the fact that neither party's base will be the determining factor in this election, and the selection of Governor Palin has not seemed to have impressed the moderates and independents that will determine the outcome.

[TDK1044]

I think the introduction of Sarah Palin has altered the dynamic of the race. I think the outcome has gone from being a certain Obama victory to a race that's now too close to call.

As for the argument about Palin being only a heartbeat away from the presidency. Big deal. So was Dan Quale. The reality is that a good President surrounds himself with very smart, astute people, and looks to them for guidance. The notion that the President makes all the decisions is inaccurate.

Look to who the Chief Of Staff will be for each candidate. That position is more important than the VP.

[geetrue]

I think the introduction of Sarah Palin has altered the dynamic of the race. I think the outcome has gone from being a certain Obama victory to a race that's now too close to call.


CNN (which is prejudice for Obama by the way) couldn't have said it better. :yep:

[Konovalov]

As a big state governor, she has more familiarity with executive administrations than Obama, and his disciples are setting him up to be President, not VP.

Yes, but either Biden or Palin would be little more than a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It is not pleasant to say, but given McCain's age and medical history, this is a much greater concern than it is for the younger and healthier Obama.

Alaska is certainly ranked first in geographic area, but 47th in populace, so it's hardly Texas, California or the states of the northeast. I'd venture to say that it's more than a leap from management of a tiny state to Commander in Chief of the free world. She's also been in the job for less than two years. Prior to this, she was clearly in the pocket of special interest, even going as far to support the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'. This flies in the face what had been one of McCain's strongest hallmarks: The defiance of special interest. Perhaps some more time should have been spent in the vetting process, as Palin continues to appear an increasingly odd selection as her background is explored.

The McCain campaign's most successful attacks on Obama have been in regard to his lack of experience. Palin's selection, although pleasing to the base of the party, has now rendered that strategy obsolete. This is compounded by the fact that neither party's base will be the determining factor in this election, and the selection of Governor Palin has not seemed to have impressed the moderates and independents that will determine the outcome.
Good post Tak.

I can't see how Palin is going to win over many Hillary Clinton supporters with her extreme righ to life views such as being against abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Time will tell if Palin is nothing more than a one hit wonder. :hmm:

One thing is for sure and that is that this election campaign has really had some curve balls thrown in it.

[TDK1044]

Sarah Palin actually doesn't need disgruntled Hillary voters. She's attracting a lot of the undecided voters who don't want more of the same, but who are worried about Obama's lack of experience. Those are the voters who decide elections.

Who knows, we may see a presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin 8 years down the line. :D

[Digital_Trucker]

Who knows, we may see a presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin 8 years down the line. :D
Maybe 4 years down the line. I don't think McCain could get elected again four years from now with all the folks worried about his age.

Edit : Palin may pull in those Hillary voters that were going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman.

[TDK1044]

It would be interesting if Hillary ran against McCain in 2012 and Palin ran against Hillary in 2016. :D

[Tchocky]

Funny, I was about 50 feet from John McCain when he said he wasn't going to run.

Just remembered

Edit - More thoughts on the experience issue for Palin. She might have great skills for a VP/Presidential position. I doubt that anyone can convincingly make the case that short governance of a sparsely-populated state is a perfect qualification for President. But anyway, she might have it. But we don't know, and I seriously doubt it. We won't know until the time comes. Most importantly, John McCain doesn't know, and didn't know when he picked her. That tells me something about him that I don't like.

[geetrue]

Back in the 60's everyone admired the Kenendy's in the white house from his wife Jackie to his little boy John John to his limp from being on a PT Boat in WWII to his statements of

"Think not that it is what your country can do for you, but think what is it I can do for my country"

Then he dies, right?

But in between he made a whole lot of mistakes of which we won't get into here other than to say that it was probably the Bay of Pigs invansion that got him dead in the first place.

The country loved him even with the mistakes he made, like Marylin Monroe being passed around to his brother. These reports were made known after his death.

The country still loved him.

I seriously believe that this counties men and women are falling in love with Sarah Palin and the same love will promote a land slide victory in November for the Republican Party represented by John McCain and Sarah Palin.

November 6th may be the day people start saying, "Obama who?"

[Tchocky]

Something from Bill Maher - http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/05/maher_obama/index.html

Barack Obama can't help it if he's a magna cum laude Harvard grad and you're a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That's why George Bush is president. And that's where the McCain camp gets its campaign strategy: Paint Obama as cocky and arrogant and wait for America to vote him off, like the black guy in every reality show. A black president? Half of Pennsylvania isn't ready for black quarterbacks. Forget Obama, they think Will Smith needs to be taken down a peg.

And finally: As for "country first," you know who's putting country first? I am, by supporting Obama, because a victory this fall for the McCain-Mooseburger ticket would make my job in the next four years very, very easy.

Geetrue, by no means did "everyone" admire the Kennedys.

[AVGWarhawk]

Who knows, we may see a presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin 8 years down the line. :D
Maybe 4 years down the line. I don't think McCain could get elected again four years from now with all the folks worried about his age.

Edit : Palin may pull in those Hillary voters that were going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman.

Agree on the first statement. Hillary will resurface in 4 years. If McCain wins, he will pass the torch to Palin.

I still get mixed reviews on getting the Hillary supporters by having Palin as VP. I believe the reason is her stance on abortion.

[Digital_Trucker]

I still get mixed reviews on getting the Hillary supporters by having Palin as VP. I believe the reason is her stance on abortion.

Yep, that's why I think she'll, at best, pick up the "Hillary just because she's a woman" vote. Just how many of those there are, I don't know. Guess we'll find out after all the shouting is over and the post election pollsters tell us what we did and why:rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

As a big state governor, she has more familiarity with executive administrations than Obama, and his disciples are setting him up to be President, not VP.

Yes, but either Biden or Palin would be little more than a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It is not pleasant to say, but given McCain's age and medical history, this is a much greater concern than it is for the younger and healthier Obama.

Alaska is certainly ranked first in geographic area, but 47th in populace, so it's hardly Texas, California or the states of the northeast. I'd venture to say that it's more than a leap from management of a tiny state to Commander in Chief of the free world. She's also been in the job for less than two years. Prior to this, she was clearly in the pocket of special interest, even going as far to support the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'. This flies in the face what had been one of McCain's strongest hallmarks: The defiance of special interest. Perhaps some more time should have been spent in the vetting process, as Palin continues to appear an increasingly odd selection as her background is explored.

The McCain campaign's most successful attacks on Obama have been in regard to his lack of experience. Palin's selection, although pleasing to the base of the party, has now rendered that strategy obsolete. This is compounded by the fact that neither party's base will be the determining factor in this election, and the selection of Governor Palin has not seemed to have impressed the moderates and independents that will determine the outcome.

Statement 1:
McCains health is not an issue to me. Never has been. Both Obama and McCain could drop dead from a heart attack at any moment. Obama was a smoker to boot. He has successfully brushed that under the table. Heart problems really know no age. As far as his skin cancer, cured at present and I'm sure he is examined on a regular basis. Also, his family is known for longevity in the age category. Furthermore, for 72, he seems to have some spunk about him. My pop has had 2 heart attacks and 1 congestive heart failure. He is 73. Still full of spunk. He does not suffer the old age problems in the cranium as some think will happen to McCain. Look at Ronald Reagan. Took a bullet to the chest at about the same age as McCain. Walked out of the hospital a few days later. I think there is more of a probability of attempted assassination on Obama then McCain dropping dead on the spot. I think the health issue is in all reality a mute point. All presidents are surrounded by support staff. Palin would continue on with the same staff. In the end, it is about judgment that counts. I think Palins judgement is good.

Statement 2:
Although Alaska might not have population like other states, the fact still remains she has had executive experience. Obama? No. Biden? No. She has obtained the understanding of how the system works. As far as vetting Palin. I really do not believe McCain would let these things get by him. Americans have this great ability to forget things. Look at Hillary. Let start with Whitewater. Bill with his fun in the Oval Office. None of this brought up. American had vetted Hillary for 8 years and yet, she is on the ballot for becoming the possible nomination for the democratic party. Palin's family is like any other family. Welcome to the 21 century. Attempt to find someone without a skeleton in their close in this day in age. Obama, drug user. How about Obama's skeleton by the name of Rezko? Brushed under the carpet. Bush was drug user. People overlook these things all the time. Lets face it, it is not the issues that Americans are concerned with at the end of the day. It is who can make the best delivery, the whole package. Obama was doing well with this until Sarah showed up. Sarah Palin is a good pick because she is conservative, smart, articulate, aggressive, good looking, and a women. The democratic's are crapping in their pants, because no matter how they try to hit her, they will be considered woman, mother, haters. They are truly boxed in and they know it. Palin is an odd selection when her background is explored? Obama is stranger yet. Specifically his upbringing. We can not explore what he has done in office because there is not much to explore that I can find. He is 3 years older then me and I certainly could not run a country.

Statement 3:
As far as the inexperience issue, Obama has less experience then Mccain and less experience in an executive postion as Palin has. I really do not see what Obama brings to the table. Can anyone really find what Obama is bringing to the table? IMO he talks a good game but is as deep as a puddle. He has not really been drilled by the press on anything. I truly believe that Obama is sincere and wants to take on the job but clearly is not ready. The country can not afford on the job training at this point.

In my opinion, it is going to be a McCain blowout. Then you add Palin? Even the bubba's that never voted are going to do it for the "gun carrying, beer drinking, hottie."


Just my view on the matter Tak.:D

[Tchocky]

Although Alaska might not have population like other states, the fact still remains she has had executive experience. Obama? No. Biden? No. She has obtained the understanding of how the system works. What particular system is that? Washington or Wasilla? As far as vetting Palin. I really do not believe McCain would let these things get by him. He met her once, before last week. Once. I can't stress this enough. Once. In February.Then once again, a few days before he picked her. Does this give you confidence in his ability to make important decisions? This sounds to me me like Bushist "gut" bull****.
Many top staffers had no idea about this choice. There is a reason that she has not given a single interview, and won't be giving one for another two weeks. There are 59 days left before the election, and she won't be interviewed for another 14.

Americans have this great ability to forget things. Look at Hillary. Let start with Whitewater. Bill with his fun in the Oval Office. None of this brought up. American had vetted Hillary for 8 years and yet, she is on the ballot for becoming the possible nomination for the democratic party. Aye, the Democratic nomination. Which she lost. There was no earthly reason for any of Hillary's competitors to bring up issues from a Democratic era. The conversation was about what to do after Bush, not about Whitewater or Lewinsky. This stuff would have come up if Hillary got the nomination, because then it would be relevant. not in a primary fight. Oh, and there's a large area of the internet/public that cannot let a mention of Clinton go by without throwing in references to cigars.
Palin's family is like any other family. Welcome to the 21 century. Attempt to find someone without a skeleton in their close in this day in age. Obama, drug user. How about Obama's skeleton by the name of Rezko? Brushed under the carpet. Bush was drug user. People overlook these things all the time. Lets face it, it is not the issues that Americans are concerned with at the end of the day. It is who can make the best delivery, the whole package. Obama was doing well with this until Sarah showed up. Sarah Palin is a good pick because she is conservative, smart, articulate, aggressive, good looking, and a women. But you've only known about her for a week, there is startingly little to go on. The appearance of a whole package can't possibly be present, the first impression is what's happening here.
Rezko hasn't been brushed under the carpet, the case is ongoing. It;s just not hugely relevant. It's my opinion that no member of the Keating Five should ever be allowed to claim that he fought corruption, but it's not a story with legs, like Rezko.
The democratic's are crapping in their pants, because no matter how they try to hit her, they will be considered woman, mother, haters. They are truly boxed in and they know it. Palin is an odd selection when her background is explored? Obama is stranger yet. Specifically his upbringing. We can not explore what he has done in office because there is not much to explore that I can find. Where have you been looking? Honestly, if you want a decent picture of the man, read him in hi own words. Look up the laws he has spnosored/introduced, listen to his interviews/speeches. Saying that he is only about empty words and "change" is, in my view, a product of laziness.
Plus, Obama decided to run for President on his own story/beliefs, wheras McCain chose Palin, implying a certain trust and endorsement of what she is and what she's done. That makes a difference in analysis. He trusts her to be President. Her governorship has resulted in increased state debt in a time of booming oil prices, and large levels of federal earmarks (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.earmarks03sep03,0,3159689.story). Both of these are things the McCain has railed against. But his selection of her implies that it;s all OK. If he knew in the first place, which I seriously doubt that he did. This feels like a snap decision to me, one not thought out for long.
As far as the inexperience issue, Obama has less experience then Mccain and less experience in an executive postion as Palin has. Specifically the second part - what does this mean? Quantified, what exact executive experience does 2-year governorship of 600,000 people confer that 4-year Senate representation of 12 million does not?

[Thomen]

He met her once, before last week. Once. I can't stress this enough. Once. In February.Then once again, a few days before he picked her. Does this give you confidence in his ability to make important decisions? This sounds to me me like Bushist "gut" bull****.
Many top staffers had no idea about this choice. There is a reason that she has not given a single interview, and won't be giving one for another two weeks. There are 59 days left before the election, and she won't be interviewed for another 14.

I thought, I just interject, that Palin was already on the VP list in June. So, yea.. even though she was not the favorite candidate, they had enough time to look into what she brings to the ticket.

[Von Tonner]

As far as the inexperience issue, Obama has less experience then Mccain and less experience in an executive postion as Palin has. Specifically the second part - what does this mean? Quantified, what exact executive experience does 2-year governorship of 600,000 people confer that 4-year Senate representation of 12 million does not?
I am sorry, I just do not buy this argument that Palin is more experienced in public affairs simply because of her 2 years at executive level in Alaska. Obama has 12 years combined experience at both federal and national level as an elected official.

But, given that she does, why then is she been cocooned from the press while undergoing an extensive cramming program on current issues before her first debate with Biden. When Obama announced his run he took the press face on. Howcome she can't?

Only one member of the presidential slate will not appear on the Sunday public affairs shows this weekend and it’s the newest addition – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/palin-not-making-sunday-show-rounds-2008-09-06.html

[Von Tonner]

From this.....

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/walisa.jpg

To this....

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/whitehouse.jpg

And they say Obama is not qualified - yea, right:hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

@Von Tonner and Tchocky,

Obama has done two things....written two memoirs while in office. Sponsoring bills and writing laws....before we call out laziness on my part, please post up his earth shattering accomplishments while in the Senate. I do not consider writing two memiors that as doing something and getting experience to lead a country. I consider that being full of himself. Much the same feeling I get listening to his speeches. Both, McCain and Palin in their speeches stated they did this or accomplished that while in office. I have not heard any accomplishments while in the Senate in any of his speeches. Not to mention what he has done for the state of IL. Obama still does not have executive experience. He stands in the Senate building if he decides to show up and says 'AYE' or NAY. Is that executive experience? As far as Palins experience, you may not want to buy the two years an an excutive level but the fact remains, she has had the experience.Pouring over the state ledgers and making monetary decisions. Whether on the grand scale or not. Obama has not. Obama has not taken the press head on, the press has not really drilled Obama IMO. Obama is a ratings maker for the press. What media mogal wants to have a drop in ratings? The press for Obama is just lunacy. His trip to Europe was a media frenzy. No one has gone after his family like Palin, she has been made to look like a bad bad bad bad mother. Putting career first! Sexism is all that amounts too. She is firm on abortion. So firm that she still carried her child with Downs full term. She knew the child would have Downs. Statistics show 9 out of 10 women discovering their child has Downs will abort the pregnancy. Sounds like conviction in her beliefs to me. Then they went after her daughter. She made a mistake with here boyfriend. Again, dump on Palin. Then the Dems went after her husband who had a DUI. Good Lord, anything was far game for the Dems Sorry, guys, poor taste in my view coming from the Democates. The VP residence is 10 minutes from the White House. I guess she can get home to make dinner for the family. At least this how the Dems like to portray being a mother with a career should be. She can not do both? Give me a break, mothers do it all the time. I know, I live with one. Let the media continue this attack and women will vote McCain/Palin.

So, you see gents, we are in a catch 22. There will two forms of bias, Obama as being black and Palin as being a women. As far as the racisim card, I will have to say Obama has not pulled that card. Then again, I do not think he has been put in a postion to have to pull the card. No one in the media will broach that subject. Not even the idiot Michael Moore....as I watched him studder about it on TV last night when asked about it. However, the Dems will pull out the sexist innuendo and have done so. Obama said to leave that alone, I agree with him and respect him for that remark. However, the media which has driven this campaign and continue the attack on Palin will bury any chance of Obama getting the undecided womens vote.

Oh, and Oprah will not host Palin on her show. I guess that is her right because it is her show and does not want it to be a political platform. If that is the case, then why have Obama on and endorse him months ago? Hmmmmm, something is fishy here. Although I think Oprah is a nonfactor, to many millions who watch her everyday consider her a factor.

[Tchocky]

Obama has done two things....written two memoirs while in office. Sponsoring bills and writing laws....before we call out laziness on my part, please post up his earth shattering accomplishments while in the Senate. I do not consider writing two memiors that as doing something and getting experience to lead a country. It is laziness, AVG. That's the only way to put it if all you can say is that he's written two books. Fair enough, writing a couple of books isn't a primer for the office of President, but that's not the only thing Obama has done in his life. You think it is, and you're wrong. And if you're saying he wrote two memoirs then you're flat wrong. Dreams from my Father is a memoir, The Audacity of Hope is a manifesto for the 2008 election. It's the only thing you can mention and you're wrong about it.

Ask yourself the same question of John McCain, what are his Senate accomplishments? The only way to answer that about either candidate is to look it up, and find out what the people around them have to say. Or just go to where I posted Obama's Senate record yesterday - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=940981&postcount=29
Hmm, that link doesn't seem to be working. Anyway, all you have to do is go to Advanced Search, pick your Congress, pick your Senator, check "Sponsor", and you'll have all the bills introduced by that person. It takes, at most, fifteen seconds.
Of course, you're free not to research. Democracy, and all that.
I consider that being full of himself. Much the same feeling I get listening to his speeches. You consider writing two books to be "full of himself". What about John McCain, who's written four books (with ghostwriter Mark Salter) and had his own movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt444626/)?

One thing I can admire is how John McCain steadfastly refuses to exploit his wartime service for political gain.


Both, McCain and Palin in their speeches stated they did this or accomplished that while in office. I have not heard any accomplishments while in the Senate in any of his speeches. Not to mention what he has done for the state of IL. Then go find out for yourself. It's your vote. Don't wait for someone to tell you. It's because of attitudes like that that voters think the price of John Edwards' haircut was inportant. It's the worst thing for a democracy, and I've seen for too much of it in my own country to listen anymore.
Obama still does not have executive experience. He stands in the Senate building if he decides to show up and says 'AYE' or NAY. Is that executive experience? Actually, he sponsors and introduces legislation. That's kind of what Senators are supposed to do. The people whose only job to show up and say YEA or NAY are the voters.
As far as Palins experience, you may not want to buy the two years an an excutive level but the fact remains, she has had the experience. Again, what exactly do you mean by this? I've been hearing this point made over and over, but with no qualification of exactly what it is. Since John McCain is a Senator, does that mean that Palin has more experience than him?
Repost my earlier question - Quantified, what exact executive experience does 2-year governorship of 600,000 people confer that 4-year Senate representation of 12 million does not?
Pouring over the state ledgers and making monetary decisions. She left Wasilla twenty million dollars in debt. That's twenty million more than it had before she was Mayor. I suppose that counts as executive experience, making those bad decisions?
Obama has not taken the press head on, the press has not really drilled Obama IMO. Obama is a ratings maker for the press. What media mogal wants to have a drop in ratings? The press for Obama is just lunacy. His trip to Europe was a media frenzy. It was newsworthy. Any conversation of how the press loves Obama must be tempered with the fact that McCain had been their previous darling. I think such discussions are a bit silly, but complaining solely about the press not going after Obama is a flat-out denial of what's happened before, what is proven every time a newscaster calls McCain a "maverick".
No one has gone after his family like Palin, she has been made to look like a bad bad bad bad mother. Putting career first! Sexism is all that amounts too. She is firm on abortion. So firm that she still carried her child with Downs full term. She knew the child would have Downs. Statistics show 9 out of 10 women discovering their child has Downs will abort the pregnancy. Sounds like conviction in her beliefs to me. Then they went after her daughter. She made a mistake with here boyfriend. Again, dump on Palin. Then the Dems went after her husband who had a DUI. Good Lord, anything was far game for the Dems Sorry, guys, poor taste in my view coming from the Democates. The VP residence is 10 minutes from the White House. I guess she can get home to make dinner for the family. At least this how the Dems like to portray being a mother with a career should be. She can not do both? Give me a break, mothers do it all the time. I know, I live with one. Let the media continue this attack and women will vote McCain/Palin. I cqan't answer for everything that has been said about the Palin, naturally. But several things should be kept in mind.
1 - She went from a nobody to total celebrity in about 15 minutes. All the information came at once. Voters are looking for a narrative as well as a candidate, and Palin didn't have one that the public knew about. So reporters descended on Wasilla to find out things about her and her family.
2 - I absolutely despise the way she has used her children at this point. First she's crying out for the media to leave her children alone, that they're off-limits, then she won't shut up about her son heading out to Iraq. Listen to Obama on this one
“People’s families are off-limits and people’s children are especially off-limits,” Obama told reporters following a campaign event in Monroe, Michigan. “This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as a governor or potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories,” he added.
3 - Serious case of bringing this on herself. Complaining about the media for most of the time, then declaring herself off-limits to interviews. The press is like anything else, it doesn't like being insulted/shunned. One of the main reasons McCain got off so lightly is that he gave reporters unprecedented access during the 2000 campaign, and for much of this one. Recently his press time has been extremely limited, and his staff have even rationed his cellphone use, as McCain was making too many slipups and unworkable promises.
If Palin won't answer any questions, the silly ones gain traction. She was selected in a hurry, and she'll spend the next two weeks being coached in how to debate and answer questions. If McCain had done things properly this would have been underway a few days before the pick. His first executive decision and he blew it, that's how I see it.


Oh, and Oprah will not host Palin on her show. I guess that is her right because it is her show and does not want it to be a political platform. If that is the case, then why have Obama on and endorse him months ago? Hmmmmm, something is fishy here. Although I think Oprah is a nonfactor, to many millions who watch her everyday consider her a factor. Obama appeared on her show twince, both times before he declared his candidacy. If she had him on after this, and then refused to interview Palin, there might be a story. As the facts are, there really isn't one.

[TDK1044]

I think all four candidates are qualified for the positions that they seek. They all offer varying levels of experience, judgement and integrity.

It should be a fun 8 weeks.

[geetrue]

From this.....

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/walisa.jpg

To this....

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/whitehouse.jpg

And they say Obama is not qualified - yea, right:hmm:

I love your spunk Von Tonner (and many of your threads too), but if the Obama camp used your slide show above they would lose the election.

George Bush won the election in 2000 just from the rural areas of our country alone. True, that little chad problem in Florida put him over, but it was the rural areas that became the meat of his winning ticket.

Al Gore won every major city in America, but yet lost in his on home state of Tennesee and then of course lost the entire election with the elctorial votes.

One more point ... Obama has already made a lot of hillbillys angry with the comment about their guns and bibles in the primiries.

I venture that there are many democrats and republicans still undecided on who to vote for ... the next 58 days will be exciting to watch no matter which side your on. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok, lets do it by the numbers:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/08/28/comparing-mccains-and-obamas-experience/


You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become the district manager after 143 days of experience.

You could not become the surgeon general after 143 days of experience as a surgeon.

You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.

You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.

BUT....

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days. We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America?

[Von Tonner]

I venture that there are many democrats and republicans still undecided on who to vote for ... the next 58 days will be exciting to watch no matter which side your on. :yep:
That is the truth. No matter what is said on this forum, on TV spots, in the media etc, it is the independants and undecided on both side of the aisles that are going to decide this contest. I just hope the dice falls on my side of the bridge though:D and that after it, we move on.

[Sailor Steve]

@ AVG: Your numbers are interesting, and true. That said, the requirement for each of those jobs are fairly well established, and you have to convince the powers that be to give you that promotion.

For the biggest, toughest, most important job in the country, the requirements are that you be born in America and that you be thirty-five years of age, and the only people you have to convince are the people who go to the polls.

And oddly enough, that's just the way the people who created the whole thing wanted it to be.

I'm still waiting for either one of them to convince me, mainly because, qualifications aside, none of them is offering what I want.

[Platapus]

Well the Constitution of the United States , you know, that quant old document that used to mean something in past administrations, clearly lists the requirements to become President.

Strangely there is no mention of minimum number of years experience in any position other than Citizen of the United States. Clearly the founding fathers thought that people of different experiences in State, Federal, Civil, and Commercial positions would serve as good experience.

Because really, when it comes down to it, no one has any experience for being President until they have served one term. Everyone is new to the job when they are first elected.

Being President is a lot like a soldier in combat, you never can tell how someone will act until they are President/in combat. The person with tons of "experience" may not be a good President, and someone with little experience may turn out to be a good President.

Look at Bush Sr. There was probably no one better qualified for the office of President. He had the military, diplomatic, intelligence experience that no other candidate has come close to matching. But the citizens did not re-elect him for a second term. Clinton was an inexperienced guy but the citizens elected him for two terms. Ya never can tell. :nope:

I am not so concerned with any "experience" as the job of President is OJT from the get go. I am more interested in judgement and their ability to work with other people to get things done. The job of the President, as the chief executive, is to get things done.

[TDK1044]

I think the dynamic is different now than it has been in any other election. Typically, people have always voted for the top of the ticket....not this time.

This time, the Democrats know that they need Biden's experience to complement Obama's eloquence and appeal. The Republicans know that Sarah Palin has totally energized the Republican base, and significantly reduced worries regarding John McCain's age and health.

This time it's the package that counts. The duo that most Americans believe will really make changes in Washington, will win the day.

A month ago, this was a done deal for the Democrats. Now, all bets are off and the 'Palin effect'' is in place. It's going to be a close one!:D

[Peto]

I think that Independants and 1st time voters will decide this election. Talk to a hundred of them from different areas and you can pick the winner of this election fairly easily (except for those who have yet to decide). Pollsters are asking the same group of people the same old questions this year (I've gotten a couple calls).
That ensures that the election appears close and they have job security as interest is so high this year.

What they don't realize is that the same old way of polling probably doesn't work so well this time. It leaves too many newcomers to the scene out of the picture and unrepresented by the numbers. There's an under-current running through the US that will have change regardless of who is in office. We're not so far from tipping-point of that happening now. What happens when Americans get too PO'd? It's in the history books. So whoever wins the election better deliver. (Pessimistic view but maybe not so far fetched. I'll leave the blanks unfilled in this one).

My predictiion: Come November, which ever side wins will win big. I seriously doubt there'll be any need for re-counts.

Normally I try to influence people's choice by information or drinking them under the table (coffee of course). Not this time. Many Independants are just watching and listening right now--saying that they haven't made up their mind. Some haven't, most have but won't tell. At this point, unless something in the debates changes what I've learned through quite a lot of reading and digging, my decision is made.

But I won't say what my decision is. I think many if not most Independants are doing this this year.

Undecided? :hmm: There's power in that word this year.

[Fish]

The country can not afford on the job training at this point.



Every president does training on the job, doesn't they? :hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok, lets do it by the numbers:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/08/28/comparing-mccains-and-obamas-experience/


You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become the district manager after 143 days of experience.

You could not become the surgeon general after 143 days of experience as a surgeon.

You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.

You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.

BUT....

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days. We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America?

Man this is so cheap :rotfl:

Yes, but true!:up: Your next contestent on American Idol! Vote now!

[AVGWarhawk]

The country can not afford on the job training at this point.



Every president does training on the job, doesn't they? :hmm:

To a certain extent yes. Most are groomed for the time they 'take' the position. In my view, Obama has been groomed just to 'win' the position.

[AVGWarhawk]

@ AVG: Your numbers are interesting, and true. That said, the requirement for each of those jobs are fairly well established, and you have to convince the powers that be to give you that promotion.

For the biggest, toughest, most important job in the country, the requirements are that you be born in America and that you be thirty-five years of age, and the only people you have to convince are the people who go to the polls.

And oddly enough, that's just the way the people who created the whole thing wanted it to be.

I'm still waiting for either one of them to convince me, mainly because, qualifications aside, none of them is offering what I want.

Not my numbers Steve. Just a something I found. I have trouble with 2+2. The requirements for the job are lacking for sure, but I believe the originators of the requirements naturally assumed everyone was in their right mind when voting. Currently, most are going with who Oprah thinks should win. There was no Oprah back then. Personally, I would like to vote for Gov Jindal. But he is not on ballot. I think he is one stand up guy and one hell of an organizer.

[AVGWarhawk]

I venture that there are many democrats and republicans still undecided on who to vote for ... the next 58 days will be exciting to watch no matter which side your on. :yep:
That is the truth. No matter what is said on this forum, on TV spots, in the media etc, it is the independants and undecided on both side of the aisles that are going to decide this contest. I just hope the dice falls on my side of the bridge though:D and that after it, we move on.

Yes, the next 58 days are going to be, in short, a blast! I do like going back and forth with you guys on this. Intellectually stimulating as it were.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, but true!:up: Your next contestent on American Idol! Vote now!

Unless Obama spends his whole time at the beach sipping beers when the congress isn't in session, then no, that's not "true". It's just the same kind of email junk as the "25 ways to be a good repub/dem".

I gave my answer to these threads. The best way to be a dem or rep is to stop reading those two threads. :D BTW, Obama was at the beach a few weeks ago. Hawaii. Except he was drinking mint julips. :up:

[Digital_Trucker]

BTW, Obama was at the beach a few weeks ago. Hawaii. Except he was drinking mint julips. :up:

Touche:rock:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well the Constitution of the United States , you know, that quant old document that used to mean something in past administrations, clearly lists the requirements to become President.

Strangely there is no mention of minimum number of years experience in any position other than Citizen of the United States. Clearly the founding fathers thought that people of different experiences in State, Federal, Civil, and Commercial positions would serve as good experience.

Because really, when it comes down to it, no one has any experience for being President until they have served one term. Everyone is new to the job when they are first elected.

Being President is a lot like a soldier in combat, you never can tell how someone will act until they are President/in combat. The person with tons of "experience" may not be a good President, and someone with little experience may turn out to be a good President.

Look at Bush Sr. There was probably no one better qualified for the office of President. He had the military, diplomatic, intelligence experience that no other candidate has come close to matching. But the citizens did not re-elect him for a second term. Clinton was an inexperienced guy but the citizens elected him for two terms. Ya never can tell. :nope:

I am not so concerned with any "experience" as the job of President is OJT from the get go. I am more interested in judgement and their ability to work with other people to get things done. The job of the President, as the chief executive, is to get things done.

The military trains and grooms men into soldiers. These men learn how to lead. Leading or leadership is probably the first and foremost requirement as president. After all, others do say, "Who leads the US?" Well so and so leads the us. I do like your last observation, judgement and working with others. Certainly a must on anyone's resume for president. As far as Bush's attempt at a second term. I really felt his heart was not into another 4 years. Just my thoughts from what I remember at that time.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think that Independants and 1st time voters will decide this election. Talk to a hundred of them from different areas and you can pick the winner of this election fairly easily (except for those who have yet to decide). Pollsters are asking the same group of people the same old questions this year (I've gotten a couple calls).
That ensures that the election appears close and they have job security as interest is so high this year.

What they don't realize is that the same old way of polling probably doesn't work so well this time. It leaves too many newcomers to the scene out of the picture and unrepresented by the numbers. There's an under-current running through the US that will have change regardless of who is in office. We're not so far from tipping-point of that happening now. What happens when Americans get too PO'd? It's in the history books. So whoever wins the election better deliver. (Pessimistic view but maybe not so far fetched. I'll leave the blanks unfilled in this one).

My predictiion: Come November, which ever side wins will win big. I seriously doubt there'll be any need for re-counts.

Normally I try to influence people's choice by information or drinking them under the table (coffee of course). Not this time. Many Independants are just watching and listening right now--saying that they haven't made up their mind. Some haven't, most have but won't tell. At this point, unless something in the debates changes what I've learned through quite a lot of reading and digging, my decision is made.

But I won't say what my decision is. I think many if not most Independants are doing this this year.

Undecided? :hmm: There's power in that word this year.

You are correct Peto. First time voters or those that could vote in the past but really did not care to do so. Like I stated a few posts back...Even Bubba who never voted a day in his life will be voting for a gun toting, beer drinking hottie. Her name is Palin. :lol: I was watching a program on middle American factory workers. Just easy going folks. One of them said, "I'm voting for McCain because Obama took oath of office on the Koran." Of course this was dispelled months ago. But, it is stuck in his head. He is just one of a million who still believe this. It took me weeks to convince my dad that this was not true....he is Physician!!!! So, Pop, 4 years of college, 3 years at med-school and you believe anyone in the United States would let an elected offical take the oath under the Koran? Come on Dad, get off the scotch:rotfl: But, like I said, crap like that the media puts out not only for Obama but all involved really drive home how influential the media is. Case and point....the big story this weekend is Oprah will not let Palin on her show. I do not really care what Oprah thinks and I'm sure everyone in this thread could give two craps about. But, a lot of America who watches Oprah hoping for a free car listen to her. :roll:

[AVGWarhawk]

That's hardly "his whole time...when the congress isn't in session". This is really typical, people keep saying empty things like "Obama is handsome, he should be an actor not president arh arh arh" and in the same breath they complain that "it's a shame the electoral race isn't about the issues". Seriously, there's a LOT of things that you could shoot down in Obama's ideas so why resort to the same old same old chain emails that have circulated in different colours but same taste ever since internet got public ? That's not the idea I have of "intellectually stimulating".

Describing junk emails is not intellectually stimulating. Peto, Von Tonner, Platypus, TDK, Sailor Steve create conversation and intellegent answers. Please, let us in on what is intellectually stimulating for Mikhayl.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think the dynamic is different now than it has been in any other election. Typically, people have always voted for the top of the ticket....not this time.

This time, the Democrats know that they need Biden's experience to complement Obama's eloquence and appeal. The Republicans know that Sarah Palin has totally energized the Republican base, and significantly reduced worries regarding John McCain's age and health.

This time it's the package that counts. The duo that most Americans believe will really make changes in Washington, will win the day.

A month ago, this was a done deal for the Democrats. Now, all bets are off and the 'Palin effect'' is in place. It's going to be a close one!:D

I still predict a landslide for McCain. Palin has energized the Reps. It has put on a whole new face and I feel like we are starting from block one again. Should prove to be fun and interesting. But, no matter who is selected...we are probably still screwed.

[Platapus]

But, no matter who is selected...we are probably still screwed.

Sadly I think this is something we can all agree with. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

But, no matter who is selected...we are probably still screwed.

Sadly I think this is something we can all agree with. :yep:

Yep, it took 8 years to get here and certainly more than 4 is needed to straighten it out. But, we have to keep hope alive that someone, either Obama or McCain, takes the bull by the horns and sets us on the right path. In my heart of hearts, I really think Obama is sincere in what he says and what he wants to do. I feel the same for McCain. It is the red tape on Capitol Hill that creates the bottlen neck. No matter who makes the White House, they get my support in one form or another.

[AVGWarhawk]

Peto, Von Tonner, Platypus, TDK, Sailor Steve create conversation and intellegent answers.
Agreed, among others :)
Please, let us in on what is intellectually stimulating for Mikhayl. I thought I exposed it, what is stimulating is talking about the issues, i.e what's Obama's or McCain's plan for health care, or for this and that, why do you think it's deemed to fail, what you're looking for etc. Lance makes annoyingly long posts but he gets into the politics part :D
Personnaly I'm mostly bothered about foreign policy and on that matter I would hate to have to vote between the two :damn:

In all honesty, I think health care needs to be looked at starting with the drug manufacturers. Most pills cost pennies to make but the mark up is just so incredibly high. For instance, I purchased by perscription 30 pills for an infection. The cost was $210.00. That is $7.00 per pill. Come on, does it really cost that much for a pill that fights infections? Medical care costs have skyrocketed because of lawsuits. This is one direction that is being taken, abolish frivolous lawsuit. Some folks try to retire on bogus lawsuits. This drives up costs because malpractice insurance is outlandish as a result of payouts to bogus lawsuits. Here is a great example. One night in the emergancy room a man shows up complaining of chest pains. He is with his wife. As they begin to start the paperwork and are getting the gurney, he goes in complete heart failure. On his way to the floor, he breaks his nose. My father did what my father does, resuscitates the guy. He is good to go. His wife gets a lawyer and attempts to sue my father because he broke his nose. Now wait a minute, your husband just went into complete heart failure, is brought back to life and you are worried about his nose and how much you can make off him breaking it on the way to the floor after the heart attack? :shifty: Needless to say, this never made it to the courtroom. Do not get me wrong, there are some medical lawsuits that are justified.


Foreign policy should also be on the top of the list. Certainly, I lack in any type of meaningful conversation in this area and can not comment further.

[Platapus]

But, no matter who is selected...we are probably still screwed.

Sadly I think this is something we can all agree with. :yep:

Yep, it took 8 years to get here and certainly more than 4 is needed to straighten it out. But, we have to keep hope alive that someone, either Obama or McCain, takes the bull by the horns and sets us on the right path. In my heart of hearts, I really think Obama is sincere in what he says and what he wants to do. I feel the same for McCain. It is the red tape on Capitol Hill that creates the bottlen neck. No matter who makes the White House, they get my support in one form or another.


Let's just hope that this election has sparked enough motivation so that the citizens actually start thinking about who to vote for and to actually get out and vote. If that can occur, this election season is a great success.

[Sailor Steve]

Not my numbers Steve. Just a something I found. I have trouble with 2+2.
I gathered that from the start, but you posted them, so I described them as yours. As for math, I'm right there with ya. My daughter teaches math, and I'm still wondering where I went wrong.

The requirements for the job are lacking for sure, but I believe the originators of the requirements naturally assumed everyone was in their right mind when voting. Currently, most are going with who Oprah thinks should win. There was no Oprah back then.
I believe you might have me there. Of course back then the electors were appointed by state legislatures and there was no popular vote.

Me, I might just write in somebody, but I'm not sure who yet. If either Pat Paulsen or Snoopy were still alive...

[Skybird]

Arny for president! :lol:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-576835,00.html

Some common sense there.





Real wars and the US culture war - "Two intractable wars should preclude the culture war McCain has just so shamelessly embraced. He loves the word “fight.” So fight on the issues — and let the people decide."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/opinion/08cohen.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=roger%20cohen&st=cse&oref=slogin


The culture-war surge in the U.S election campaign has come at the expense of meaningful debate about the real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s dangerous because they stand at critical junctures.



meanwhile, by pure desparation, the two major banks in the mortage crisis, being responsible for financing roughly 50% of all US mortage credits, have been taken over by the state (talking about unregulated economy, anyone...). American tax payers will pay with their own tax money for this - billions and many billions and then some more (current figure is 200 billion Euros=short of 300 billion dollars). Insiders say 110-140 more banks are on the threat list to not survive the forseeable future if left all to themselves.

It's not yet over. Far from it. Prioritizing moral values excessively, anyone?

[TDK1044]

This election will be really interesting, because it's as much about personalities as it is about issues. To a degree, that's always the case, but it's intensified in this election more than ever.

Obama is a dreamer who inspires those in the room with him unlike any politician in my lifetime, with the possible exception of JFK. Sarah Palin brings a fiesty honesty and integrity to the Republican ticket and is the perfect companion for the maverick old war hero McCain.

The Republicans have the tougher fight though, because historically people always blame the current Administration for their lot in life. So the slowing economy, the mortgage crisis and the price of gas is all the fault of this Administration in the eyes of many.

[asanovic7]

I think Obama will loose elections because:

1. he is black
2. his middle name is Hussein
3. he believes in voodoo
4. devil is black
5. cumbaya my lord with putin? over my dead body
6. Mccain is an american
7. he has no experience in economy
8. he has a support from hilary
9. black people make white people depressed about the size
10. will he revenge the slaves?
11. he is not christian
..

Let's be honest and tell the truth!

:rotfl: :rotfl:
Go Obama!

IAAAAA

[geetrue]

You must be a writer for Saturday Night Live, uh asanovic?

Have you heard about those rumors that the young people are going to make a difference this election?

This is from the exit polls four years ago: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-11-08-under30_x.htm

Under-30 voters came through in big numbers this year, with more than 20 million casting a ballot for president, researchers found. The turnout bested their 2000 showing by more than nine percentage points and heartened activists who worked to get young voters to the polls.


Researchers at the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement at the University of Maryland found that 18- to 29-year-old turnout was up by 4.6 million voters from exit poll data from the 2000 election.

They based their calculations on exit polls done for The Associated Press and others by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.

The figures also beat exit poll numbers from 1992, the last time the youth vote spiked amid an otherwise general decline in turnout since 18-year-olds first got the chance to vote in 1972.

Turnout increased among other age groups, too, leaving young voters with roughly the same proportion of the total electorate nationally as in 2000. But activists who were part of an unprecedented effort to get out the vote — from Rock the Vote and Declare Yourself to the Youth Vote Coalition — felt that didn't detract from their accomplishment.

"To have beaten the '92 number is incredible," said Ivan Frishberg of the nonpartisan New Voters Project. Back then, Bill Clinton defeated the first President Bush.

This time, young voters were the only group that favored Democrat Kerry. The AP's exit polls found that under-30s favored Kerry over Bush, 55% to 44%, compared to a 48-46 edge for Al Gore in 2000.

[AVGWarhawk]

Interesting point, I can see where it leads indeed. It seems the compulsive lawsuit tendancy is gaining ground slowly here too, as a result (only considering health care here) the insurances price for doctors have increased a lot in case they have to cover a suit, and so the doctors tend to raise their price too, even though there's still a handful of limitations. I didn't think about it but I guess that would a tough fight to kill that lawsuit illness. It seems people just can't accept that sh!t happens, there has to be someone responsible, and better someone with big money :damn:

That is correct Mikhayl, people can not accept that sometimes chit happens. But as a result, they want someone to pay anyway. It does not stop there. Some people think someone owes them something all the time. It becomes a career for them. I know, I have a sister-in-law who tries to sue anyone she can. Triffling really.

[asanovic7]

You must be a writer for Saturday Night Live, uh asanovic?

Have you heard about those rumors that the young people are going to make a difference this election?

[/quote]

No, I just had that honor to watch the republican convention. Man, I came to a mirror to check out if I am really white or what, compared to those people.. :rotfl:

[TDK1044]

What's going to be interesting here, is whether we're seeing a slightly enhanced bump in the poll numbers for the Republicans because of the novelty value of Sarah Palin at the convention, or whether a 'Sarah surge' is under way.

If it's the former, then we'll have a close race that's too close to call. If it's the latter, then the Messiah could be in trouble.

[Peto]

What's going to be interesting here, is whether we're seeing a slightly enhanced bump in the poll numbers for the Republicans because of the novelty value of Sarah Palin at the convention, or whether a 'Sarah surge' is under way.

If it's the former, then we'll have a close race that's too close to call. If it's the latter, then the Messiah could be in trouble.

Yep. Replaced by a different Messiah :shifty:.

[Konovalov]

No no no, Palin is the only messiah, remember that Barack Hussein Osama is a prophet :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[dean_acheson]

Um, no. I don't see her claiming to turn back the oceans and 'heal' the planet.

[Onkel Neal]

One thing she has done is energize the conservative base. I think this is going to be close and Obama may not carry Michigan.

[Skybird]

Perfect essay, right on the mark of what I was thinking (but did not dare to speak out loud for fears of again being called an anti-american, which I am not: I see myself as a critical friend):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama/print

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. (...)
Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."


I couldn't believe that America was stupid enough to vote for Bush a second time, four years ago, even if by a lead not more than a hair's width. If one is voting for that political camp a third time in a row, it will be a wakeup-call for even the most wellmeaning tolerant America-friends that clocks in America are ticking different indeed. It was said, and I believed that myself, that both Obama and McCain would be able to heal a bit the alienated relations between the US, and europe and the rest of the world, and that with Obama it just would be more difficult foreurpope to say No to US demand becasue anti-Bushism obviously would not work anymore as an easy way of arguing. But since some time I started to change my mind on that. A president McCain I can no longer imagine to be in a position to achieve that. The simple fact that it was him, a conservative and republican now having even chosen a "pitbull with lipstick" as running mate, being elected would stand in his way on the international poltical stage. Here in Germany he is already seen as the continuation of the Bush catstrophe.

Not another four years of that, please.

[TDK1044]

To be honest, I could care less what the Europeans think about America or the American people. I would much rather see a new administration concentrate on internal issues for a change.

[Onkel Neal]

Perfect essay, right on the mark of what I was thinking (but did not dare to speak out loud for fears of again being called an anti-american, which I am not: I see myself as a critical friend):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama/print

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. (...)
Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."


I couldn't believe that America was stupid enough to vote for Bush a second time, four years ago, even if by a lead not more than a hair's width. If one is voting for that political camp a third time in a row, it will be a wakeup-call for even the most wellmeaning tolerant America-friends that clocks in America are ticking different indeed. It was said, and I believed that myself, that both Obama and McCain would be able to heal a bit the alienated relations between the US, and europe and the rest of the world, and that with Obama it just would be more difficult foreurpope to say No to US demand becasue anti-Bushism obviously would not work anymore as an easy way of arguing. But since some time I started to change my mind on that. A president McCain I can no longer imagine to be in a position to achieve that. The simple fact that it was him, a conservative and republican now having even chosen a "pitbull with lipstick" as running mate, being elected would stand in his way on the international poltical stage. Here in Germany he is already seen as the continuation of the Bush catstrophe.

Not another four years of that, please.

Yeah, I was one of those "stupid" enough to vote for Bush four years ago. :smug: And I'll be voting McCain in two months. So, if McCain becomes President, you may as well get your compaints ready now. It's opinions like this that push me even further from Obama (as if his being a left-leaning, Oprah-endorsed, neophyte were not enough! lol). So what if the Amercians elect a Republican, you think we really lose sleep over world opinion? Well, maybe some do (and that's not my problem), but not all of us.

[Mush Martin]

conversely I feel that the american people do care about who is in
charge overseas, at least in a few places.

as a Canuck its not for me to say who should or shouldnt be elected
in the states. But that doesnt mean it doesnt concern us. I think as
I usually do, that an idealistic modern democracy would have no parties
just a weekly or monthly referendum from the voters online acct, a kind
of required soveriegn franchise hour, where no party exists and every
member of the body is an independent voting on conscience. meaning that elected officials jobs are assembling lucid briefings for the voters.

yeah right!

Meh! sancho panza steals my chickens teddy roosevelt steals my
chickens what do I care who is in charge.

sorry lads I must still be bored.
M

[TDK1044]

I would love to see a new administration concentrate on making America self sufficient.

We have everything we need in this Country to provide all of our own energy and food requirements. I would love to see us drill for oil in the short term, and use our ingenuity and work ethic to be totally self sufficient and using alternate fuel supplies within fifteen years.

Our Country has all of the natural resources we need. What we've been lacking is the leadership necessary to utilize them. I think the American people are sending a clear message to all four candidates in this election that things have got to change. The word change may be a political slogan for the politicians, it's a lot more than that to an ever growing number of americans.

[Onkel Neal]

Change, a great concept. At what point in the last 100 years could a politician run on the slogan "No changes needed, things need to stay the same"?

[TDK1044]

Change, a great concept. At what point in the last 100 years could a politician run on the slogan "No changes needed, things need to stay the same"?


:D I think the point this time, Neal, is that a growing number of people on both sides of the aisle see that our problems are fixable with a real change of political approach.

The emphasis for my whole lifetime has been America trying to keep stability in the world by being the global policeman. I think that the change that Americans are looking for is investment in America rather than appeasement in Europe and the Middle East.

People want to see us invest in our own Country for a change. They want to see a self sufficient, well educated, energy independent Country with secure borders.

The sad thing is that it may take another horrible terrorist act on US soil before we start the journey.

[Mush Martin]

The sad thing is that it may take another horrible terrorist act on US soil before we start the journey.

Lets all hope it doesnt come to that shall we.

[Skybird]

Yeah, I was one of those "stupid" enough to vote for Bush four years ago. :smug: And I'll be voting McCain in two months. So, if McCain becomes President, you may as well get your compaints ready now. It's opinions like this that push me even further from Obama (as if his being a left-leaning, Oprah-endorsed, neophyte were not enough! lol). So what if the Amercians elect a Republican, you think we really lose sleep over world opinion? Well, maybe some do (and that's not my problem), but not all of us.
Exactly this attitude is the reason why the world does not need another four years of this kind of political motivation.

[TDK1044]

Yeah, I was one of those "stupid" enough to vote for Bush four years ago. :smug: And I'll be voting McCain in two months. So, if McCain becomes President, you may as well get your compaints ready now. It's opinions like this that push me even further from Obama (as if his being a left-leaning, Oprah-endorsed, neophyte were not enough! lol). So what if the Amercians elect a Republican, you think we really lose sleep over world opinion? Well, maybe some do (and that's not my problem), but not all of us.
Exactly this attitude is the reason why the world does not need another four years of this kind of political motivation.


Ubisoft will issue a patch to fix that.

[Skybird]

Regardless of who is elected I don't think US foreign policy will change that much. I don't McCain changing anything significant on this matter, and Obama, well, unless he picked Biden only to compensate his perceived lack of experience, I don't think much will change either.
I think the same, nevertheless Obama and McCain are perceived as two very different types - and that is what it is about. I can't live comfortable with both candidates, with McCain not for obvious reasons, and Obama not because he makes it more difficult for europe to say No to policies that to some major degrees probabaly are less different from McCain's ideas than many people in europe will be happy to realise.

I have started to wonder if our problems with america will not just have started to begun after the election. With Bush it was easy, he behaved and decided so stupidly that you just needed to say "that stupid cowboy", and the american agenda was off the table. but when it becomes more difficult to resist with any of the two candidates , while their policies not being substantially different to that of Bush, then I must conclude that the rest of the world needing to deal with america is not better but worse off than before after the election.

I am close to wishing to shoot both candidates to the moon - and their freaking parties together with them. Damn fairground attractions, that's all they are. Unfortunately, in no other country in the world internal politcs affect golobal politics so massively like in the US. I doubt that americans take huge interest in internal German politics. That the SPD just kicked it's chairman, and another old veteran took over for a second run, probably interests not many americans, if they even took note of it. But if the same takes place in america, it could decide about war or peace in some other country, or bring the world economy into a fall or rise.

and some Americans seriously ask why foreigners take so much interest in what they consider to be internal processes! US internal processes all to often have the potential to affect the rest of the globe, that's why. that is not the case to this degree with any european country, for example. And if america fails, all the world pays for the consequences.

[Konovalov]

More evidence of the failing of a two party political system? :hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

More evidence of the failing of a two party political system? :hmm:

It wouldn't matter how many parties there are. As long as the parties are filled with politicians, it will fail:p

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, I was one of those "stupid" enough to vote for Bush four years ago. :smug: And I'll be voting McCain in two months. So, if McCain becomes President, you may as well get your compaints ready now. It's opinions like this that push me even further from Obama (as if his being a left-leaning, Oprah-endorsed, neophyte were not enough! lol). So what if the Amercians elect a Republican, you think we really lose sleep over world opinion? Well, maybe some do (and that's not my problem), but not all of us.
Exactly this attitude is the reason why the world does not need another four years of this kind of political motivation.

Says you, but you don't pay taxes, vote, or live here so your attitude doesn't matter. At all.

[Sailor Steve]

I've said this in another thead in the past: I agree that what someone from another country believes or says about us doesn't make a difference in effect, in that they can't change how we see, feel and act; but I think everybody's opinion matters in that it tells us how we affect the rest of the world. I feel that reactions like that come close to putting our hands over our ears and shouting "I don't have to listen to you! You don't count!"

[Konovalov]

I've said this in another thead in the past: I agree that what someone from another country believes or says about us doesn't make a difference in effect, in that they can't change how we see, feel and act; but I think everybody's opinion matters in that it tells us how we affect the rest of the world. I feel that reactions like that come close to putting our hands over our ears and shouting "I don't have to listen to you! You don't count!"
Well said. :yep: However I can almost hear the frustration in the tone of Neal and some other Americans on this forum. I have some sympathy. :)

[DeepIron]

However I can almost hear the frustration in the tone of Neal and some other Americans on this forum. I have some sympathy.And it IS frustrating! We know there are A LOT of issues and problems that need to be solved but at every turn, just negativity in the political camps...

Well, at the risk of sounding apathetic, I wish the election would just be over and done. I'm tired of seeing, hearing and reading about the two whiners running for presidential office... He said this, well he said that, but you said this... blah, blah, blah... They sound more like two three year old kids than grown men. Their campaign people are simply opportunists and out to make their names known too so they seize every opportunity to sling mud I guess... Hmph.

Now we've got to suffer through the "lipstick on a pig" cra*p... Sounds more like a soap opera... "Whose going to get the final dig on who?'

Well, I ask, if this keeps on, who will care?

[Onkel Neal]

I've said this in another thead in the past: I agree that what someone from another country believes or says about us doesn't make a difference in effect, in that they can't change how we see, feel and act; but I think everybody's opinion matters in that it tells us how we affect the rest of the world. I feel that reactions like that come close to putting our hands over our ears and shouting "I don't have to listen to you! You don't count!"

No, just stating as fact. I listened, but again, his attitude ("Exactly this attitude is the reason why the world does not need another four years of this kind of political motivation") does not matter in my decision making process during an election. I am not obligated to adjust my attitude to suit him. Or anyone.

[Platapus]

I am almost at the point of believing that anyone who wants the job of President of the United States is, by definition, unsuitable for the position. :nope:

All we need is a good decent person to preside, for the good of the citizens, over the executive branch of the government.

Is that too much to ask?

Evidently, these days, it is an unreasonable expectation. :down:

[Skybird]

Yeah, I was one of those "stupid" enough to vote for Bush four years ago. :smug: And I'll be voting McCain in two months. So, if McCain becomes President, you may as well get your compaints ready now. It's opinions like this that push me even further from Obama (as if his being a left-leaning, Oprah-endorsed, neophyte were not enough! lol). So what if the Amercians elect a Republican, you think we really lose sleep over world opinion? Well, maybe some do (and that's not my problem), but not all of us.
Exactly this attitude is the reason why the world does not need another four years of this kind of political motivation.

Says you, but you don't pay taxes, vote, or live here so your attitude doesn't matter. At all.
Unfortunately, regarding global issues and national internal things over here (trade for example, and the internatnional fiancial system into which germany is bound), your (american voters') attitude does matter more than we are happy with . If Germany would have such a massive impact on US internal issues, you would go crazy over it. but when you affect us, unasked, and we need to coma along with the conseuences of your deicisons, you demand us to just sit silent and accept it. From German banks loosing over America'S selfmade finacial failure to global conferences about climate and environemnt, your internal decisions in two months will make a difference, and unfortunately a decisive one.

Wether the rest of the world likes it or not. So don't complain if we non-Americans keep a close eye at you, it is only natural, and reasonable. We wouldn't if you would not have so much potential to influence and damage us as well.

[Skybird]

I am almost at the point of believing that anyone who wants the job of President of the United States is, by definition, unsuitable for the position. :nope:

All we need is a good decent person to preside, for the good of the citizens, over the executive branch of the government.

Is that too much to ask?

Evidently, these days, it is an unreasonable expectation. :down:
I think by intention your nations has a good cinstitution and was planned honestly to be a great thing, really. But I see a stellar gap between how it was meant to be, and how it really is today. The nation that was planned in the consitituoon and the bill of rioghts I cannot recognize in the US as today's political actor. That eisenhower'S warning of the merging of factions that every democracy depend on to be kept strictly seperate, the colossus he called the military-industrial complex, was forgotten soon , and is unheared today, did not make it any better. as I see it, your nation got hijacked by some influential poltical dynasties and strong businessmen, which in the end is the same, and they ursurpated/ursupred (?) democratic legitimiation that normally would not have become theirs. that way, the secular democracy the US was planned to be, became a religious-fundamental plutocracy. The label of democracy is being used only for the purpose of mimikry.

Not that I consider europe to be saved from these distortions. If you would ask me which country i consider to be truly democratic over here, I cannot come up with a single name. It all got hijacked by lobbies, business, political selfishness. the great vulnerability of democracy is that it is basing on a human species that acts by the principles of reason and logic, altruism and putting the community wellbeing over the individual wellbeing. Kommunism fails for tht reason. democracy fails for that reason. both preach the utopia, and both make totally wrong assumptions about the drive and nature of man.

I recommend Machiavelli: "Discorsi". A fantastic book, and reasoning without illusions. Highly actual for today's world. It should become an obligatory reading. The poor man earned his bad repuation for no reason, and is masisvely misunderstood by most. It is no surprise that many historians and experts who know his work closer see him very differently than his usual negative reputation seems to imply.

http://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/0140444289/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221079389&sr=8-21

as some reader over there commented, his influence on the founding fathers, namely Paine and Jefferson, is obvious. I am no expert for Paine or Jefferson, but I nevertheless have a general idea of what the founding fathers were about, and I agree.

"Discorsi" should be accompanied by "The Prince", the other of his two most famous works. the focus is different, though.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, I was one of those "stupid" enough to vote for Bush four years ago. :smug: And I'll be voting McCain in two months. So, if McCain becomes President, you may as well get your compaints ready now. It's opinions like this that push me even further from Obama (as if his being a left-leaning, Oprah-endorsed, neophyte were not enough! lol). So what if the Amercians elect a Republican, you think we really lose sleep over world opinion? Well, maybe some do (and that's not my problem), but not all of us. Exactly this attitude is the reason why the world does not need another four years of this kind of political motivation.
Says you, but you don't pay taxes, vote, or live here so your attitude doesn't matter. At all.

That is pretty much the bottom line on what the world thinks about it. We, the people, who are forking out, is all that matters in the end.

Today, I liked watching Obama squirm. He is getting frustrated and tired. His eloquent speaking is not turning to studdering. Seems Palin has really stirred the pot on this one. Fun fun fun until my campaign managers take my campaign away.......Oprah...I love you!

[dean_acheson]

What a cute essay!

It's like somebody walking into your house, and telling you they don't like the way you clean house.

Well, Mr. Freedland, thanks, but no thanks. I'm pretty sure if we thought you were better informed about how we on this side wanted our side of the pond run, we wouldn't have fought that war in 1776.

Now, once the big O loses this election, he will be free to hold all the Nuremburg rallies that he would like, I'll even spring for a ticket for Skybird. Maybe the big O and Carter can explain to the Germans how the Jewish lobby skews our foreign policies.

Now THAT would be rich!

:D




Perfect essay, right on the mark of what I was thinking (but did not dare to speak out loud for fears of again being called an anti-american, which I am not: I see myself as a critical friend):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama/print

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. (...)
Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."


I couldn't believe that America was stupid enough to vote for Bush a second time, four years ago, even if by a lead not more than a hair's width. If one is voting for that political camp a third time in a row, it will be a wakeup-call for even the most wellmeaning tolerant America-friends that clocks in America are ticking different indeed. It was said, and I believed that myself, that both Obama and McCain would be able to heal a bit the alienated relations between the US, and europe and the rest of the world, and that with Obama it just would be more difficult foreurpope to say No to US demand becasue anti-Bushism obviously would not work anymore as an easy way of arguing. But since some time I started to change my mind on that. A president McCain I can no longer imagine to be in a position to achieve that. The simple fact that it was him, a conservative and republican now having even chosen a "pitbull with lipstick" as running mate, being elected would stand in his way on the international poltical stage. Here in Germany he is already seen as the continuation of the Bush catstrophe.

Not another four years of that, please.

[Sailor Steve]

I am almost at the point of believing that anyone who wants the job of President of the United States is, by definition, unsuitable for the position. :nope:
Almost? I think the only one who didn't want the job was Washington himself.

All we need is a good decent person to preside, for the good of the citizens, over the executive branch of the government.

Is that too much to ask?

Evidently, these days, it is an unreasonable expectation. :down:
Twenty years ago I said if you want to fix the economy, draft Lee Iaccoca. Today we need someone who will remove the restrictions in the right places, increase restrictions in the right places, enforce freedom and help people in need, fight against terrorism while recreating isolationism, patrol our borders while being a good neighbor, decrease spending and taxation, but provide for health, education and welfare, and all while inspiring everybody to be more productive for less return.

Any ideas?

[Platapus]

Twenty years ago I said if you want to fix the economy, draft Lee Iaccoca.

Iaccoca could not even run Chrysler without a billion dollar handout from the taxpayers.

After what happened to the American car market, I would not look toward him as a good example of leadership.

[Sailor Steve]

Twenty years ago I said if you want to fix the economy, draft Lee Iaccoca.

Iaccoca could not even run Chrysler without a billion dollar handout from the taxpayers.

After what happened to the American car market, I would not look toward him as a good example of leadership.
Chrysler was already in trouble when Iaccoca took over. He went to the Feds for help, yes, but the "handout" was nothing more than a guarantee, and no money actually changed hands. With the guarantee in place he got backing from other sources, and in five years turned Chrysler from bankruptcy into a profitable concern. What has happened since he retired is hardly his fault.
http://www.scripophily.net/chryscor.html

[August]

And he makes a damn fine butter substitute.

[TDK1044]

America has tried to be all things to all people for way too long. It's time to put America and Americans first.

The Europeans tend to be wonderfully two faced. They complain and moan about America and its foreign policy, and yet many of them owe America a debt that can never be repaid. The Europen Countries have little respect for each other and they all hate the French. Their only bond is the Euro.

I would love to see America become self sufficient in all our needs over the next 20 years and radically change our foreign policy so that we are much less involved in European affairs.

Then let's sit back and watch what happens as China grows in influence in the world and radical Islam comes knocking on the door of each European Country. I wonder who they'll come running to for help?

"I'll take hypocrites for 400, Alex"

[AVGWarhawk]

America has tried to be all things to all people for way too long. It's time to put America and Americans first.

The Europeans tend to be wonderfully two faced. They complain and moan about America and its foreign policy, and yet many of them owe America a debt that can never be repaid. The Europen Countries have little respect for each other and they all hate the French. Their only bond is the Euro.

I would love to see America become self sufficient in all our needs over the next 20 years and radically change our foreign policy so that we are much less involved in European affairs.

Then let's sit back and watch what happens as China grows in influence in the world and radical Islam comes knocking on the door of each European Country. I wonder who they'll come running to for help?

"I'll take hypocrites for 400, Alex"

I will take Isolationists for 400, Alex! At this point I will take it for anything I can get. Somehow the US was appointed the world police. :hmm: Either by ourselves or other countries. It is getting expensive.

[August]

In just over 100 years we've gone from isolationism to being the "worlds policeman". I understand the reasons why this happened but I think it's time we adopted a position somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

I'm not against helping our foreign friends from time to time but we should first make damn sure that our own society is healthy. That our citizens have decent jobs, first rate health care and a retirement pension that is sufficient to live out their sunset years in comfort. That our children have a good education and that we live in a clean and crime free environment.

Now if that takes building a big wall around the country and giving our military orders to shoot anyone that tries to get in, cutting off all foreign monetary and military aid and letting the rest of the world fend for itself until that objective is achieved, then i'm all for it.

[Platapus]

[QUOTE=August]In just over 100 years we've gone from isolationism to being the "worlds policeman". I understand the reasons why this happened but I think it's time we adopted a position somewhere in the middle of those two extremes./QUOTE]

I could not agree more. A policy of strict isolationism would not be appropriate in todays global environment. However there is nothing wrong with forming policy with a priority on domestic issues.

We should be financially helping other countries only when our own people are taken care of.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, I would have immediately stopped all international financial aid and used that money for domestic aid. Once our own people were taken care of and our own disaster areas repaired, then we can resume our international aid.

I don't think any country would blame the US for temporarily using its foreign aid money for a domestic emergency.

It is great and noble that we are trying to help other countries with their problems, but we should not do so at the determent of our own problems....and we have plenty that need fixin.

[Skybird]

That's some reasonable thinking, becasue the new world order is no unipolar one, but a multipolar one, and even the Us does not have what it takes to dominate it anymore as some thinkers have suggested jst some few years ago. The balance between isolationism and influencing the world is a fragile one, though, because both extreme positions cannot hold out, and must be avoided. Isolationism simply would crush and destroy the american economy and financial market, and thus cannot be affored anymore - those times are gone, done and over.

I do not say that the chinese are morally right with all they do, but their practical methods of soft power are extremely clever and currently the most superior strategy implemented by any of the major players in the global game. Regarding powerpolitics, a lot can be learned from them. again, saying this in complete and intended ignorration of any moral implications and judgement.

[dean_acheson]

While we are strolling OT, I'll throw in a chunk.

The United States has never been an isolationist country. Never ever ever. We were, before the late 1920s a very unilateralist country. The best writer on this subject is Walter McDougal. He put out a lovely little book called 'Promise Land: Crusader State' where had discusses this.

Back closer to topic, I'm glad Freedland wrote his little ed. Nothing could be more helpful to the McCain campaign.

We American are possibly the most contrary people in the universe.

[dean_acheson]

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/12/why-cant-mccain-email/comment-page-1/#comments

Stay classy Team O!

:rock:

[Digital_Trucker]

A day late, but they've already passed classy with this one by Biden:

http://pittrehab.blogspot.com/2008/09/biden-gaffe-asks-gentleman-in.html

Edit : He also is great at "giving back" to the community

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm?csp=34

[Torps]

I am here to just point a few facts and a few opinions.

Opinions

1.McCain as a former POW knows war and who else would be better suited to be president at times like this?

2. Obama should have gone with Hillary.

3. Talk is cheap, research the candidates records for yourselves, I have.

4. If Biden drops and says he can't run and Hillary is asked to run it will destroy the dems chances for Obama to get elected.

5. I dont care about pigs and lipstick but man that was a dumb comment.

6. McCain needs to get tough on border security.

7. Obama and McCain both need to take hints from eachothers economic plans.

8. McCain has voted more Republican since 2000 so he can become the nominee for his party and he appears to be planning on what he was in 2000, to clean up Washington.

Facts

1. Obama is a 1st term senator who only got elected because his opponents both Republican and Democrat were involved in a sex scandal. He was expected to finish last until the scandals hit.

2. A Community organizer is a respectable position, but not a executive position.

3. A governer is a executive position and Gov. Palin has a 14 billion dollar budget to deal with as Alaska's govenor.

4. McCain is old but so is the pope.

5. We need better relations with europe, the only reason Bush was reelected for a 2nd term was because europe was to vocal for Kerry and it pi**** to many people off here in the states and made people lean towards Bush.

6. Obama does not run his campaign, thats why he has someone with a title referred to as a "Campaign Manager".

7. Finally no more BUSH!!! NO MORE BUSH!!!

8. Atleast Bush has kept us safe since Sept 11, 2001.

9. Gov Palin has actually made a lot of enemies by cleaning up the state gov't, hence the investigation going on (all political).

10. 82% approval rating for Gov Palin. Yah amazing

11. McCain was not chosen as the Republican candidate in 2000 because he took on his own party.

12. Obama never took on his own party.

13. Obama is one of the most liberal.

14. Obama is a good speaker.

My final though.
I like one candidate, however I do not buy Obama is a radical Muslim, I do not buy McCain is another George Bush! At looking at the big picture I just think Obama is to inexperienced and McCain is not the best economic choice nor is Obama really. If McCain had Obama's speaking skills he would have the lead, if Obama had McCain's experience he would have the lead. Overall I cant wait till Nov 5 and lets get this over with.

Honestly at this point unless Obama can show he's a good leader and not just a good talker, he wont get elected. McCain has proved hes not Bush. Whoever becomes president, we better drill and we better start using alternative fuels cause im sick of sending money to the middle east, did I mention OPEC decided to cut production!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Platapus]

I would say that your list is a combination of facts and opinions.

Just for S&G, would you like to explain

"McCain as a former POW knows war and who else would be better suited to be president at times like this? "

How does one indicate the other?

"Obama should have gone with Hillary."

This is hardly a fact but your opinion.

You list of opinions is too long to quote individually. But I would recommend separating fact from opinions as they are not the same.

[geetrue]

A serious warning from a resident of Alaska about Palin:


http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef00e55501cfa78834-800wi

[Torps]

A serious warning from a resident of Alaska about Palin:


http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef00e55501cfa78834-800wi

lol thats a good one.

[dean_acheson]

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

inclusion of the Gibson interview edits.

Is there an icon for being in the tank?

[TDK1044]

I think in the minds of many Americans, Sarah Palin is as qualified to be VP as Barack Obama is to be President. That's what makes this such an interesting race. This one is going to be really close and both sides know it. :D

[Fish]

New York Times:
Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes (http://forum.tweevandaag.nl/viewtopic.php?t=118303&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

[dean_acheson]

Sorry Fish, but the New York Times has less credibility than the National Enquirer in this election cycle.

[TDK1044]

The upcoming debates will be crucial.

If McCain can come accross as a maverick capable of making changes in washington and addressing the out of control spending of the Bush Administration, then Obama could be in trouble. If, on the other hand, McCain comes accross as just more of the same from the GOP, then the Messiah will flourish.

On the VP side, Biden has to walk a fine line in showing Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience, without coming accross as a bully. I think Palin will give him some real problems.

[Tchocky]

Of all the people to misquote, why FactCheck?

Nice to know that McCain has integrity..

Straight talk, right.

He approves this message.

This and the Sex-Ed one. - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-c.html

Good grief.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html

[Tchocky]

On the other hand, there was this speech.

It was in St. Paul last week that Palin drew raucous cheers when she delivered this put-down of Obama: "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."


Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," Obama said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"
The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."
"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

Guess which one taught constitutional law.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/08/obama_to_palin_dont_mock_the_c.html

[Fish]

Sorry Fish, but the New York Times has less credibility than the National Enquirer in this election cycle.

Whats the most neutral, dean? If there is one. :-?

[geetrue]

The upcoming debates will be crucial.

If McCain can come accross as a maverick capable of making changes in washington and addressing the out of control spending of the Bush Administration, then Obama could be in trouble. If, on the other hand, McCain comes accross as just more of the same from the GOP, then the Messiah will flourish.

On the VP side, Biden has to walk a fine line in showing Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience, without coming accross as a bully. I think Palin will give him some real problems.

Just one week from friday:


The University of Mississippi community is pleased to host the first presidential debate of 2008 on September 26. Foreign policy and national security issues will be the focus of the 8:00 p.m. debate.

[dean_acheson]

Well, I guess these two points are not necessarily contridictory, in that there are centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence that gives citizens the right to habeas corpus, but nowhere in our Common Law system have POWs been given these rights.

The fact that some of the justices seem to value stare decisis in cases that they like it, Roe, and dump it when they don't, Bowers v. Hardwick, and now Hamdi and Hamden doesn't mean that Johnson v. Eisentrager is bad law.

Strange times are afoot at the USSC, in my view. But I think a discussion on National Secuity law decisions are a bit OT for this board.

I know some of these words are mis-spelled.



On the other hand, there was this speech.

It was in St. Paul last week that Palin drew raucous cheers when she delivered this put-down of Obama: "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."


Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," Obama said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"
The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."
"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

Guess which one taught constitutional law.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/08/obama_to_palin_dont_mock_the_c.html

[dean_acheson]

I would think the NE. They are clear about their desires.

...But I'm sure that John Edwards would disagree. :)

Sorry Fish, but the New York Times has less credibility than the National Enquirer in this election cycle.

Whats the most neutral, dean? If there is one. :-?

[Monica Lewinsky]

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

[Happy Times]

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

One big reason i hope Obama and Biden will win, i expect politicians to have a certain degree of verified ability.

[Skybird]

i expect politicians to have a certain degree of verified ability.

Who needs enemies with friends like this :lol:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091602228.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/fiorina-sets-off-flap-saying-palin-not-ready-for-big-business/?scp=1&sq=fiorina&st=cse

[Tchocky]

Seems that there are some nasty phone polls going around.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/16/rjc_poll/index.html

[Rockin Robbins]

As a big state governor, she has more familiarity with executive administrations than Obama, and his disciples are setting him up to be President, not VP.
Yes, but either Biden or Palin would be little more than a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It is not pleasant to say, but given McCain's age and medical history, this is a much greater concern than it is for the younger and healthier Obama.

Alaska is certainly ranked first in geographic area, but 47th in populace, so it's hardly Texas, California or the states of the northeast. I'd venture to say that it's more than a leap from management of a tiny state to Commander in Chief of the free world. She's also been in the job for less than two years. Prior to this, she was clearly in the pocket of special interest, even going as far to support the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'. This flies in the face what had been one of McCain's strongest hallmarks: The defiance of special interest. Perhaps some more time should have been spent in the vetting process, as Palin continues to appear an increasingly odd selection as her background is explored.

The McCain campaign's most successful attacks on Obama have been in regard to his lack of experience. Palin's selection, although pleasing to the base of the party, has now rendered that strategy obsolete. This is compounded by the fact that neither party's base will be the determining factor in this election, and the selection of Governor Palin has not seemed to have impressed the moderates and independents that will determine the outcome. Good post Tak.

I can't see how Palin is going to win over many Hillary Clinton supporters with her extreme righ to life views such as being against abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Time will tell if Palin is nothing more than a one hit wonder. :hmm:

One thing is for sure and that is that this election campaign has really had some curve balls thrown in it.
All this talk about Palin's experience is just a chimera anyway. Those saying she doesn't have the requisite experience are ignoring the governor of the tiny inconsequential state of Arkansas that they had elected for President not long ago.

If they were honest about their assertations of the importance of "executive experience" all the Democrats talking out of unfortunate parts of their anatomy now would be pushing for Rebublican, Rudy Guiliani, executive of New York City, a larger economy and beurocracy than the vast majority of states, as president. After all, the Republicans don't want him! Why not? The reality is that executive experience is a desirable, but not an indispensible quality in a president. After all, we are running two senators for president, aren't we? So how can we not laugh at such ridiculous assertations?

So we can talk about Palin's superior position of executive experience all we want, but it has very little bearing on whether she or Obama are most qualified to be president. It really comes down to what evidence of character we have in both of them.

For Obama, we just do not know the man. He has made no decisions, whether as an organizer in Chicago, as an Illinios legislator or as a Senator that lend any light to his actions when faced with tough decisions. There is some evidence that he merely seeks to avoid them, but there isn't even enough evidence to credit that conclusion. If we elect him we will deserve whatever we find him to be, and his strongest supporters do not have a clue what that is. Personally I believe that the burden of proof is on the candidate and he has not met the burden of that proof.

As far as Palin goes, we have quite a bit of evidence as to character. She has made several tough decisions that a normal self-interested person would not make. She exposed her benefactor, the kingpin of Alaska Republican politics, for doing personal work on the state payroll. This resulted in her boss being removed for misfeasance, but also cost her her position and six figure income as well. We know from this that she cannot be bought and makes decsions based on right and wrong, not personal interest. She made lasting enemies within her own party and the bill will come due about a week before the election. Should be fun to see.

We also know that she ran against the Republican governor who dismissed her and beat him. She then ran against the past Democratic governor and beat him. This evidence shows that any attempt to paint her as a bimbo beauty queen trading on vaccuous looks is likely to be served back raw to it's source, and without ketchup. I suspect she has the killer instinct of Hillary, and maybe the burning ambition. We'll see all that because she's not one to keep back the reserves. Should be interesting. I'm prepared to be impressed or not. Personally I want someone who looks at the job not as a prize but as a responsibility.

But nothing about Palin matters. The election is between McCain and Obama. The more the Dems concentrate on Palin, the more votes they will lose. But I don't think the Obama campaign is monolithic enough to project a consistent message and I don't think they can resist sending their pitbulls after her. She's just too juicy a target. And that will be Obama's downfall.

Any debates will make Obama look worse and McCain look better, but I think the debates have lost their influence. This is the most interesting presidential race in modern times. I just wish it weren't so consequential, so we could enjoy the result whichever way it goes. We don't have that luxury.

[dean_acheson]

Since I have more degrees than any of these people, can I be President?

Never forget, Wilson had a PhD, and was our most 'schooled' President in the last century, while Harry Truman was the only one not to go to college?

Wonder where these two rank according to most folks?


Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

[Tchocky]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13747.html

I know that few voters will make their decisions on stuff like this, but still...

lol

[Platapus]

Unfortunately since few Americans really understand the complexity of the issues, it is exactly this sort of tripe that does sway voters.

A large portion of our population wants "sound bytes". They want simple black and white answers regardless of the complexity of the issue. Unfortunately the world is not black and white but a constant spectra of grey.

What really amazes me is that in this age of the Internet, where so much information is available concerning our government, that so many people are simply too lazy to do the simplest research. :nope:

Want to find out why Senator McCain voted against Bill X? Go to the Senate website and read what Bill X actually said.

Want to find out if Senator Obama co-sponsored Bill Y? Go to the Senate website and find out.

But it seems that people would rather exchange emotional rumours either glorifying their candidate and vilifying the opposing candidate.

Want an argument against universal suffrage? Just read some of the CNN blogs :damn:

These are the people who vote. :nope:

So no, Tchocky. I have to respectfully disagree with you. Many people will have their votes influenced by exactly this sort of tripe.

The only good news is that 60% of them probably won't vote.

[Platapus]

while Harry Truman was the only one not to go to college?




Small nit to pick. Harry Truman was the only President in the 20th Century that did not graduate from college. Harry Truman did attend Kansas City Law School for two years.

[Von Tonner]

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/palin-1.jpg

The survey also found that the strong initial public reaction to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sarah+Palin?tid=informline), McCain's running mate, has cooled somewhat. Overall, her unfavorable rating has gone up by 10 points in the past two weeks, from 28 percent to 38 percent. She remains broadly popular -- 52 percent of voters view her positively -- but there have been some notable declines. Over the past two weeks, the percentage of independents with favorable views of Palin dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent. Among independent women, the decline was particularly sharp, going from 65 percent to 43 percent. Her favorable rating among whites without college degrees remained largely steady, but among those with college degrees, it dropped nearly 20 percentage points.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303667_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008092303897&s_pos=

I am still of the belief that this was a real bad decision on the part of McCain to choose her as his running mate and one which will come back to haunt him.

[TDK1044]

I think this will be a very close race. I think we'll see more Americans voting than at any time in my lifetime, and I think a lot of the swing voters will move to Obama because they will associate the current financial fiasco with a Republican Administration. :D

[Konovalov]

I have heard that the state of Virginia is a very tight run thing as shown by opinion polls taken in that state over the last month. I thought that this was a deep red state that the Dems had no chance in winning. Any thoughts on Virginia which has become a battleground state? :hmm:

Would it be fair to say that if McCain looses Virginia on election day then it makes his chances of being the next President of the United States of America highly unlikely? :-?

[Platapus]

I have heard that the state of Virginia is a very tight run thing as shown by opinion polls taken in that state over the last month. I thought that this was a deep red state that the Dems had no chance in winning. Any thoughts on Virginia which has become a battleground state? :hmm:

I have been living in Virginia for 14 years now. The very fact that the race between Senators Obama and McCain are so close is telling in itself. You are quite correct. Virginia used to be so solidly red that Democrats a lot of the time never bothered to campaign here.

Virginia is, practically speaking, two separate states. There is North Virginia and the rest of Virginia. North Virginia is where the money is. Our population has been growing, in some opinions way too fast, for many years.

In my opinion, Virginia is still a conservative state, it just happens that it is rejecting what the Republican Party has become in the last 8 years. I know that is this conservative's feelings.

I don't think that Virginia will remain a blue state forever. If the Republican Party can get back to its core values of being fiscally responsible and for smaller government, I am sure that many conservatives, in Virginia and other states, will return to the Republican Party.

So Virginia will turn blue due to the dissatisfaction of the North Virginians with the current state of the Republican Party. But I would not say that Virginia is turning Democratic.

Hopefully in 2012 the GOP will be able to pull its collective heads out of the respective arses and offer up a real candidate. I know that if the GOP wants this life-long Republican voter to come back to the party the GOP better start fixin itself.

[dean_acheson]

while Harry Truman was the only one not to go to college?




Small nit to pick. Harry Truman was the only President in the 20th Century that did not graduate from college. Harry Truman did attend Kansas City Law School for two years.

Why is that small? The whole point of the original post was that BHO and the JB had more College degrees.

[Konovalov]

I have heard that the state of Virginia is a very tight run thing as shown by opinion polls taken in that state over the last month. I thought that this was a deep red state that the Dems had no chance in winning. Any thoughts on Virginia which has become a battleground state? :hmm:

I have been living in Virginia for 14 years now. The very fact that the race between Senators Obama and McCain are so close is telling in itself. You are quite correct. Virginia used to be so solidly red that Democrats a lot of the time never bothered to campaign here.

Virginia is, practically speaking, two separate states. There is North Virginia and the rest of Virginia. North Virginia is where the money is. Our population has been growing, in some opinions way too fast, for many years.

In my opinion, Virginia is still a conservative state, it just happens that it is rejecting what the Republican Party has become in the last 8 years. I know that is this conservative's feelings.

I don't think that Virginia will remain a blue state forever. If the Republican Party can get back to its core values of being fiscally responsible and for smaller government, I am sure that many conservatives, in Virginia and other states, will return to the Republican Party.

So Virginia will turn blue due to the dissatisfaction of the North Virginians with the current state of the Republican Party. But I would not say that Virginia is turning Democratic.

Hopefully in 2012 the GOP will be able to pull its collective heads out of the respective arses and offer up a real candidate. I know that if the GOP wants this life-long Republican voter to come back to the party the GOP better start fixin itself.

Thanks for that terrific post. Nice to get a local view on things. :up:

[Torps]

I for one as a Independent voter have made up my mind. I watch a lot of news, more then 4 hours a day to make sure I cast what I believe is the right vote. I switch around between ABC and FOX. I can tell you guys the best chance at unbias coverage is definately FOX News, specifically Hannity and Colmes is a great one to watch Rep vs Dem.

There are a bunch of things that pushed me away from being a Obama support to McCain and I quite frankly do not think Obama is fit to be president, " Call me if you need me" (statement in reference to going back to DC to handle the economic bailout ), that really sealed the deal, just like his previous votes in the senate... PRESENT! If he is not willing to put his personal goals aside and put us first then he's not worthy of my vote. And PRESENT does not count! Besides he still gets his $175,000 for being a senator, its time he earns his pay!

I have voted both Dem and Rep in the last 2 elections, "The Swift Boat Vets for truth" greatly annoyed me when they went after Kerry but this election has flat out p***** me off with these attacks on Gov Palin. The media especially NY Times and MSNBC have pushed my every button for the extreme bias!
MSNBC got what they deserved on this night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CudatgNdoIU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaW6SfUgmNU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFrVs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ie8LDlgJ0c&feature=related


For our fellow members across the Atlantic and Pacific, I would not take anything the NY Times publishes to heart, its a bunch of garbage. MSNBC fired Olbermann and Matthews for a reason, know if I can remember how to unblock them and see how they are.

Sorry if I offended anyone I just want this election over!

[Skybird]

I can tell you guys the best chance at unbias coverage is definately FOX News,
Sure, sure. Even here in distant Germany mentioning Fox has become a running joke. I have seen so many examples of their unbiased coverage and manipulative reporting that I understand them to be the prime example of how to abuse the label of journalism to pour heavily biased - and often very mean and aggressive - propaganda amongst people, and declare the bancruptcy of jpournalism that way.

If you see FOX as "unbiased coverage", then I conclude that they just are telling what you probably want to hear.

[Platapus]

just like his previous votes in the senate... PRESENT! If he is not willing to put his personal goals aside and put us first then he's not worthy of my vote. And PRESENT does not count! Besides he still gets his $175,000 for being a senator, its time he earns his pay!



You are aware that you are confusing Obama's State Senatorial career and his Federal Senatorial career.

As a State Senator Obama voted "present" for 3% of the votes over almost eight years. It is a rather common way of challenging the wording of legislation in that state.

As a Federal Senator, Senator Obama has never voted "present" for the very good reason that no one can vote "present". The rules of the US Senate do not allow anyone to vote "present". The only thing Federal Senators can do is simply not vote.

When talking about Senator Obama's legislative history and conduct, it is important to identify what happened when he was a State Senator and a Federal Senator.

As for Fox news being unbiased, I can accept that as your opinion. It is just not one I share. :rotfl:

[Skybird]

He wanted to delay one debate. He wanted to gather special public attention to present himself as the savior of the nation. what he really is described to have caused just supports earlier info I read that suggests that economics are a field where McCain simply taps around almpost blindly, having no clue of what, where, why and when. I take note of that whenever economics are being talked of, he remains even more vague and evasive than Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092504603.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Torps]

As a State Senator Obama voted "present" for 3% of the votes over almost eight years.

Obama is a first term U.S Senator and he has spent more then half of his term running for office, I know we disagree on a lot of things however I find it puzzling no one seems to ask him the tough questions. And I know you disagree with my opinion of FOX, saythey are bias, 1 Rep station vs 4 Dem stations, do I need say more about coverage. Its a surprise the race is neck and neck considering the coverage. Since I posted my original post no one ever mentioned anything about Olbermann and Matthews being fired.

I have family in Germany, France, Hungary as well as Britian and I can say we disagree on politics, so it is a topic which we avoid unless we have common ground. On the Iraq war we agree "know" that it was unjust however it needs to be finished not abandoned. I will not go off on Europe, the media gives them what they want to hear. My folks left Hungary back in 82 and Germany in 84 and they have lost some very long time friends over politics, my folks didnt stop calling there friends in europe, they stopped talking to us. I am glad europe is not voting in our elections, europe has a terrible history when it comes to political decisions atleast we in the US agree to disagree and still talk and thats better then our friends overseas.

I am sure one thing we all can agree on is let this election be over already.

[AVGWarhawk]

He wanted to delay one debate. He wanted to gather special public attention to present himself as the savior of the nation. what he really is described to have caused just supports earlier info I read that suggests that economics are a field where McCain simply taps around almpost blindly, having no clue of what, where, why and when. I take note of that whenever economics are being talked of, he remains even more vague and evasive than Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092504603.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
He is not looking to be the savior of the nations for this financial crisis. He is attempting to not have a swift resolution that is not looked at in detail. The dems just wanted to throw out a big check on the tax payors backs without taking a good look at the plan or what it might generate down the road. It is the likes of John McCain that slowed the process, created some arguments and generated conversation instead of just cutting a check and moving on with the election. Obama has not said a darn thing either other than what we want to hear....tax cuts. Just another political ploy. I know as well as the rest of America knows, there are no tax cuts coming. It is a pipe dream.

Furthermore, why am I who pays his mortgage on time have to bail out the banks and people who have lived beyond their means? Why are we rewarding those that ran credit cards up and fell behind in their mortgage? Why does my neighbor who had not made a house payment in 6 months have a large screen TV and a brand new SUV in the driveway? Why are they booking a cruise? Where the hell is my bail out for doing the right thing? Where is my reward? Why am I getting screwed by meeting my responsibilities? T


The good old Dems want to cut a check in three nano seconds without taking a second look. Screw it! What do they care? They don't. Per Biden....it must must be my "Patriotic duty". Well you know what, I do not feel very patriotic bailing out bums and rewarding those who conduct poor business practices. So, you know what, I'm glad John has put some reigns to the quick to cut check on the tax payors backs. It is obsurd that I as a tax payer has to produce cash for the bail out. Where is my reward for doing the right thing? Sometimes I think you look at America with rose colored glasses.

[Digital_Trucker]

Sometimes I think you look at America with rose colored glasses.
Actually, I think those glasses are probably more a shade of brown;) Personally, I don't see anything wrong with trying to get the monkey off of the taxpayers back, either. Throwing freshly minted bills at the problem may work in the short term, but it's hardly going to be the best solution in the long run.

[AVGWarhawk]

Sometimes I think you look at America with rose colored glasses.
Actually, I think those glasses are probably more a shade of brown;) Personally, I don't see anything wrong with trying to get the monkey off of the taxpayers back, either. Throwing freshly minted bills at the problem may work in the short term, but it's hardly going to be the best solution in the long run.
My basic premise is this DT. Those that got into these loans either without thinking or went in head long knowing they did it on shoe string are getting a bail out. Some of these people who are "suffering" were house flippers. Some of these folks who are "suffering" got credited to the hilt with credit card debt. The folks are "suffering" with their big screen TV's, cruises, SUV's and trips to Disney Land. Now, after all the good times and the smoke clears, they see they are screwed financially. First the credit cards stop getting paid, then it moves on to the mortgage not getting paid. Then wait a minute, we will point our fingers at the lending institutions as the cause of the "suffer's" ills. They made me sign that loan and blow my credit cards up to the max. As per usual in America, it is someone elses fault for my misgivings. Typical. Now those that are "suffering" will get a free ride and started on a new mortgage at some super low rate...like 1% and folks like me get the thumb screws because we get to pay for the bail out and are not offered a now "Government Loans are Us" mortgage company deal on financing. We are left to keep on fending off like we have been doing all along. Were is the justice in that? There is none. There is absolutely nothing in this bail out for those that did the right thing. Took the responsiblity and used their heads.

Again, I'm glad John McCain is not just letting is slip on by with the big old stamp of approval by Pelosi, Obama and the rest of them who by and large were part of this mess. Furthermore, this will take months, if not years to sort out for the millions in foreclosure. Everythting stops for these people. No payments, nothing to pay at all until "Government Loans are Us" gets them set up. Yet another free ride until Uncle Sam the loan officer shows up. So, it is off to Disney Land and another cruise while they wait for Uncle Sam the load officer to show up with a rate of 1% on a 30 year fixed. This make me very ill to no end. It is just a continuation of the welfare state to the tune of $700 billion. I understand the Dems want another $64 billion on top of it. :down:


BTW, the lending institution are just as much to blame. Personally, they should sink IMO. As long as Uncle Sam is paying, Uncle Sam should run it. The same thing they did with the Housing and Urban Development office. Known as HUD.

[Skybird]

He wanted to delay one debate. He wanted to gather special public attention to present himself as the savior of the nation. what he really is described to have caused just supports earlier info I read that suggests that economics are a field where McCain simply taps around almpost blindly, having no clue of what, where, why and when. I take note of that whenever economics are being talked of, he remains even more vague and evasive than Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092504603.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
He is not looking to be the savior of the nations for this financial crisis. He is attempting to not have a swift resolution that is not looked at in detail. The dems just wanted to throw out a big check on the tax payors backs without taking a good look at the plan or what it might generate down the road. It is the likes of John McCain that slowed the process, created some arguments and generated conversation instead of just cutting a check and moving on with the election. Obama has not said a darn thing either other than what we want to hear....tax cuts. Just another political ploy. I know as well as the rest of America knows, there are no tax cuts coming. It is a pipe dream.

Furthermore, why am I who pays his mortgage on time have to bail out the banks and people who have lived beyond their means? Why are we rewarding those that ran credit cards up and fell behind in their mortgage? Why does my neighbor who had not made a house payment in 6 months have a large screen TV and a brand new SUV in the driveway? Why are they booking a cruise? Where the hell is my bail out for doing the right thing? Where is my reward? Why am I getting screwed by meeting my responsibilities? T


The good old Dems want to cut a check in three nano seconds without taking a second look. Screw it! What do they care? They don't. Per Biden....it must must be my &quot;Patriotic duty&quot;. Well you know what, I do not feel very patriotic bailing out bums and rewarding those who conduct poor business practices. So, you know what, I'm glad John has put some reigns to the quick to cut check on the tax payors backs. It is obsurd that I as a tax payer has to produce cash for the bail out. Where is my reward for doing the right thing? Sometimes I think you look at America with rose colored glasses.
I did not defend the 700 billion thing, I just commented on McCain that both by assessement of your american major news as well as german and British commentators has made an extremely unpositive figure, and I said that this falls in place with that whenever I read or heared of him commenting on economics he gave the impression to be anything but bright concerning economic matters. ;) however, it is true that I would like to see that aid fond if it is of benefit for foreign economies as well, so that there is at least some kind of compensation that America has brought over economies in all the world by having bitterly fought against any kind of protective measures, and stubbornly insisting on that only an unregulated market is a good market. Well, we see the madness in that assessement now, and even over here we need to pay the price for that stubborness and economic arrogance, in loss of econo,mic growth, turning into a recession, in lost state tax incomes, an massive loss of jobs and families in misery. - I only wish there would be a way to separate american tax payers that support unregulated, ultra-liberal market philosopphy from those that understand that a certain minimum of regulation (as little as possibole but as much as needed) is vital, and have only the first needing to pay with their taxes for the logical consequences of that self-destructive philosophy. But of course, that is utopic. But it would be nice to have this kind of justice getting installed by some kind fairy. Also, i remember it different from your claim that again the evil bad democrats are guilty of having wanted that aid package as the first ones. I remember very clearly that it was circles around the government mentioning it first, Paulson, supported by bernanke. At the personal interest of Paulson to save his former employer, his former colleagues and his own fortune, I already ha dcommented in another thread. By their desire, the high risk speculations and casion games of bankers would be justfied and proven right in rerstrospective, if public taxes now would be spent to pay for their deal'S implicit risks and failures. - and it was not the government demanding as the first ones that managers should be held responsible with their private welalth and wages for the mess they created.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, I think the managers should be held accountable. But, we are in a catch 22. Between a rock and hard place. In other words, these managers know that the government has to step in with a large check to help stablize the economy and wall street. What do they care? The only thing they are sweating is a congressional hearing. Nothing more.

Oh, I agree, McCain is not the economic guru. Either is Obama. A pilot and lawyer....hmmmm. Between them they can see if the legality of the bail out will fly!

Obama's answer to the oil problem...inflate your tires. Democrates answer to the financial crisis....inflate the brokens banks bank accounts.

[dean_acheson]

You know, that's funny. Here in flyover country, that's how we feel about Newsweek, the NYT, and WaPo.

I can tell you guys the best chance at unbias coverage is definately FOX News,
Sure, sure. Even here in distant Germany mentioning Fox has become a running joke. I have seen so many examples of their unbiased coverage and manipulative reporting that I understand them to be the prime example of how to abuse the label of journalism to pour heavily biased - and often very mean and aggressive - propaganda amongst people, and declare the bancruptcy of jpournalism that way.

If you see FOX as "unbiased coverage", then I conclude that they just are telling what you probably want to hear.

[CCIP]

or (hopefully) Georgia :p
Naw, won't happen. The rednecks who came there to fight off the Russian invasion won't let that scenario occur. :roll:

I still think it will be Obama, but we'll see. I'm mostly going on the prediction that the next few weeks have more risks for McCain's campaign than his.

[Digital_Trucker]

or (hopefully) Georgia :p
Naw, won't happen. The rednecks who came there to fight off the Russian invasion won't let that scenario occur. :roll:
Hey, if that French news service hadn't shown the attacks happening in Savannah, we wouldn't even have bothered cleaning our guns:rotfl:

[Skybird]

I just became aware of the - now apparently quite famous - Palin-Couric interview on CBS. Or the Palin-sitcom, as one maybe should descrobe it with more precision. What a loser! :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=palin+couric&search_type=&aq=f

Bad grammar. Poor syntax. Contradictions within one and the very same sentence. Not the smallest awareness that Curic practically executed her with a smile. Never-ending sentences, stutterings, and word salad. Stupid catch-phrases, in repetitions. A shocking display of incompetence and lack of realistic assessement on various issues. Even contradicting things that even McCain does not dare to claim anymore.

Terrible.

Campaign managers on the Republican side without doubt are in panic mode. Doesn't she have to run two TV debates against Biden...? :lol: They would like to pay a hundred millions now if they could bail out from that, I'm sure.

I just saw one of the most stupid politicians I ever had the chance to listen to.

Honestly said I cant see much sings of intelligent life in this body of hers, and I think she is quite retarded. If I were American, the perspective of her becoming vice-president or even president I would find deeply worrying, and as an alarming signal how far political culture in my country already has detoriated.

I am looking forward to her doing the TV debates against Biden. If she does not conduct some emergency brain surgery and changes both her intellectual capacity and personality, he will slaughter her. I will find it most amusing.

My compliments to Mrs. Couric. She did an awesome job in ripping of the mask and let Palin dig her own grave.

I also read that short time ago, a copmedy program scored high interest and amusement with the audience by having the palin interview on display - without much editing, so I read. A candidate being the unvoluntary star in a comedy program, and his political "program" - if you forgive to use that word - being laughed about - can it become any more worse...?

Guys, if you vote for such a flatliner to go into important office, than you really deserve nothing better than just that.

[Onkel Neal]

Hmmmm.... I watched these interviews on the network, your thread prompted me to watch it again on the YouTube clips. I don't know what you're talking about. Palin held herself well, spoke well. She made a good point about predatory lenders, too. I'm guessing you are over-hyping your comments, according to your bias against Republicans. I'm prepared to hear you tell us how stupid we are for another four years if McCain wins.

I do thankfully acknowledge that Couric asked tough questions without flinching. She's no Larry King or Dan Rather. I'm always glad to see a serious journalist work, and she should provide the same grilling to all the candidates.

[Skybird]

You leave me speechless.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, you get really worked up over something like this, I just don't get it. Did Sarah Palin sound like a typical politican in the interview? To me, yeah. Did she sound like a gibbering idiot? No. Not to me. Are we Americans idiots if we elect McCain/Palin? Do we "deserve what we get"? WTH kind of statement is that? :) We "deserve what we get" if we elect Obama, too. Neither candidate is the Anti-Christ, as far as I can tell.

[Platapus]

Here is my deep thoughtful prediction

If either Obama or McCain are elected, our nation will survive. It won't be as bad as some fear and it won't be as good as some dream. :up:

[CCIP]

Here is my deep thoughtful prediction

If either Obama or McCain are elected, our nation will survive. It won't be as bad as some fear and it won't be as good as some dream. :up:
Of course the US will survive, always do. I'm more worried about the rest of the world :D

:lol:

How true.

Yea, I honestly don't think either of those two is incompetent or has a poor view of American interests. To an outsider like me, they have a lot more in common than they do in terms of differences. Which of course is a concern because, again, as an outsider I'm not particularly impressed with either Obama's or McCain's view of the outside world and how it should be handled. Obama's I find more acceptable, but still...

[Skybird]

Did she sound like a gibbering idiot? No. Not to me.

Well, it seems we are separated by the better part of the galaxy about that assessement. Only rarely I have heared more stupid, helpless, stuttering phrasemongering. In that talkings with Couric, she was totally and completely overtaxed, and so very obviously thankful for the poisenous help of handing her a shovel to dig herself a deeper grave.

And it seemed to me she even did not realised it. neal, I have a hard time to believe you do not see that, maybe I think you made a stuopid decisioon when voting for bush a second time, but I definitely do not thinky oyu are a stupid person in principal. I saw that US news has covered her pityful appearance as well. I saw it being covered in german news as well, and although american issue get well-covered over here, to going after such detailed stories is even for German standards a bit of an exception from the usual way.

I did not find the originbal German source that made me aware of this story this morning, but instead I found this which also is a major outlet. Even on radio yesterday evening, they laughed about it.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,580937,00.html

Or here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/opinion/27herbert.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Couric%20palin&st=cse&oref=slogin

[Thomen]

Did she sound like a gibbering idiot? No. Not to me.
Well, it seems we are separated by the better part of the galaxy about that assessement. Only rarely I have heared more stupid, helpless, stuttering phrasemongering. In that talkings with Couric, she was totally and completely overtaxed, and so very obviously thankful for the poisenous help of handing her a shovel to dig herself a deeper grave.

And it seemed to me she even did not realised it. neal, I have a hard time to believe you do not see that, maybe I think you made a stuopid decisioon when voting for bush a second time, but I definitely do not thinky oyu are a stupid person in principal. I saw that US news has covered her pityful appearance as well. I saw it being covered in german news as well, and although american issue get well-covered over here, to going after such detailed stories is even for German standards a bit of an exception from the usual way.

I did not find the originbal German source that made me aware of this story this morning, but instead I found this which also is a major outlet. Even on radio yesterday evening, they laughed about it.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,580937,00.html

Or here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/opinion/27herbert.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Couric%20palin&st=cse&oref=slogin
You didn't watch many Obama interviews, did you? Heck, your or my English is probably better to understand tha(e)n Obamas, even with our accent.

[August]

You didn't watch many Obama interviews, did you? Heck, your or my English is probably better to understand tha(e)n Obamas, even with our accent.

He's only saying that because he's picked a side in our election and will say anything to make the opposition look bad regardless of reality.

[Onkel Neal]

neal, I have a hard time to believe you do not see that, maybe I think you made a stuopid decisioon when voting for bush a second time,


And just what was my other choice? John Kerry? Right.





....but I definitely do not thinky oyu are a stupid person in principal.



Why, thank you. And I don't think you are a stupid person, either. Nor arrogant, opinionated, or long-winded.

[Skybird]

????

Is there an issue, or do I just not understand your intention correctly?

[Konovalov]

Sky, stop digging. ;) I suspect it is how you come across which may be due to english not being your first language.

Back on topic. I still think that Obama will win the election and also see it as close as ever regarding the final count.

[Skybird]

Sky, stop digging. ;) I suspect it is how you come across which may be due to english not being your first language.

Back on topic. I still think that Obama will win the election and also see it as close as ever regarding the final count.

Keep out, Konovalov. My remark is just becasue Neal some days ago already took a similiar situation personally, so I described in more detail what I meant - which he again mabye got wrong, or not, I am not sure.

[Onkel Neal]

You're entitled to your opinion, Sky, but when you repeatedly stress how any opinion contrary to yours is stupid, it starts to wear on my nerves. :shifty: I mean, even Cassandra used a little tact. :-?

[Onkel Neal]

...which is how I should have posted in the first place, instead of being a smart ass. I apologize, Skybird. I will penalize myself with a new, less glamorous avatar.

[Skybird]

You confuse me, Neal. I am still not sure you understood correctly what and how i meant it when I hold voters responsible for their vote - I think that is a basic principle in democracy, responsibility for the consequences of one's choices, and stands one takes. I also admit I do not understand your motivation behind the latest two replies of yours, and why you say you need to punish yourself with that cute, sexy-looking avatar. If I sound haughty, if that is your point, I apologize, but that maybe is a misunderstanding, coming from me having the tendency to take things people say literally that were not meant like that, and often also mean things I tell myself literally - and people do not see that. Not more, not less, not different.

Whatever it was, or is, let's move on. No hard feelings here.

BTW, do you play chess...? :lol:

[Konovalov]

Keep out, Konovalov.
Simply trying to help you out. Sheeesh. Forget about it.

Apparently more excerts of Palin interview with CBC out tonight in the USA. Wonder how it will go down with the voters. :hmm:

[Skybird]

You can enjoy it best when being slightly drunk and in the mood to laugh about everything - even if it is not funny! :lol:

[dean_acheson]

Last night was nice, Palin did lovely.

[Konovalov]

Last night was nice, Palin did lovely.
Snap opinion polls (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3130964/Republicans-hail-Sarah-Palins-folksy-performance-but-polls-show-Joe-Biden-victory.html)taken after the debate weren't as enthusiastic as yourself.


A CBS News/Knowledge Networks Poll found that 46 per cent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate thought Biden won, with 21 per cent siding with Palin. A CNN poll found respondents judging Mr Biden the winner by a margin of 51 per cent to 36 per cent but calling Palin more likable by 54 per cent to Biden's 36 per cent.

[dean_acheson]

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/02/luntz-focus-group-palin-in-a-blowout/

True that, but she still did lovely.

[Konovalov]

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/02/luntz-focus-group-palin-in-a-blowout/

True that, but she still did lovely.
Looks like the McCain campaign will need more than that though judging by the trends in the polls (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jitters-as-john-mccain-slips-back-in-swing-states-949721.html)over the last few weeks:


Alarm is spreading through the ranks of the Republican Party over John McCain and his prospects for victory one month from election day. New polls show him slipping not just nationally against Barack Obama but also in nearly all the key battleground states that will decide the result. And Missouri, a traditional bellwether in presidential elections, is among them. Bedtime for Mrs Palin would have to wait.

A new CNN/Time poll shows Mr Obama one point ahead in the so-called Show-Me state, a statistically insignificant margin, but telling nonetheless; hitherto Mr McCain has been ahead in 19 out of 22 surveys of the state taken since last year. "Missouri is where it almost always is, and that's too close to call," said Claire McCaskill, a senator from Missouri and an adviser to Mr Obama.

The numbers in other swing states are more startling, however. The survey showed Mr Obama leading Mr McCain 54 per cent to 43 per cent in Minnesota; 51 per cent to 47 per cent in Nevada, and 53 per cent to 44 per cent in Virginia. A Quinnipiac University poll showed the Democrat overtaking his rival in Florida, 51 to 43 per cent, and Ohio, 50 to 42 per cent. Both states could be critical on 4 November. All the polls were taken in the wake of the first McCain-Obama debate last Friday night.

[Torps]

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/02/luntz-focus-group-palin-in-a-blowout/

True that, but she still did lovely.
Looks like the McCain campaign will need more than that though judging by the trends in the polls (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jitters-as-john-mccain-slips-back-in-swing-states-949721.html)over the last few weeks:


Alarm is spreading through the ranks of the Republican Party over John McCain and his prospects for victory one month from election day. New polls show him slipping not just nationally against Barack Obama but also in nearly all the key battleground states that will decide the result. And Missouri, a traditional bellwether in presidential elections, is among them. Bedtime for Mrs Palin would have to wait.

A new CNN/Time poll shows Mr Obama one point ahead in the so-called Show-Me state, a statistically insignificant margin, but telling nonetheless; hitherto Mr McCain has been ahead in 19 out of 22 surveys of the state taken since last year. "Missouri is where it almost always is, and that's too close to call," said Claire McCaskill, a senator from Missouri and an adviser to Mr Obama.

The numbers in other swing states are more startling, however. The survey showed Mr Obama leading Mr McCain 54 per cent to 43 per cent in Minnesota; 51 per cent to 47 per cent in Nevada, and 53 per cent to 44 per cent in Virginia. A Quinnipiac University poll showed the Democrat overtaking his rival in Florida, 51 to 43 per cent, and Ohio, 50 to 42 per cent. Both states could be critical on 4 November. All the polls were taken in the wake of the first McCain-Obama debate last Friday night.

You know I will say this. The polls are accurate be the McCain campaign has been asleep on the job!!

Consider this. Abortion came up as a issue right? Did they ever mention that the gal known as Roe aka Roe vs Wade never did have her abortion and gave the kid up for adoption and the kid grew up with millionaire parents??? And she is a Catholic know trying to convince women not to have abortions. I am sure thats a newsflash to most!

Heres another one. Did anyone ever notice as the US is going down hill that Venezulea, Iran, and Russia are acting up? Any similarities?
1. All benefit from high gas prices.
2. Russia is nuclear and the other 2 want to be nuclear.

Hence wake up America,Obama wants to talk to Irans president whos next ? Hugo Chavez? do we really want Obama?Hetalks pretty thats all hes good at!

[donut]

recently, a Democratic operative pointed out that when Obama holds a rally 25-30,000 people show up, whereas when McCain holds one, he only draws 10-15,000.

The Republican spokesman replied, "That's because McCain's supporters are at work."

[August]

How nice :

Yesterday Palin told a group of donors to the Republican party: "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She added: "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/05/usa.uselections2008

Yeah I know. Imagine a potential US President associating with a murdering mad bomber.

[Tchocky]

Ayers never killed anyone, as far as I remember.

And seriously, Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen were active, and sat on a board with a former member. Excuse me if I'm not breaking out in a rash.

[Torps]

Ayers never killed anyone, as far as I remember.

And seriously, Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen were active, and sat on a board with a former member. Excuse me if I'm not breaking out in a rash.

Obama's friends at work

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters05s20oct05,0,2217005.story

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/09/15/more-acorn-vote-fraud-attempts/

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/NEWS03/809140383

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/07/acorn-watch-voter-fraud-and-mortgage-scams-on-your-dime/

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/crl-testimony-acorns-voter-fraud/story.aspx?guid=%7B573B31D0-6AB7-4353-B8E7-91300F4DFF81%7D&dist=hppr

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/post_124.html


Oh "Main Stream Media" were are you?!?! oh wait your pro Obama!

[August]

Ayers never killed anyone, as far as I remember.
Google Brian V. McDonnell. Then there are the three Weathermen terrorists, and they were just that, who managed to blow themselves up while preparing a bomb that according to the FBI was enough to level the entire block had it all gone up.

No doubt about it, Ayers most definitely has blood on his hands.

Bottom line here though is why does the casualty count make any difference? In the words of Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003: "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."

And seriously, Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen were active, and sat on a board with a former member. Excuse me if I'm not breaking out in a rash.

Really?, so how many former IRA or UDA terrorists do you consort with? Don't you think an association with them might say something about you, that it might be a valid consideration if you were running for high political office?

And it was more than he just sat on a board with a former member, it was the founder and leader of the group.

Seriously, alone this might be excusable, put it down to youthful poor judgement, but you add a 20 year association with a radical minister who also advocates the violent overthrow of this country and we begin to see a pattern. A pattern, imo, that indicates more than just poor judgement or ignorance.

[OneToughHerring]

What I don't understand is why wasn't that Weatherman - guy in jail in the first place if he's supposedly such an outlaw and an overall evil person? If he's not a criminal in eyes of the law then what do the rest of us have to say about it? I mean, isn't the US the land of freedom where even people like W and Cheney can run around free as summer lambs even if they are guilty of the deaths of hundreds of thousands?

[Tchocky]

Ayers never killed anyone, as far as I remember.
Google Brian V. McDonnell. Then there are the three Weathermen terrorists, and they were just that, who managed to blow themselves up while preparing a bomb that according to the FBI was enough to level the entire block had it all gone up.

No doubt about it, Ayers most definitely has blood on his hands.

Bottom line here though is why does the casualty count make any difference? In the words of Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003: "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is." It made a difference when I thought he hadn't killed anyone. The word murderer is too significant to be thrown around lightly.
Still, the question that logically follows from all of this is - has Ayers' thinking seriously affected the political beliefs of Barack Obama? The answer I can see is that if we are talking about the work of the Woods Fund, possibly. Poverty relief forms a plank in Obama's policy statements. If we are talking about the Weathermen, and the actions of the 1970's, then they have not. Obama has specifically rejected this idea, as have people like Michael Kinsley, certainly no friend of Ayers.
Do you believe that through their limited interactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Ayers_controversy#Interaction_betwee n_Obama_and_Ayers), Ayers has instructed Obama in the methods that he himself has rejected?

And seriously, Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen were active, and sat on a board with a former member. Excuse me if I'm not breaking out in a rash.
Really?, so how many former IRA or UDA terrorists do you consort with? Don't you think an association with them might say something about you, that it might be a valid consideration if you were running for high political office? I know a few people who have been in and out of jail, actually. For despicable things. I know a few people who have been victims, too. It makes little difference to who I am and what I believe. Growing up in the border region before the Good Friday Agreement means that it's impossible not to know people who have been involved. Much like being part of the academic establishment in a cosmopolitan city. It comes with the territory.
And it was more than he just sat on a board with a former member, it was the founder and leader of the group. OK, so Ayers was more than a rank-and-file Weatherman. We knew that already. What difference does this make to Obama's personality?

Seriously, alone this might be excusable, put it down to youthful poor judgement, but you add a 20 year association with a radical minister who also advocates the violent overthrow of this country and we begin to see a pattern. A pattern, imo, that indicates more than just poor judgement or ignorance.
Then what does it indicate? Do you think that Obama believes in the same things the Ayers does? And if so, are they Ayers ideas of the 2000's, when he was in contact with Obama, or are they the ideas of the 1970's, when Obama was eight years old?

Violent overthrow of the US government. Well, the reaction to that really depends on the reason for it. If you call for violence in reaction to abortion, you get to go to lunch with President Ford.

And President Reagan.

And President George HW Bush.

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

Francis Schaeffer - A Christian Manifesto.

[August]

If you call for violence in reaction to abortion, you get to go to lunch with President Ford.

And President Reagan.

And President George HW Bush.

I'd be interested in hearing the person or persons you're talking about here.

[August]

Obama supporters are getting scary!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8

[Digital_Trucker]

Obama supporters are getting scary!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy09UpI60F8
Well, he did say that there should be a "civilian defense force" with a budget as high as the militaries*. Maybe that's the beginning of it:o

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw about 16:54