Palin's withdrawal - Will she, won't she?

[usmc1]

Betting on a Palin withdrawal

An online prediction market weighs in on whether VP candidate Sarah Palin will be dropped from the Republican ticket.

By Mina Kimes (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/02/technology/kimes_intrade.fortune/mailto:mkimes@fortunemail.com), reporter
Last Updated: September 2, 2008: 5:16 PM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Now the Democrats aren't the only ones who can try to capitalize on the negative buzz growing around Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the prospective Republican VP candidate.

Intrade, an online prediction market based in Dublin, created a contract Tuesday morning on the likelihood that John McCain will drop Palin as his running mate. After opening at a probability of just 3%, the odds on Palin being cut from the ticket climbed to 18% around 9 a.m. and have since settled at around 12%.

Intrade is a place for betting enthusiasts to turn a small profit on everything from the latest auction of works by controversial British artist Damien Hirst to Britney Spears' chances of landing in rehab. Contracts on a possible future event are bought and sold by users of the site, like a stock on the NYSE.

Chad Rigetti, Intrade's VP of Business Development, says traders on the site asked Intrade to create the newest market after stories about Palin, including her teenage daughter's pregnancy and her involvement in a group that did corporate fundraising for controversial Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, flooded the news. The pool has been open for less than twelve hours, but has already attracted more than 950 trades. Intrade estimates that about $2300 has been traded on the Palin withdrawal contract.

Placing a Palin withdrawal at even 12% seems bullish; no presidential candidate has withdrawn his VP selection since Thomas Eagleton left Democratic candidate George McGovern's ticket in 1972.

Intrade has demonstrated some success in predicting political choices (forecasting the selection of Biden), but also volatility: Palin's chances of landing the nomination vacillated wildly in the hours before McCain announced the pick.

Rigetti points out that while some traders are putting Palin on the chopping block, they're still giving her 97% odds in a separate market for the VP nomination. He thinks that many traders are playing both markets, which means they believe a withdrawal won't come until later in the election season.

Intrade monitors its traders' demographics, but it's too early to tell who's betting on a Palin pullout. Some of the naysayers could be Republicans: Rigetti says that, unlike polls, the election markets don't always represent political beliefs. "People have a real money incentive," he says. "They're betting with their head and not their heart."

[brazhunter]

Seems the dems are the ones hoping she withdraws.

[garbo]

Interesting question? When I heard that John McClain had chosen Sarah Palin, I shook my head just like everyone else who had never heard of her. I figured that McClain and the Republican party had looked long and hard for the perfect vice presidential nominee to strengthen the ticket. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. They had several months to kick around dozens of qualified and better known names. Could some of the more obvious front runners like Mitt Romney have turned him down? That's what some of the media is saying, but I disagree. At 72 years old, if McClain does happen to win, it is unlikely that he will run for a second term. Any current Vice Presidential nominee would certainly be the incombent.

Back to Palin. I simply ask.. is she the BEST candidate for the job? Baggage aside, is she the one who can fulfill the duties of VP and.. in case that something happens to McCain, who admittedly is not a healthy man, is she ready to take over as commander in chief? My personal opinion is no. Others may disagree.

Further, I don't believe the Democrats are hoping that Palin will withdraw. The Dems seem to be supporting her apointment. The theory is that she will weaken the Republican ticket and provide an added boost to Obama.

The only way Palin will withdraw is if they find some real dirt on her and the polls start showing a significant decline in ratings. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Boreas]

Further, I don't believe the Democrats are hoping that Palin will withdraw. The Dems seem to be supporting her apointment. The theory is that she will weaken the Republican ticket and provide an added boost to Obama.

I agree. I heard Fred Thompson's speech last night. I found it interesting that he said that the Democrats are afraid of Palin. Why would they be afraid? It seemed like an absurd statement.

Of course, I am not totally in the loop in that area and could be missing something. :rolleyes:

[Baron Lake]

Absurd statement from Thompson? Surely Boreas, that's hardly surprising; it's one thing consistent about Republicans. :)

One of the ones I really like is the contention Palin's "Foreign Policy" experience comes from her living so close to Russia. !!

b.l.

[brazhunter]

found it interesting that he said that the Democrats are afraid of Palin. Why would they be afraid? It seemed like an absurd statement.
They sure are in a panic if they're not afraid. Palin clearly nuked the dems campaign strategies.

And now they've resorted to groveling for dirt on her children.

[usmc1]

Absurd statement from Thompson? Surely Boreas, that's hardly surprising; it's one thing consistent about Republicans. :)

One of the ones I really like is the contention Palin's "Foreign Policy" experience comes from her living so close to Russia. !!

b.l.

Well hell by that way of reckoning, I used to pull liberty in Tijuana, so I'm qualified to be ambassador to Mexico.

Talk about people gagging on gnats and swallowing a moose.

[Boreas]

They sure are in a panic if they're not afraid. Palin clearly nuked the dems campaign strategies.

I find this extremely puzzling. Please explain how an extreme right-wing woman could scare the Democrats.

[brazhunter]

Please explain how an extreme right-wing woman could scare the Democrats.
She's no more extreme right wing than Obama and Biden are left wing.

She's bringing panic because she's an unknown commodity and that's unsettling campaign plans. Regardless of what the lib press is saying, she's very popular with the conservative base.

[Boreas]

She's no more extreme right wing than Obama and Biden are left wing.

She's bringing panic because she's an unknown commodity and that's unsettling campaign plans. Regardless of what the lib press is saying, she's very popular with the conservative base.

Is she known in the conservative base? Why would an unknown quality bring panic? After all, all is fair in love and war right?

[Qikdraw]

She's bringing panic because she's an unknown commodity and that's unsettling campaign plans. Regardless of what the lib press is saying, she's very popular with the conservative base.

Her unknown commodity is becoming a known commodity very quickly though.

Seriously her foriegn policy experience is living close to Russia? I mean really. Even republicans have to be rolling their eyes at that one.

She was picked because the conservative base does not like John McCain, this brings them around. This is actually a very bad thing for the campaign, if you are spending political capital to bring your base around, you're in trouble. You should be spending that on the independants, not your own base.

I still hold out that this is a Harriet Meyers(sp?) thing. Pick someone so underqualified so people will stop talking about Obama, then dump her for someone else. This also has the benifit of bringing the base around, and even if she is off the ticket the base will stay as the republicans will simply blame it all on the 'liberal media'. Its actually not a bad move politically, except its pretty obvious what they are doing.

She is well spoken, and her record of going after corruption is pretty good, I just don't think her overall qualifications make her a real choice. I was actually thinking Romney would be the best choice, he's smart and can handle economic questions McCain simply is not able to. I hear Romeny is pissed now though, he feels used. Not a good thing to have in the party either.

[brazhunter]

Seriously her foriegn policy experience is living close to Russia? I mean really.

And Obama's foreign policy experience is being a dem party organizer for Chicago?

I mean really REALLY.

[jon71]

Amongst other things Obama has the bipartisan legislation he sponsored to secure loose nukes. That is arguably the most important piece of national security/foreign policy legislation in the last year.

[jon71]

Additionally let me say that not only does Palin not scare us libs I look at it as just shy of McCain conceding. Sure she was unexpected. We had our arguments against Mitt Romney handy (only pol in America has who flip-flopped more than McCain) and various other people. Ridge would have been the most difficult. A pro-choice running mate would have made competing for moderates more difficult and the talk about right-to-lifers staying home or voting for Barr was just a bluff they'd never dare to follow through on. Ironically they have no choice but to vote Rep. no matter what and they know it. Picking someone so conservative demonstrated how afraid McCain is of his own party that he kowtowed to them like this. Also Ridge would look good on paper when it comes to foreign policy and national security. We would argue that would be more image than substance but that wouldn't be the easiest argument to make. Alternatively the approach might have been to darn him with faint praise and move on. So were we surprised, yes. Did we have to readjust, yes. Are we afraid, let me respond this way. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

[Qikdraw]

And Obama's foreign policy experience is being a dem party organizer for Chicago?

I mean really REALLY.

No you're right. Obama's foriegn policy experience is not as good as McCain's or Biden's, but he has shown good judgement in what we should do these past few years, the proof is that the Bush administration is doing the things he said we should do. The same stuff McCain said Obama was naive for saying.

But living next to Russia is foriegn policy experience? Does that mean that because my neighbour across the street is from Mexico I now have more foriegn policy experience than Palin. Cause my neighbour across the street is closer than being across the Bering Strait. I even talk to him too! Has Palin ever talked to the Russians?

[usmc1]

No you're right. Obama's foriegn policy experience is not as good as McCain's or Biden's, but he has shown good judgement in what we should do these past few years, the proof is that the Bush administration is doing the things he said we should do. The same stuff McCain said Obama was naive for saying.

But living next to Russia is foriegn policy experience? Does that mean that because my neighbour across the street is from Mexico I now have more foriegn policy experience than Palin. Cause my neighbour across the street is closer than being across the Bering Strait. I even talk to him too! Has Palin ever talked to the Russians?
He demonstrated remarkable foriegn policy acumen with his stance on Iraq.

[brazhunter]

Amongst other things Obama has the bipartisan legislation he sponsored to secure loose nukes.
**SPONSORED**.... did he actually draft any legislation? Too busy campaigning to work I suppose.

[brazhunter]

He demonstrated remarkable foriegn policy acumen with his stance on Iraq.
Nope, not at all. But that is all he has, isn't it.

[bullet]

I simply replied No. She will not be dropped and she will not drop out. If there's something hidden regarding Troopergate, that may change but as of now there is no reason for her to not continue as the VP candidate.

[Croydon]

She's bringing panic because she's an unknown commodity and that's unsettling campaign plans. Regardless of what the lib press is saying, she's very popular with the conservative base.
I think you may be reading too much into Palin. I do not think the dem party is scared or in panic because of her.

I further do not believe she will be dropped nor do I think dems want her to drop out. So far, it appears Palin has been more of a burden than blessing for McCain. Why would democrats want to ruin that? Each day, something new comes out about Palin. I think McCain knew she had some questionable things going on for her but I don't think he thought they were this bad. McCain succeeded in getting the press attention he wanted by picking Palin. The problem is, the press coverage he is getting is NOT the one he wants. The press coverage of Palin has been all about who she is as no one knows and all her misdeeds. I say keep her on the ticket because more will come out about her, especially if her current ethics investigation becomes more public.

Will John McCain's VP pick mobilize, energize and excite the conservative base? Very much so. Conservatives are still wary of McCain but they find solace in his VP pick.

Where you are mistaken is the belief that somehow his VP pick and the excitement of the conservatives will help McCain win.

Let's face it, McCain is NOT a conservative. They don't get him and he surely does not get them. McCain's popularity (what little is left) is due to his appeal to independent voters. Because he isn't a traditional Republican, a maverick as he calls himself, he has gotten a lot of independent voters on his side.

Independent voters, generally, are FISCAL REPUBLICANS but are moderate on social issues. They do not prescribe to the ideals of conservative republicans. I believe that McCain's VP pick will turn off these independent voters. They will not identify with the Christian conservative views that McCain has adopted and picking Palin is really pushing it for these voters.

In states like OH and PA where there are a lot of independent voters, McCain is going to have a tough time.

Preliminary polls are also showing that Obama is gaining grounds with independents, cutting into McCain's lead. In addition, it appears that the pick of a woman is not having a positive effect for McCain.

[usmc1]

Nope, not at all. But that is all he has, isn't it.
No. But given the monumental catastrophe resulting from the invasion and occupation Of Iraq, it really is quite sufficient.

[jon71]

Peggy Noonon who worked for Bush and a Republican analyst Mike Murphy had a "live mike" incident today. When they knew they were on they said only good things about Palin and Noonan wrote a really positive op-ed column in her favor. Then when the cameras were off Noonan said "we're doomed" and Murphy said it was a "cynical" decision. You gotta love it. I so hope that it turns up in Obama's ads.

[Naturist Mark]

Nope, the Democrats are NOT hoping Sarah Palin drops out. The ones I'm in contact with consider her selection to be a gift from heaven. Ha! We agree with James Dobson!

-Mark

[Skinview]

I find this extremely puzzling. Please explain how an extreme right-wing woman could scare the Democrats.
Because she is a woman. There are a whole lot of women voters who want to see a woman candidate. She will peel off feminist voters from the Democrats, and attract lots of independents. How many remains to be seen. They got all fired up for Hillery, and she didn't even get the VP slot on the Democrat ticket. Now they have a place to go to. Palin is an excellent choice, from a political perspective. Besides the above advantages, she has none of the baggage that other potential candidates would have had. Condi Rice (my favorite) would be a better VP, but she is too close to Bush. Romney flip flops, and he is Mormon. Leiberman is a liberal Democrat, and the party would reject him. Conservatives might have stayed home on election day.
Palin is a social conservative, which is unfortunate, but it won't hurt her chances in the election. She has more executive experience than the whole Democrat ticket. And she is smart and looks hot! :)

[Croydon]

Because she is a woman. There are a whole lot of women voters who want to see a woman candidate. She will peel off feminist voters from the Democrats, and attract lots of independents. How many remains to be seen. They got all fired up for Hillery, and she didn't even get the VP slot on the Democrat ticket. Now they have a place to go to. Palin is an excellent choice, from a political perspective. Besides the above advantages, she has none of the baggage that other potential candidates would have had. Condi Rice (my favorite) would be a better VP, but she is too close to Bush. Romney flip flops, and he is Mormon. Leiberman is a liberal Democrat, and the party would reject him. Conservatives might have stayed home on election day.
Palin is a social conservative, which is unfortunate, but it won't hurt her chances in the election. She has more executive experience than the whole Democrat ticket. And she is smart and looks hot! :)
Your observation is a bit false on some levels.

You are almost assuming that women will vote for McCain just b/c his VP is a woman. Palin is NO substitute for Hillary and it appears from preliminary polls and discussion with women that they agree as well.

The democrat party normally gets around 53% of the female vote and it appears that Obama has about that so nothing has changed with Palin on the ticket.

Also, Palin is no feminist and WILL NOT gain feminist vote. You forget the fact that she is a right wing conservative republican who is anti abortion. This is going to be a focal issue with her and getting the female vote. Over 56% of women are pro choice. Even Cindy McCain disagrees with Palin on abortion.

Oh by the way, Palin has PLENTY of baggage. Have you not been paying attention to the news lately?

[Boreas]

Because she is a woman. There are a whole lot of women voters who want to see a woman candidate. She will peel off feminist voters from the Democrats, and attract lots of independents. How many remains to be seen. They got all fired up for Hillery, and she didn't even get the VP slot on the Democrat ticket. Now they have a place to go to. Palin is an excellent choice, from a political perspective. Besides the above advantages, she has none of the baggage that other potential candidates would have had. Condi Rice (my favorite) would be a better VP, but she is too close to Bush. Romney flip flops, and he is Mormon. Leiberman is a liberal Democrat, and the party would reject him. Conservatives might have stayed home on election day.
Palin is a social conservative, which is unfortunate, but it won't hurt her chances in the election. She has more executive experience than the whole Democrat ticket. And she is smart and looks hot! :)

She seems to have a lot of baggage right now.

The fact that she is a social conservative would likely turn off many feminists. This one for sure. If I were an American, I would never vote for her, given her extreme conservative views. I want a woman who would represent women better, and who recognizes women's issues. She has apparently cut funding to teen mothers' programs. That is only one example of why she does not seem in touch with women's issues. I see her as not aware of female issues and would not support her, frankly.

Hopefully having a pregnant teen in the family may help her see some of the issues related to having an unplanned pregnancy. I am not holding my breath.

[Boreas]

Also, Palin is so feminist and WILL NOT gain feminist vote. You forget the fact that she is a right wing conservative republican who is anti abortion. This is going to be a focal issue with her and getting the female vote. Over 56% of women are pro choice. Even Cindy McCain disagrees with Palin on abortion.

Are you saying that Palin is a feminist??? Frankly, I think she is anti-feminist.

For the record, before I get clobbered, I do believe that "traditional family values" are part of a feminist agenda. It is the anti-abortion, cutting funding to women's programs, etc that I object to.

[Qikdraw]

Oh by the way, Palin has PLENTY of baggage. Have you not been paying attention to the news lately?

No no... Thats all the liberal media and the democrats being 'sexist', haven't you heard?

You can't look at her past history! Thats sexist!

[Croydon]

Are you saying that Palin is a feminist??? Frankly, I think she is anti-feminist.

For the record, before I get clobbered, I do believe that "traditional family values" are part of a feminist agenda. It is the anti-abortion, cutting funding to women's programs, etc that I object to.

Ooops, Typo. I meant to say NO feminist, not so feminist.

I have fixed the original post

Thank You

[Naturist Mark]

Peggy Noonon who worked for Bush and a Republican analyst Mike Murphy had a "live mike" incident today. When they knew they were on they said only good things about Palin and Noonan wrote a really positive op-ed column in her favor. Then when the cameras were off Noonan said "we're doomed" and Murphy said it was a "cynical" decision. You gotta love it. I so hope that it turns up in Obama's ads.

Peggy Noonan & Mike Murphy - You've been YouTubed!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CrG8w4bb3kg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CrG8w4bb3kg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Rough transcript (h/t C&L (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-and-mike-murphys-off-air-attack-of-palin-for-vp-pick-whos-telling-the-truth/)

Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor work. Engler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all like how you want to (inaudible) this race. You know, just run it up. And it’s not gonna work.

Noonan: It’s over.

Murphy: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: Don’t you think the Palin pick was insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too (inaudible)

Noonan: I saw Kay this morning.

Murphy: They’re all bummed out. I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

Todd: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

Noonan: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bull**** about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.

Yeah, but what’s the narrative?

Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at and they blow it.

Murphy: You know what’s really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism and this is cynical.

And as you call it gimmicky.

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

My neighbour saw Palin speak tonight and said she did a very good job. Some of the things he was talking about I'll have to watch the speech to see. (I was out walking a dog at the time) He mentioned that she admits to taking earmarks as a mayor, and to pushing for them, and he said she looks back at it now and maybe it was a mistake, but she was trying to do her job as mayor.

Like I said I haven't seen it yet, but my neighbour who was a republican for 30+ years, and is now a registered independant because of Bush, and was planning on voting for Obama, is sounding happy about the speech. I forgot to ask if he was still going to vote for Obama or not, maybe if I catch him tomorrow I'll ask him.

So it looks liek I missed a good speech. :( I'll catch it tomorrow though.

[Boreas]

Ooops, Typo. I meant to say NO feminist, not so feminist.

I have fixed the original post

Thank You

Phew. :) You are usually so articulate. It was out of character for you!

[Skinview]

You are almost assuming that women will vote for McCain just b/c his VP is a woman. Palin is NO substitute for Hillary and it appears from preliminary polls and discussion with women that they agree as well.
You forget, swing voters are morons. They have no political philosophy. Its not on their radar screens. Sure, most Hillery voters aren't going to vote for McCain/Palin, but they aren't swing voters. About 20 - 30% of Hillery voters were going to vote for McCain BEFORE Palin got on the ticket. All Hillery has on Palin is lots of name recognition. Palin has way more charactor than Hillery.

The democrat party normally gets around 53% of the female vote and it appears that Obama has about that so nothing has changed with Palin on the ticket.Lets wait until the polls come out after people have heard her speach.

Also, Palin is no feminist and WILL NOT gain feminist vote. You forget the fact that she is a right wing conservative republican who is anti abortion. This is going to be a focal issue with her and getting the female vote. Over 56% of women are pro choice.An underwhelming majority. And, what, Palin thinks women should stay home and raise children???? Palin isn't just a woman, she is a governor!!! Of course the hard core radical feminists aren't going to vote for her, but they aren't most women. And remember, Palin doesn't have to get most of them, she just has to move the margin in her direction.

Oh by the way, Palin has PLENTY of baggage. Have you not been paying attention to the news lately?Democrats desperately seeking baggage...

[Croydon]

You forget, swing voters are morons. They have no political philosophy. Its not on their radar screens. Sure, most Hillery voters aren't going to vote for McCain/Palin, but they aren't swing voters. About 20 - 30% of Hillery voters were going to vote for McCain BEFORE Palin got on the ticket. All Hillery has on Palin is lots of name recognition. Palin has way more charactor than Hillery.

Lets wait until the polls come out after people have heard her speach.

An underwhelming majority. And, what, Palin thinks women should stay home and raise children???? Palin isn't just a woman, she is a governor!!! Of course the hard core radical feminists aren't going to vote for her, but they aren't most women. And remember, Palin doesn't have to get most of them, she just has to move the margin in her direction.

Democrats desperately seeking baggage...

I fail to understand your definition of swing voters. Who are the swing voters, women? Women do not have a history of being the swing voters. They generally vote democrat, normally in the 53-55% range. Independents are swing voters.

Just to note, the 20-30% number you stated above is a bit false. BEFORE convention, about 20%-30% of Clinton loyalists said they have yet to support Obama. They DID NOT say they were going to vote for McCain. What happened after the DNC? Clinton's speech at the DNC was remarkable and she rallied her supporters to go ahead and support Obama. After the convention and announcement of Palin, polls came out showing that about 9% of Clinton voters were still not on board with Obama and also feel that Palin on the VP ticket makes them more likely to vote for McCain. There have already been focus groups of women to get their take on Palin pick. The general consensus appears to be that women like Palin BUT do find McCain VP pick to be a gimmick and an insulting ploy by McCain to get their vote. One thing I hear often is: "does he think we are that stupid?" In addition, women are not happy about Palin's policies on abortion.

I will add that after her speech last night, there was another focus group in Nevada of clinton supporters, separated by marital status (married vs unmarried). In both groups, the women did like Palin BUT they found the speech to be snippy, petty, and had a negative tone. They also felt that the speech left them wondering what exactly is her stand on education, health care, economy and other domestic issues. More and more especially in Palin's speech I am seeing A LOT of embellishments of her political career in Alaska. I ran through a fact checks of her speech and there were quite a number of false and/or embellished statements.

We definitely should wait for the polls as you say. I think based on her speech last night, she didn't bring it all the way home. She did a good job of introducing herself to Americans but failed at reeling them on her side. Instead of using the platform to talk about her policies and her views on how she is going to assist in governing, she used the platform to belittle and insult Obama. I think when the polls come out, you will see that McCain and Palin did not cut into Obama's lead on women. Even in my own life, I have discussed with a few female friends, mostly democrats and clinton supporters and two republicans. My democrats friend are not impressed with Palin and are a bit offended by her pick and one independent friend of mine who was going to vote for McCain changed her mind immediately after he picked Palin b/c of her abortion and conservative views.

In your last paragraph about feminism and women. I think again that you are casting women as the same. If I am correct, you are stating that women are just got to go vote for Palin b/c she is a woman. Palin is a feminist in her own way: she is a WORKING MOM and governor. A lot of women are going to identify with being the breadwinner of the family and working. She has accomplished a lot and women love that. This DOES NOT mean they will go ahead vote for her. The fact remains that women are not comfortable with her stand on abortion. A lot of female voters are pro choice and they fear that a woman like Palin will work on overturning Roe vs Wade. In addition, women still do not know who Palin is.

Were there a lot of women who voted for Hillary b/c she is a woman, yes, but I say that Hillary deserved every bit of those votes. She has a long history of fighting for women and their cause: abortion, equal pay, health care, education, sexual harassment, voting rights. Palin has nothing.

As for baggage. Let's not distort the truth, Palin has a lot of baggage and it is NOT the democrats who are digging dirt on her. There is a reason why the media is reporting so much about Palin's scandals and questionable actions. No one knows about her. The fact that we don't know very much about her, the media is going around with a fine comb and examining every "fiber of hair in her life." What I do find quite funny is that you and many republicans were not complaining about media treatment when they were saturated in Obama's preacher issue or the negativity towards Clinton when she was running. It seems when your candidate is being spoken about by the media in a negative light, it is a problem but you don't complain if it is the other candidate. The same goes for Obama supporters. The media is doing it's job, which is to report anything sensational, whether it is about Obama, Biden, Palin, McCain...they don't care, sensational news is sensational news. Whatever is good for rating is good for them.

[usmc1]

My neighbour saw Palin speak tonight and said she did a very good job. Some of the things he was talking about I'll have to watch the speech to see. (I was out walking a dog at the time) He mentioned that she admits to taking earmarks as a mayor, and to pushing for them, and he said she looks back at it now and maybe it was a mistake, but she was trying to do her job as mayor.

Like I said I haven't seen it yet, but my neighbour who was a republican for 30+ years, and is now a registered independant because of Bush, and was planning on voting for Obama, is sounding happy about the speech. I forgot to ask if he was still going to vote for Obama or not, maybe if I catch him tomorrow I'll ask him.

So it looks liek I missed a good speech. :( I'll catch it tomorrow though.

Everyone needs to slide down and read Mark's Noonan's open mike post. It is very telling as to what the real scoop is.

As to Palin's speech? Well lets just say that there is certain amount "lowered bar" spin that happened before the speech, and which will sprout up again from time to time during the campaign and especially the debates.

This gal is a Gingrich GOPAC grad and is quite capable. Her weakness is herself and her baggage.

Let's see, you announce your VEEP selection and then spend a week putting out brush fires related to her and her background. Governor of Alaska, hell folks, my Texas congressional district has a larger population than the entire state of Alaska.

[ki4kxq]

After watching the speech last night, I am now more than convinced that Sarah Palin can handle herself and is the right choice for the veep position. As far as her attacks against Obama, that is the traditional job of the VP. Lest we forget Biden coming out hard against McCain not only in his speech but also right after he was announced as Obama's running mate.

I think you all have missed the point of picking Palin as McCain's running mate. It was not to bring hard core Hillary supporters to the fold, that wasn't going to happen. It was to bring together a republican base that was very lukewarm towards McCain. She has done that in spades. The republicans needed some fresh new CONSERVATIVE faces. We are tired of the same old hanger ons that are not conservative and want to try to out spend the democrats, including John McCain.

The truth is that Obama is struggling in the polls. He is nowhere near in safe territory and is losing ground daily. The speech given by Palin last night was one of the best speeches I have heard since Ronald Reagen. The democrats sell her short to the own peril. They know this too, in fact the democrat strategists that anylized the speech last night also thought she did a great job. They didn't agree with the message, but thought she indeed brought down the house.

Let's face it, the hard core bomb throwers on the left are doing so because they are scared to death. People look at Sarah Palin and see themselves and their own families. They see someone who is truly like them and not like the Biden's, Obama's, or the McCain's. The more she is out in the next couple of months, the more people will be drawn to her.

It's going to be a fun couple of months.

[Boreas]

Let's face it, the hard core bomb throwers on the left are doing so because they are scared to death.

I still do not get where people are coming up with the idea that people are scared of Palin. Would someone please explain this without making assumptions. To me, saying people are scared is an assumption. You are seeing behaviours and reading motivation into them. All you know for sure is the behaviours ("bomb throwing")

[ki4kxq]

Boreas, let me ask you a question, and maybe that will help. If someone is not a threat to you, or you feel that they are just plain incompetent, do you really pay them any attention, or do you ignore them? Most people just ignore them, they may turn to their friends and laugh, but they do not go absolutely out of their minds.

Because these people think that Sarah Palin may turn this election around towards McCain, they have to do whatever they can to make sure that doesn't happen. If they weren't afraid of what her influence will be, they would IGNORE her. They are actually down to talking about her hair and that it is out of date. That is how desparate they are at this point. I don't know if you recall, but wasn't it a Shakespeare play with the line "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much"? That is what we are talking about here. The democrats are protesting way too much for someone they say is not qualified and inconsequential. Their words and actions don't match.

Hope that helps.

[Sanslines]

The republicans needed some fresh new CONSERVATIVE faces. We are tired of the same old hanger ons that are not conservative and want to try to out spend the democrats, including John McCain.



One of the major problems with the Republican Party is that this party has lost it's real identity. The Republican Party has shifted too far to the right and alienated many moderates. The Republican Party mainly appeals to a small group of hard core conservatives and this group is not large enough to be able to win an election. I think that this election will result in an Obama victory and once elected Obama will be forced to govern as a centrist in the same way that Bill Clinton was forced to become more of a centrist. This election will be a major wake up call for the Republican Party in that they need to reevaluate what exactly they represent other then holding the line on out of control tax increases.

Obama will most likely win this election by appealing to a very broad spectrum of people and avoiding the hate and country dividing rhetoric that extremists from both sides engage in. The extremists from both sides are NO solution and they are certainly a major part of the 'problem'.

[Boreas]

ki, I agree to some degree. I am still not convinced. This is an American election, and from this side of the fence, it seems that American elections are spectacular mudslinging matches. Often little of substance seems to emerge. At least that is what it looks like from here. I admit, I am not in the middle of it, and I am also thankful for that. Anyway, I think this is just part of the game, and not necessarily an indication of fear.

Sanslines, I think you are right. Of course, again, I am speaking from this side of the fence. Extreme views of any kind do tend to alienate so called normal people. I hope we are starting to see some of the same trend up here. Our PM is portrayed as being extreme right, and has been forced to the centre because he is leading a minority government. Rumour has it that he will be calling an election this weekend, and that we will be going to the polls in October. I frankly hope he is shooting himself in the foot. Anyway, I am hearing people say that they would like The Green Party to have more of a voice in Ottawa. This party will never form the government, at least not in the near future. They have an articulate leader, and she is gaining respect. The fact that people are even mentioning her suggests to me that people are tired of right leaning policies and ideologies up in Ottawa.

Of course, only time will tell on all accounts.

[ki4kxq]

We generally agree on many points, but I have to depart with you here. The republican party went through a very low point in the 60's and 70's for the reason you stated. They left their conservative roots and turned the party over. Then Ronald Reagan came along and the conservative movement was alive and well, and so was the republican party. Then came George 41. He was not a conservative and lost after one term. Then came Newt Gingrich and the very conservative "contract with America". They took over congress for the first time in decades.

The problem is not enough conservatives. The problem GW has had is that he has done great things as far as the war on terror, but floats with social and fiscal liberal policies. Soft on immigration, didn't fight to make the tax cuts permanent, not one veto used for a free spending congress of both parties.

If we could actually get a true conservative in the White House that wouldn't back down off of at least the fiscal beliefs and the small government beliefs, they couldn't be beaten by any liberal because TRUE fiscal conservative policies are the best for the people. Too bad they haven't seen any in a long time.

That is also why the republicans lost control of the house and senate. Republicans voted them out for their wild spending and lack of conservative values.

[luvnaturism]

You forget, swing voters are morons. They have no political philosophy.

This statement demonstrates a stunning lack of knowledge. There are many people in this country who have a clearly defined political philosophy—or who at least know what they want in a candidate—that does not match up well with either major party. Voting for a third party candidate is a lost cause. Therefore they end up "swinging" toward the major party whose candidate comes closest to what they really want. Or, more likely, they move away from the candidate they are least able to tolerate.

[usmc1]

This statement demonstrates a stunning lack of knowledge. There are many people in this country who have a clearly defined political philosophy—or who at least know what they want in a candidate—that does not match up well with either major party. Voting for a third party candidate is a lost cause. Therefore they end up "swinging" toward the major party whose candidate comes closest to what they really want. Or, more likely, they move away from the candidate they are least able to tolerate.

The gent put so crudely that which has a vague element of truth. Generally, this deep into the cycle, you have left about 10% who are "undecided", the so-called "swing" voters. These people are generally uninformed, uninvolved and uninterested and fairly easily swayed by negative ads, emotional "hot-button" issues and such.

The true "independents" have pretty much made up their minds by this point.

The trap for McCain with Obama running is that many of those who are uninvolved in the past are becoming involved and informed of the process and are very, very interested in getting Obama elected.

But calling people morons who have been largely disenfranchised by the system is just more of the same old conservative brand of villification of the vitems of the process.

[Sanslines]

That is also why the republicans lost control of the house and senate. Republicans voted them out for their wild spending and lack of conservative values.

One thing that you also needto remember is that in 1980 Ronald Reagan ran against what was perceived as the 'Jimmy Carter / Walter Mondale' national malaise. The Jimmy Carter / Walter Mondal team offered more of the same and then came along Ronald Reagan who offered 'change' and 'hope' with his 'shining city on the hill' speeches.

Obama is basically doing what Reagan did in 1980, and that is to offer 'change' and 'hope' as contrasted to the same old status quo. It is very true that we have very different national problems today as compared to 1980, but Obama is (as was Reagan) a eloquent speaker who can steer national perceptions with his speeches. Obama can and does create a 'dream' and to what extent any of this dream becomes anything close to a reality is an entirely different matter. Die hard loyalists would have you believe that all of it will become reality but die hards are blinded by their own party loyalty and are not to be trusted or believed.

By contrast, G.W. Bush is quite frankly a lousy and unmotivating speaker who has been far too secretive about what he has and has not done. He actually has done some rather good things such as lavishly spend on education and other programs to the detrement of creating a massive budget deficit but because he has remained so silent (due in part to his lack of verbal communication skills), he has allowed the opposition free reign to rake him over the coals.

[brazhunter]

Die hard loyalists would have you believe that all of it will become reality but die hards are blinded by their own party loyalty and are not to be trusted or believed..

Yep. Applies to both parties, too.

Remember too, much of what is heard and read is coming from people directly on the payroll of the parties or from paid advocacy groups and have a financial interest in promoting one candidate or another. I strongly suspect we have one here.

[Sanslines]

Yep. Applies to both parties, too.

Remember too, much of what is heard and read is coming from people directly on the payroll of the parties or from paid advocacy groups and have a financial interest in promoting one candidate or another. I strongly suspect we have one here.

Yes, I agree. It strongly appears that we have at least one secret party 'operative' (party to remain unnamed) who receives direct daily updates from the *NC and uses this information to spread false and misleading information about another party and their candidates and members for the sole purpose of discrediting that party all the while either remaining silent or making excuses for bad behavior on the part of their party. It just goes to show that neither party is beneath all sorts of dirty tricks to manipulate and con those who can be conned.

[ki4kxq]

I agree with part of your assessment. George Bush has suffered from his own inability to get his ideas and reasons for some of the things he has done, out to the people. One thing about GW, he is a very principled man, he does what he thinks is the right thing to do, however, without articulating that to the American people, he allowed himself to be demonized at every turn.

Obama is peddling the hope message but he is no Ronald Reagan. Obama is barely ahead in the polls and electoral count. That could change and he could take off, or McCain/Palin could very well take off. Obama has nowhere near sealed the deal. We will not see a huge landslide victory with either side that we saw with Reagan in 80. Also, we have a much different economy than we had in 1980. As much as Obama and the media try to sell it, the numbers don't bear out their complaints. Some areas of the country are in trouble, but overall, the economy is fine. Unemployment is extremely low, interest rates are down, inflation is down. They are not getting much traction out of their economy message.

The diehards are already protesting. Obama has gone from "I will immediately start to withdraw troops" to "I will withdraw troops in a reasonable manner" to "I will keep troops in Iraq for some time". At this point, McCain will have troops out of Iraq faster than Obama, and the far left is not liking this one bit.

Again, I stick to the basic premise that republicans are voted out of office by their own when they stray from conservatism. It's not so much even the social conservative agenda, but the fiscal end. If you pass yourself off as a conservative, and you go to Washington and start spending money like a drunken sailor, we will vote you out. If you raise taxes and increase the size and scope of the federal government, we will vote you out. Is abortion a critical deal? It used to be, but conservatives just want someone to appoint judges that can actually read and follow the constitution. Even liberal scholars have said that the Roe v Wade decision is flawed. Again, it is the states that should be making the decisions as far as gay marriage, education, etc. This keeps those important decisions where they should be, with the people affected. What the hell does a bunch of lackey senators and congressmen know about your school district and it's particular challenges. NOTHING! Keep them out of the decision making, it belongs to the states.

[Sanslines]

McCain will have troops out of Iraq faster than Obama, and the far left is not liking this one bit.


The point that McCain keeps hammering away at is that the troops will come home not as failures (as was the case in Vietnam) but as individuals who accomplished something of value to make their extreme sacrifice worthwhile. This is VERY important to the psyche and moral of the American troops. Anyone who has ever served in the armed forces will immediately understand that there is nothing more demoralizing then paying such a heavy price for something that in the end was considered a complete and utter failure. Some good MUST come out of Iraq if the sacrifice of so many is to mean anything.

[Sanslines]

Again, I stick to the basic premise that republicans are voted out of office by their own when they stray from conservatism. It's not so much even the social conservative agenda, but the fiscal end.

Reagan strayed from the conservative philosophy that he held when he entered office. He pledged fiscal conservative policy and yet during his tenior, government grew in size and the budget deficit exploded. His justification for the exploding deficit was mainly due to the enormous increase in military spending that was necessary to negotiate an end to the cold war from a position of strength. In the end rational people understood this as history has shown that Bill Clinton enjoyed the 'peace dividend' and was not constrained by the ever increasing costs of funding the cold war as had been his predecessors.

[Qikdraw]

I think you all have missed the point of picking Palin as McCain's running mate. It was not to bring hard core Hillary supporters to the fold, that wasn't going to happen. It was to bring together a republican base that was very lukewarm towards McCain. She has done that in spades. The republicans needed some fresh new CONSERVATIVE faces. We are tired of the same old hanger ons that are not conservative and want to try to out spend the democrats, including John McCain.

And that is horrible for the Republican party. I've said it before that when you have to spend political capital on your base, your fighting a losing battle.

[Qikdraw]

One of the major problems with the Republican Party is that this party has lost it's real identity. The Republican Party has shifted too far to the right and alienated many moderates. The Republican Party mainly appeals to a small group of hard core conservatives and this group is not large enough to be able to win an election. I think that this election will result in an Obama victory and once elected Obama will be forced to govern as a centrist in the same way that Bill Clinton was forced to become more of a centrist.

I agree. The republican 'brand' has been marred by these past 8 years. Too much corruption, too much secrecy, too much listening to the extreme right has really turned a lot of republicans off.

Although the way the democrats have rolled over on key issues has a lot of people pissed at the democrats too.

All in all I think a lot of people are really getting tired of the same ol' same ol' politics. Which I think is why Obama's message of change is resonating with a lot of people across the board. Will he do it? I don't know, but people really don't want to see the same things happening like the last 8 years.

This election will be a major wake up call for the Republican Party in that they need to reevaluate what exactly they represent other then holding the line on out of control tax increases.

Of course you mean out of control tax cuts that have severely hurt our economy.

Obama will most likely win this election by appealing to a very broad spectrum of people and avoiding the hate and country dividing rhetoric that extremists from both sides engage in. The extremists from both sides are NO solution and they are certainly a major part of the 'problem'.

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..
Samuel Adams

It was true back then and is true now. In some ways its good that the radical right has been in control these past 8 years as it will swing peole back to the centrist position that is best for all.

[Qikdraw]

Remember too, much of what is heard and read is coming from people directly on the payroll of the parties or from paid advocacy groups and have a financial interest in promoting one candidate or another. I strongly suspect we have one here.

Oh come on! Now you are saying people are PAID to promote Obama on a nudist site? Please! You have zero proof of this, this is just sour grapes. Throwing out accusations without proof is the sign of a weak arguement.

[usmc1]

Yep. Applies to both parties, too.

Remember too, much of what is heard and read is coming from people directly on the payroll of the parties or from paid advocacy groups and have a financial interest in promoting one candidate or another. I strongly suspect we have one here.

Who, I want to know. Seriously, let me in on it. Please, I want a piece of the action. I didn't know you could get paid for ringing up conservative BS...how cool is that. Really? Man I want me some. Have fun and get paid too.

And here I've been doing it all along as matter of conviction, ideology and love of country and as a shove back against thugs and bullies. And someone's getting paid for doing the same things, dang, I want my share. LOL

[usmc1]

And that is horrible for the Republican party. I've said it before that when you have to spend political capital on your base, your fighting a losing battle.

Sixty days out, and they're still grappling with energizing "part" of their base. Desparate people do desparate things.

But, keeps your ears to the railroad track, there is a big old nasty shocker in the works as regards Madam Governor.

[rone]

Why are the negative votes divided between 2 categories? (#2 and #4 on the list). Doesn't this bias the poll results? If you add the two together, then that's the winner so far. Pollsterism at its best, IMO.

[Sanslines]

Of course you mean out of control tax cuts that have severely hurt our economy.

You are referring to taxes at the federal level. I am speaking in overall generalities at the federal, state, and local levels. One of my friends just received his school property tax bill and his taxes have increased by 18 percent over last year. He absolutely needs the federal tax cuts in order to be able to pay the ever increasing state and local taxes. What one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.

We have all be warned that the state of NY is going to balance their budget on the backs of the taxpayers by requiring that the counties find the monies to pay for state mandated programs. This way the state balances their deficit spending and the counties are forced to do the dirty work of raising taxes. Property taxes must increase by double digits unless the county executives find a way to stop the state from bankrupting the counties. In NY State, there is a complicated tax program called the STAR program which lowers the costs of property taxes for select groups, such as the elderly, but passes on the full costs to the young, working people. The tax burdens are too high as is and continue to get higher hence why young people are leaving the state. So there are indeed limits as to how much tax people can be forced to pay before they find ways to rebel such as relocating to a lower tax state.

[usmc1]

Why are the negative votes divided between 2 categories? (#2 and #4 on the list). Doesn't this bias the poll results? If you add the two together, then that's the winner so far. Pollsterism at its best, IMO.

HUH? There's a Yes, No, Should but won't, and a you lousy commie, liberal stinkpot, why would you ask such a question option. How do those bias anything.

What would have liked for me to add to the options. Cheeez, everyone's a critic around here!

[rone]

HUH? There's a Yes, No, Should but won't, and a you lousy commie, liberal stinkpot, why would you ask such a question option. How do those bias anything.

What would have liked for me to add to the options. Cheeez, everyone's a critic around here!


It's 8+12=20 (1+3) vs 12+20=32 (2+4) in my mind. And you're the first calling me a liberal. Couldn't be further from the truth.

When you are in the voting booth, You vote either up or down for a single candidate. There ain't 4 choices, only 2.

[usmc1]

It's 8+12 (1+3) vs 12+20 (2+4) in my mind. And you're the first calling me a liberal. Couldn't be further from the truth.
rone didn't call you nuthin, dude, I was refering to the last question option, not you. I was citing the four question options, what would have put in there that I didn't?

Again:

Yes she will withdraw.

No she will not.

Yes she should, but won't

No, she shouldn't and etc....

I thought that would cover all the nuances of the issues. Watza mattah, you don't do nuance?

[rone]

Well, I won't troll your poll further. It's 32, to 20 against, so far, IMO. And, that's the way I see it.

[Qikdraw]

You are referring to taxes at the federal level. I am speaking in overall generalities at the federal, state, and local levels. One of my friends just received his school property tax bill and his taxes have increased by 18 percent over last year. He absolutely needs the federal tax cuts in order to be able to pay the ever increasing state and local taxes. What one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.

Well that goes into a circular arguement though... Tax cuts lead to less federal money, so cuts need to be made to state funding, so the state has to pick up the rest somehow, and raises taxes. Its a circle.

I don't now if you've heard but Arnie here is asking for a 1% raise in sales tax here. Of course he still wants to keep tax cuts, but he wants to raise sales tax on every single Californian. I would have no problem with this, if that 1% or even 2 or 3% sales tax increase was only used to pay down Califnornia's debt, but its not going to that, its to make up money he is giving away in tax cuts.

We have all be warned that the state of NY is going to balance their budget on the backs of the taxpayers by requiring that the counties find the monies to pay for state mandated programs. This way the state balances their deficit spending and the counties are forced to do the dirty work of raising taxes. Property taxes must increase by double digits unless the county executives find a way to stop the state from bankrupting the counties. In NY State, there is a complicated tax program called the STAR program which lowers the costs of property taxes for select groups, such as the elderly, but passes on the full costs to the young, working people. The tax burdens are too high as is and continue to get higher hence why young people are leaving the state. So there are indeed limits as to how much tax people can be forced to pay before they find ways to rebel such as relocating to a lower tax state.

Well that is my point, if we cut taxes on the wealthy or large corporations we end up taxing the working class higher because the federal dollars are not there.

I don't disagree with tax cuts for corporations, but I don't agree with tax cuts for corporations so they can make profits. If they need help expanding, retooling, etc... Something that will actually help a company grow and provide more jobs, but I completely disagree with tax cuts for companies, such as the oil companies, that are making large profits. All that is is a waste of money.

Here is something I have been saying for a few years that I think is just common sense.

No tax cits for companies that outsource.
No tax cuts for companies that offshore.
No government contracts for companies that outsource.
No government contracts for companies that offshore.
Military government contracts are handled by 100% American owned companies.
No governent contracts for companies that haven't been paying their taxes. (which is currently not even checked)

Do this and not only will the government get more money, but more jobs for Americans are created. I feel this is simple, straightforward and really a nobrainer.

[Qikdraw]

Well, I won't troll your poll further. It's 32, to 20 against, so far, IMO. And, that's the way I see it.

You're right, but the poll also doesn't show if you're republican or democrat, because I guarentee you a few on the democrat side voted 'no', to keep her in the race, and I'm sure there are a few republicans who would vote 'yes' to want someone else to be VP.

I voted yes she should leave because I think this is too much of a political move, rather than what is good for the country if the republicans win. I think there are far better qualified people in the Republican party than her.

[usmc1]

Well, I won't troll your poll further. It's 32, to 20 against, so far, IMO. And, that's the way I see it.
Well yeeeeaaah! And so could anyone with the ability to cipher all the way up to 32. I don't get your point, it's right out there for you to see.

20 think she will or should and 32 think she won't or ought not. What's so complicated about that? No one's arguing with your math. But, who called you a troll or liberal, not me.

[Croydon]

The truth is that Obama is struggling in the polls. He is nowhere near in safe territory and is losing ground daily.



That is NOT the truth AT ALL. Obama has NOT been struggling in the polls and the current polls DO NOT reflect your above statement.

The gallup DAILY poll still has Obama up 8% above McCain. The poll was updated as of yesterday. In fact, the poll stated that the GOP convention has yet to have any negative effects on Obama's standing.

Other polls including Rasmussen, Quinnipiac and USA Today show Obama with a lead anywhere b/w 6-8%.

In fact, he has gotten a bump in two crucial voter groups: women and independents. He currently heads McCain among independents and before the convention, McCain was the one with a 3% lead among that group.

I have been nothing with a lot of the conservative posters, ESPECIALLY YOU, have been posting a lot of misleading or exaggerated statements about Obama. Do you not follow the election or just stating what you THINK you believe.

Mark and many others have been providing a lot of evidence to your false statements.

[Naturist Mark]

The diehards are already protesting. Obama has gone from "I will immediately start to withdraw troops" to "I will withdraw troops in a reasonable manner" to "I will keep troops in Iraq for some time". At this point, McCain will have troops out of Iraq faster than Obama, and the far left is not liking this one bit.

False.

You really gotta stop believing everything you hear Glenn, Sean, Bill or Rush say without running them through the fact checker.

On a timetable to withdraw from Iraq (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/604/)We reviewed Obama's statements on Iraq from the campaign to try to uncover whether he was backtracking on earlier promises. Iraq was one of the most pressing issues of the Democratic primary campaign, discussed and dissected during more than 20 debates.

We found that Obama has made a few points about Iraq over and over again: that he opposed the war "from the start"; that U.S. troops should leave Iraq quickly and in an orderly fashion ("as careful getting out as we were careless getting in"); and that the United States should not have permanent bases inside Iraq.

...

Weighing all these statements together, we find that Obama has not flip-flopped on Iraq, but that he has emphasized different aspects of his plan under questioning. This rates a No Flip on the Flip-O-Meter scale.

-Mark

[Boreas]

You are referring to taxes at the federal level. I am speaking in overall generalities at the federal, state, and local levels. One of my friends just received his school property tax bill and his taxes have increased by 18 percent over last year. He absolutely needs the federal tax cuts in order to be able to pay the ever increasing state and local taxes. What one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.

Yes, the notion of "tax cuts" is just a shell game. Cut here, add there. I do not know about the US system. I know that in the 90's the Canadian federal government cut federal taxes and subsequently transfer payments to the provinces. Then the provinces had to cut services or raise taxes. If they cut taxes and transfer payments to the municipalities, then the municipalities had to pay. Ultimately, it was the citizen who paid. Oh, and then Ontario cut taxes and introduced "user fees". You might "save" $700 in taxes, but you'd be paying $750 to user fees.....to the same pot as you would have put your taxes into.

Shell games all.

[Sanslines]

Yes, the notion of "tax cuts" is just a shell game. Cut here, add there. I do not know about the US system. I know that in the 90's the Canadian federal government cut federal taxes and subsequently transfer payments to the provinces. Then the provinces had to cut services or raise taxes. If they cut taxes and transfer payments to the municipalities, then the municipalities had to pay. Ultimately, it was the citizen who paid. Oh, and then Ontario cut taxes and introduced "user fees". You might "save" $700 in taxes, but you'd be paying $750 to user fees.....to the same pot as you would have put your taxes into.

Shell games all.

Yes, taxes are getting so bad here that I have read about a number of people from New York who are giving serious consideration to leaving New York and moving to Southern Ontario. At least the weather is MUCH better in Southern Ontario Province! With a 'Beer Store' and Tim Horton's within easy commuting distance from everywhere in Southern Ontario, what more could anyone ask for???

[Sanslines]

I don't now if you've heard but Arnie here is asking for a 1% raise in sales tax here. Of course he still wants to keep tax cuts, but he wants to raise sales tax on every single Californian. I would have no problem with this, if that 1% or even 2 or 3% sales tax increase was only used to pay down Califnornia's debt, but its not going to that, its to make up money he is giving away in tax cuts.

In San Diego, the sales tax is presently 7 3/4 %. Even if Arnie was to raise the sales tax, the monies would never pay down debt as California has a habitual problem of always spending more money then they have. There just will never be enough money to provide for the ever increasing enormous population.

[Qikdraw]

Yes, taxes are getting so bad here that I have read about a number of people from New York who are giving serious consideration to leaving New York and moving to Southern Ontario. At least the weather is MUCH better in Southern Ontario Province! With a 'Beer Store' and Tim Horton's within easy commuting distance from everywhere in Southern Ontario, what more could anyone ask for???

Oh man!! You had to mention Tim Horton's... I miss that place.

Meany! :p

[Qikdraw]

In San Diego, the sales tax is presently 7 3/4 %. Even if Arnie was to raise the sales tax, the monies would never pay down debt as California has a habitual problem of always spending more money then they have. There just will never be enough money to provide for the ever increasing enormous population.

Well yeah California has a big problem, which is why I don't like the tax cuts, nor did I like Arnie stopping the lawsuit against Enron for bilking Californians out of 9 billion. However you're right Cali needs big change.

[Naturist Mark]

Oh man!! You had to mention Tim Horton's... I miss that place.

Meany! :p

Really? We have then all over the place here in southern southern Ontario (AKA Ohio). And we can watch CBC too! (At least those of us on the north coast can.)

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

Really? We have then all over the place here in southern southern Ontario (AKA Ohio). And we can watch CBC too! (At least those of us on the north coast can.)

-Mark


The last one I saw was in Calgary in 2005. When my dad picked my wife & I up from the airport we went to an A&W for a teenburger and then to a Tim Horton's. :D On my way back into the US I was stopped at customs who laughed at my dill pickle potato chips, cause I can't get them here and apparently they see that all the time. :p

[Naturist Mark]

The last one I saw was in Calgary in 2005. When my dad picked my wife & I up from the airport we went to an A&W for a teenburger and then to a Tim Horton's. :D On my way back into the US I was stopped at customs who laughed at my dill pickle potato chips, cause I can't get them here and apparently they see that all the time. :p

OMG! We have dill pickle potato chips here, plus many other oddities from a wonderful company called Snyder's of Hanover. Suspiciously their Chips (http://snydersofhanover.stores.yahoo.net/flavpotchip.html) are not available for shipping to California. Probably the best thing they sell is broken pretzels (http://snydersofhanover.stores.yahoo.net/flavpotchip.html).

I bet Sarah Palin can't get Dill Pickle flavored potato chips in Wasilla!

(heh heh heh, back on topic!)

-Mark

[Boreas]

Yes, taxes are getting so bad here that I have read about a number of people from New York who are giving serious consideration to leaving New York and moving to Southern Ontario. At least the weather is MUCH better in Southern Ontario Province! With a 'Beer Store' and Tim Horton's within easy commuting distance from everywhere in Southern Ontario, what more could anyone ask for???

The weather is better in Southern Ontario than in NY State? Isn't it much the same?.......well, not including Buffalo of course with its 25 feet of snow! :sneaky:

[Boreas]

Oh man!! You had to mention Tim Horton's... I miss that place.

Meany! :p

Spoken like a true Canadian!

I had a fight with our local Timmie's so now I use the local coffee shops. Believe it or not, their coffee is MUCH better.

[usuallylurk]

I find this extremely puzzling. Please explain how an extreme right-wing woman could scare the Democrats.

Hell's bells, ma'am .... Ann "Cuckoo" Coulter could scare the bejeebers out of anyone -- and I don't mean politically.

And I don't like Timmie's donuts, or coffee. We have one of the best local chains in this area - Heavenly Donuts. They trump even Dunkin' Donuts.

[usmc1]

Watch, Read Speech... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html)Former Bush Speechwriter: "Pretty Disappointing"... National Review: "Flat, Forced"... David Gergen: "Mostly A Rerun Of A Lot Of Old Republican Ideas"... New Republic: "No Overarching Themes"... CNN'S Jeffrey Toobin: Worst Speech By Nominee Since Jimmy Carter In 1980... NY Times Blog: Some Delegates Fell Asleep... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-speech-reacti_n_124115.html) WATCH: Speech Interrupted By Iraq Vet Heckler (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/mccain-speech-interrupted_n_124106.html)

[Sanslines]

The weather is better in Southern Ontario than in NY State? Isn't it much the same?.......well, not including Buffalo of course with its 25 feet of snow! :sneaky:

The weather is MUCH better in Southern Ontario as compared to New York State for in Winter the cold, dry air that comes from the northwest sweeps across Lake Erie or Lake Ontario, picks up lake moisture amd dumps tons of snow on this side of the border.

[usmc1]

The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.

To know what it is, or likely to do anywhere in the world go here: intellicast.com

But, may I please ask, why is the thread being hijacked off topic?

[Naturist Mark]

But, may I please ask, why is the thread being hijacked off topic?

C'mon, tell the truth. When talking about folk from the snowy north country which do you prefer? Friendly hosers who worship hockey or a perky neo-con with a vindictive streak?

-Mark

[usmc1]

C'mon, tell the truth. When talking about folk from the snowy north country which do you prefer? Friendly hosers who worship hockey or a perky neo-con with a vindictive streak?

-Mark

Why those loveable, friendly, igloo-living, hosers from the Great North, of course--so nevermind, I concede.

[Boreas]

The weather is MUCH better in Southern Ontario as compared to New York State for in Winter the cold, dry air that comes from the northwest sweeps across Lake Erie or Lake Ontario, picks up lake moisture amd dumps tons of snow on this side of the border.

Ah, the ever popular "lake effect" snow! :) I don't miss that.

[Boreas]

Why those loveable, friendly, igloo-living, hosers from the Great North, of course--so nevermind, I concede.

:rotflmao::doh:shocked


Okay, so what is up with Governor Palin today?

*small attempt to bring it back to topic.

[Sanslines]

:rotflmao::doh:shocked


Okay, so what is up with Governor Palin today?

*small attempt to bring it back to topic.


:musicband:

:eatpopcorn:

:snowman:

[usmc1]

:rotflmao::doh:shocked


Okay, so what is up with Governor Palin today?

*small attempt to bring it back to topic.

Chickens are gathering to come home to roost. Seems those snarky bastards over at the Inquirer have dispatched the same team to Alaska that so effectively trashed john Edwards. The chum has been tossed in the water, the scent of blood is spreading, the water is roiling, and the sharks are circling.

McCain has a legal team up there trying to stymie the trooper-gate hearings and investigation and new e-mails of A-Palin-ing's deep involvement have surfaced. But, each day is a new revelation.

Also, national pundits have already begun deconstructing her speech and pointing out the lies.

[ki4kxq]

That is NOT the truth AT ALL. Obama has NOT been struggling in the polls and the current polls DO NOT reflect your above statement.

The gallup DAILY poll still has Obama up 8% above McCain. The poll was updated as of yesterday. In fact, the poll stated that the GOP convention has yet to have any negative effects on Obama's standing.

Other polls including Rasmussen, Quinnipiac and USA Today show Obama with a lead anywhere b/w 6-8%.

In fact, he has gotten a bump in two crucial voter groups: women and independents. He currently heads McCain among independents and before the convention, McCain was the one with a 3% lead among that group.

I have been nothing with a lot of the conservative posters, ESPECIALLY YOU, have been posting a lot of misleading or exaggerated statements about Obama. Do you not follow the election or just stating what you THINK you believe.

Mark and many others have been providing a lot of evidence to your false statements.


Maybe you should look at the new polls out today. Rasmussen poll today has Obama at 48% and McCain at 46%, CBS news has them tied 42% each, Gallup Daily has them at 49% to 42% Obama, CNN has Obama up by 4pts, and the last poll results from Zogby give McCain the edge 47% to 45%.

Again I state, Obama is struggling in the polls. If the economy, the war and everything else is as bad as the Obama team would have us believe, and if Sarah Palin is not qualified, and if McCain is more of the same, Obama should be double digits above McCain. Most of these polls were taken before the republican convention was over, so McCain may make up even more ground.

[Sanslines]

Most of these polls were taken before the republican convention was over, so McCain may make up even more ground.

I dunno about that. It appears that Palin's speech was rated higher then MCCain. When asked, even Obama had to remind the reporters that he is running against McCain for president - NOT Palin. Palin is certainly a more dynamic speaker then McCain and if she is not careful she will 'overwhelm' him.

[ki4kxq]

I dunno about that. It appears that Palin's speech was rated higher then MCCain. When asked, even Obama had to remind the reporters that he is running against McCain for president - NOT Palin. Palin is certainly a more dynamic speaker then McCain and if she is not careful she will 'overwhelm' him.


Funny you should say that. As I was looking at polls today, one showed that Palin now has a more favorable rating than McCain AND Obama. Only time will tell, the next 2 months are going to be interesting. The dynamic as I see it now though puts McCain and Palin in a more favorable light. Obama, who started out as a non politician, or at least that's how he was selling himself, is now viewed more as a Washington insider. Polls bear that out too. Heard one last night that showed young people likely to vote has gone from 42% to 22%. Not good news for Obama. Sarah Palin is now seen as the outsider to bring shake ups to DC. That could change, but, that is how it stands now. We'll just have to see

[ki4kxq]

False.

You really gotta stop believing everything you hear Glenn, Sean, Bill or Rush say without running them through the fact checker.

On a timetable to withdraw from Iraq (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/604/)We reviewed Obama's statements on Iraq from the campaign to try to uncover whether he was backtracking on earlier promises. Iraq was one of the most pressing issues of the Democratic primary campaign, discussed and dissected during more than 20 debates.

We found that Obama has made a few points about Iraq over and over again: that he opposed the war "from the start"; that U.S. troops should leave Iraq quickly and in an orderly fashion ("as careful getting out as we were careless getting in"); and that the United States should not have permanent bases inside Iraq.

...

Weighing all these statements together, we find that Obama has not flip-flopped on Iraq, but that he has emphasized different aspects of his plan under questioning. This rates a No Flip on the Flip-O-Meter scale.

-Mark


Went and read the whole link. Have plenty of time to do so today because of truck in the shop. What I read was nothing more than opinion. The article itself stated that some delcarations from Obama's campaign on the issue were troubling. That's just it, all of this stuff is opinion. My opinion, and obviously it is the same as some of the more rabid anti-war protest groups, is that Obama is trying to work himself a great deal of wiggle room in his withdrawl policy. You say different, that's your take and that's ok. However, when a candidate has to come back and clarify his remarks, it is clear that more than a few people realized he was waffling.

Also, I drive at night, therefore I do not listen to Hannity. We have satellite radio, both xm and sirius, so we don't get Rush. Most nights I either listen to the trucking radio which discusses a variety of issues including politics, or audiobooks on the ipod. Just finished Ann Coulter's latest. I listen to Obama himself, then compare it to what I have heard before.

[hm0504]

...

Also, national pundits have already begun deconstructing her speech and pointing out the lies.

Wouldn't the pundits save themselves a lot of work if they just aimed to point out any truths that might have accidentally got included in the speech?

[usmc1]

Wouldn't the pundits save themselves a lot of work if they just aimed to point out any truths that might have accidentally got included in the speech?

They tried, and couldn't find any.:laugh:

Thanks, Ollie:D

[usmc1]

Funny you should say that. As I was looking at polls today, one showed that Palin now has a more favorable rating than McCain AND Obama. Only time will tell, the next 2 months are going to be interesting. The dynamic as I see it now though puts McCain and Palin in a more favorable light. Obama, who started out as a non politician, or at least that's how he was selling himself, is now viewed more as a Washington insider. Polls bear that out too. Heard one last night that showed young people likely to vote has gone from 42% to 22%. Not good news for Obama. Sarah Palin is now seen as the outsider to bring shake ups to DC. That could change, but, that is how it stands now. We'll just have to see
Electoral votes after pulling ahead in ND.

<TABLE width="100%" summary="President, Senate, House scores" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE class=score1 summary=""><TBODY><TR><TD class=score>Obama 301 McCain 224 Ties 13 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><!-- Senate box score --><TD><TABLE class=score2 summary=""><TBODY><TR><TD class=score>Senate (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Sep05-s.html) Dem 56 GOP 43 Ties 1 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><!-- House box score --><TD><TABLE class=score3 summary=""><TBODY><TR><TD class=score>House (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/House/house_races.html) Dem 243 GOP 192 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[ki4kxq]

Actually, Reuter/Zogby now have McCain at 46% to Obama's 41%. To say that the electoral count is locked up is lunacy. Polls are really no indicator now as to what will happen in November. They do however, show a trend. The trend at this point in time is that McCain is rising and Obama is struggling.

[usmc1]

Actually, Reuter/Zogby now have McCain at 46% to Obama's 41%. To say that the electoral count is locked up is lunacy. Polls are really no indicator now as to what will happen in November. They do however, show a trend. The trend at this point in time is that McCain is rising and Obama is struggling.

Wow, all that and we haven't even seen the convention "bounce" yet. Oh me, oh my alas and alack, it's all over...wait, didn't Peggy Noonan say that, but then later her plausible denial kicked in and what she really meant was....

Well nevermind, I am so distraught, that I'm going to have to take a nap.

We'll see.

Oh wait, well lookie here. Gallup updates, and there's that bump for MCain. But, it's as I've said all along, every time McCain gets a little uptick, people don't leave Obama, and the uptick never sticks to McCain. McCain picks up a couple of points by Obama only gives up one. Obama support is solid, McCains is soft. It's been all McCain and Palin all week, and this is the best they can do? They are in a big hurt!

Now that I can sleep easy though, I might take a big old long nap!

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDaily.aspx) from Tuesday through Thursday finds Barack Obama with a four-percentage-point lead over John McCain in the presidential preferences of registered voters, 48% to 44%.
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080905DailyUpdateGraph1_plmnhtf.gif

[Qikdraw]

Watch, Read Speech... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html)Former Bush Speechwriter: "Pretty Disappointing"... National Review: "Flat, Forced"... David Gergen: "Mostly A Rerun Of A Lot Of Old Republican Ideas"... New Republic: "No Overarching Themes"... CNN'S Jeffrey Toobin: Worst Speech By Nominee Since Jimmy Carter In 1980... NY Times Blog: Some Delegates Fell Asleep... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-speech-reacti_n_124115.html) WATCH: Speech Interrupted By Iraq Vet Heckler (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/mccain-speech-interrupted_n_124106.html)

I think it was in poor taste for the heckler to be in there.

Here is my take on radicals from both sides:

The radical left likes to disrupt events, basically trying to stop people from being able to share their views. An example is the Iraq Vet Heckler.

The radical right likes to shout over the speaker and drown them out. Watch an interview from the Young Turks where they interview 'hip hop republican' founder.

Both accomplish the same goal in different ways. Both are wrong.

[Qikdraw]

I dunno about that. It appears that Palin's speech was rated higher then MCCain. When asked, even Obama had to remind the reporters that he is running against McCain for president - NOT Palin. Palin is certainly a more dynamic speaker then McCain and if she is not careful she will 'overwhelm' him.

Delivery wise I think Palin is far better than McCain. I think after this election she'll be considered a rising star of the Republican party. I do not douibt that she'll seek a senate spot after she stops being governor. Possibly Ted Steven's spot.

[brazhunter]

Both accomplish the same goal in different ways. Both are wrong.

Agreed. And then they want to bawl about their First Amendment rights being trampled while that's exactly what they're trying to do to others who have different views.

Having said that, I think the bulk of the protesters at both conventions are people who just getting a kick out of raising hell, being destructive, and disruptive. I suspect many of them were the same people.

[usmc1]

I think it was in poor taste for the heckler to be in there.

Here is my take on radicals from both sides:

The radical left likes to disrupt events, basically trying to stop people from being able to share their views. An example is the Iraq Vet Heckler.

The radical right likes to shout over the speaker and drown them out. Watch an interview from the Young Turks where they interview 'hip hop republican' founder.

Both accomplish the same goal in different ways. Both are wrong.

You know, America used to have a fine tradition of "heckling" politicians, in a give and take way. It was part of your skill as an orator to be able to handle it. Now, they are so scripted, so on message, that they don't have the ability for the give and take that ought to be there.

We see it with McClains crowd right now, "report on our press releases but don't ask any questions--that's rude".

It also used to be part of the American tradition that those with issues could gather together and voice those issues. Now those people are labeled "radicals".

Now such people are marginalized and forced out of sight, and beaten down by gun thugs, and bullies with clubs, which sanitizes the process, and keeps the narrative right where the vested interests, MSM and politicians want it.

Aggrieved conservatives ought to be able to shout at Obama, be heard, and get a response, other than tear gas, mace or club up alongside the head. And vice versa.

And, as we saw last night, we've reached a point where the response to dissent is to "shout it down".

Even our so-called "debates" are namby pamby affairs, town hall meetings are by invitation against a staged back drop, and ...well you get my drift.

[baregreg]

usmc1

I thought you were going to go and take a nap :zzz::D

[usmc1]

usmc1

I thought you were going to go and take a nap :zzz::D

LOL, dang old cats and dogs and phones, but I awoke reinvigorated.:)

[Qikdraw]

Agreed. And then they want to bawl about their First Amendment rights being trampled while that's exactly what they're trying to do to others who have different views.

A long time ago my mother paid to go see a speaker at a rented out auditorium at the university. He was a religious speaker who was anti-abortion, anti gay marriage. Well the radicals shoed up and completely stopped him from speaking, the police were there and did nothing to stop the people disrupting the event. They just watched. Some peole stood in a circle hoding hands and praying and these people did everything they could to break that up, yet the police did nothing.

My roommate came home after hearing about this and was soooo happy! He said this was a blow against intolerance and these people should not be allowed to push their hate onto other people. We got into an arguement because I called him intolerant of other people's views. While I agree with his stance on the issues, I disagree with trampling on other people's rights. The arguement ended with him stomping out the door still yelling. :D

[hm0504]

Oh come on now. The only poll that counts is the one on election day -- that is when the true will of the Diebold voting machines, er, I mean, of the American people will be heard.

[usmc1]

And here it is. The expected convention "bounce". But, guys, seriously, as I keep saying, McCain get's these upticks that don't quit close the gap,and then it fades. It's like the guy with the ends of the rope that can get the ends to touch, but just can't figure out how to get the knot tied.

Also, the clusters and cohorts within the data looks fairly good for Obama.

I'm not saying it won't be a fight, but, for the McCain camp to be constantly playing catch-up, throwing negativity, engaging the culture divide, and attempting to energize evangelicals (and thereby strengthen Dobson's choke hold on the party) by bringing a holy-roller mediocrity into the race, is not wonderful for them. After all that, Obama still leads by 2.

They really must be, at this point, scratching their butts and sending e-mails to Rove.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's advantage over John McCain has been shrinking since the start of the Republican National Convention, and is now down to just two percentage points -- 47% to 45% -- too close to call. This is according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDaily.aspx) from Wednesday through Friday, Sept. 3-5.
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080906DailyUpdateGraph1_bnaskd1.gif

[Procrastinator]

:rotflmao::doh:shocked


Okay, so what is up with Governor Palin today?

*small attempt to bring it back to topic.


Although her handlers have tried to avoid it at all costs, she gave her first interview, to of all people, Mike Malloy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mThW5FdQO7g&feature=related).

Joe

[usmc1]

Although her handlers have tried to avoid it at all costs, she gave her first interview, to of all people, Mike Malloy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mThW5FdQO7g&feature=related).

Joe

Hhhhmmm. One just faces a toss up here, laugh hysterically or crawl into the far corner of a darkened room and begin sobbing uncontrollably. It's come to this, my god, we are dooooooomed!

[Qikdraw]

Although her handlers have tried to avoid it at all costs, she gave her first interview, to of all people, Mike Malloy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mThW5FdQO7g&feature=related).

Joe

Just in case those without a sense of humour... This is a farce...

[Procrastinator]

That was Mike's wife, Kathy Bay. She also does a great Laura 'Pickles' Bush.

MikeMalloy.com (http://www.mikemalloy.com/live/)

Joe

[Sanslines]

That was Mike's wife, Kathy Bay. She also does a great Laura 'Pickles' Bush.

MikeMalloy.com (http://www.mikemalloy.com/live/)

Joe

Must be the hurricane today driving everyone bat crazy in the Lehigh Valley.

[Boreas]

Just in case those without a sense of humour... This is a farce...

A pretty funny one too :D

[hm0504]

"Republicans born again":

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/09/07/6688716-sun.php

Also, not all fundamentalist Christians are pro-Palin[1]:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2008/09/05/6677526-sun.php

(Like I said before, I don't having a 17-yr. old pregnant teen daughter should stop someone (male or female) from running for Pres. or V-Pres. (though I sympathize with usmc1's views about not showcasing her), but running while having a new baby with Down's syndrome does raise some ethical issues in my mind.

[Bob S.]

hm: "but running while having a new baby with Down's syndrome does raise some ethical issues in my mind."

What kind of ethical issues? She has a husband who can take care of their children. They can hire nannies, specifically one with experience in children with disabilities. If a man was running for VP, would those same ethical concerns come into your mind?

I see no problem with Palin running for VP while also dealing with her infant son's medical conditions. There are no ethical issues that i can think of.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

Those are interesting articles Albinus. I particularly like the first. It is scary that so many people take the bible literally. I fail to see how that is different from those who alledgedly take the Qu'ran literally.

[Sanslines]

hm: "but running while having a new baby with Down's syndrome does raise some ethical issues in my mind."

What kind of ethical issues? She has a husband who can take care of their children. They can hire nannies, specifically one with experience in children with disabilities. If a man was running for VP, would those same ethical concerns come into your mind?

I see no problem with Palin running for VP while also dealing with her infant son's medical conditions. There are no ethical issues that i can think of.

Bob S.

Palin has a son who is shortly going to leave for Iraq. I am waiting for the lynch mob to start attacking her over that. It is one thing to disagree with her over her stance on issues. However, personal attack is quite a different story. The radical hate mongers feel perfectly justified to attack her with a vengeance and then cry foul when she attacks them back.

Concerning this particular topic ie about caring for a downs baby, as you have mentioned Palin can afford to hire all of the help that she needs for this special needs child.

[Naturist Mark]

Palin has a son who is shortly going to leave for Iraq. I am waiting for the lynch mob to start attacking her over that.

You are aware that Joe Biden has a son who is also being deployed to Iraq next month. I haven't heard anyone on either side attack either VP candidate over their son's impending deployments, nor of John McCain's son James who returned from an Iraq deployment earlier this year.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

Also, the clusters and cohorts within the data looks fairly good for Obama.

I'm not saying it won't be a fight

Gallup Poll Daily tracking (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDaily.aspx) from Wednesday through Friday, Sept. 3-5.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080906DailyUpdateGraph1_bnaskd1.gif

Obama has been consistently ahead, and due to a known quirk in the way the polls are made - ignoring the demographic that eschews land lines in favor of cell phones - Obama's numbers are probably even better.

But it isn't enough.

There is every indication that 2008 will make the election stealing chicanery that occurred in 2000 and 2004 look mild. Ohio may very well be ground zero in the neo-con election theft machine just as it was in 2004. Nearly 600,000 Subject to Possible Caging in Ohio (http://www.truthout.org/article/nearly-600000-voters-subject-possible-caging-ohio)

And it isn't just Ohio

1/5th of voter registrations in Colorado have been purged - and the purged voters do not know it. Guess their color.

HALF the voters in one of New Mexico's poorest counties have been purged. Guess their color.

Florida is refusing to accept 85,000 new voter registrations. Guess ...

Tens of thousands of voters who have had their homes foreclosed are being automatically expunged from voter rolls by federal law.

Thom Hartmann show MP3 (http://www.gregpalast.com/MultiMediaGallery/PalastandHartmann7-29-08.mp3)

In the 2006 midterm election in Ohio the Democrats won a near sweep in statewide offices over the thoroughly discredited corrupt Republican Party, but not by as much as they should have. Democrats won because their margins of victory were greater than what could be stolen - and record numbers were stolen. In some areas as many as 20% of votes were diverted, and statewide at least 6% of votes for Democrats were not counted, misplaced, flipped, made 'provisional' and never counted or were kept from being cast. But the major Democratic candidates won by margins greater than the theft.

And that is what Obama will have to do to win.

I'm guessing he needs at least a 10% margin in actual intentional votes in order to be counted as the winner.

These polls, and the electoral college maps, and all the other election forecasts that show an Obama victory assume a level playing field. Well it isn't level.

The only way Obama can win, is to win BIG

Right now we are on the road to another stolen election.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

You are aware that Joe Biden has a son who is also being deployed to Iraq next month. I haven't heard anyone on either side attack either VP candidate over their son's impending deployments, nor of John McCain's son James who returned from an Iraq deployment earlier this year.

-Mark

Biden's family has remained out of the news so far. Palin's family has not. Since Palin's family is already in the news and she is being badgered for interviews no doubt the issue will come up concerning her desire to spend time with her son before he deploys rather then grant interview after interview. When they media feels slighted, they attack.

[Sanslines]

Obama has been consistently ahead, and due to a known quirk in the way the polls are made - ignoring the demographic that eschews land lines in favor of cell phones - Obama's numbers are probably even better.

But it isn't enough.

There is every indication that 2008 will make the election stealing chicanery that occurred in 2000 and 2004 look mild. Ohio may very well be ground zero in the neo-con election theft machine just as it was in 2004. Nearly 600,000 Subject to Possible Caging in Ohio (http://www.truthout.org/article/nearly-600000-voters-subject-possible-caging-ohio)

And it isn't just Ohio

1/5th of voter registrations in Colorado have been purged - and the purged voters do not know it. Guess their color.

HALF the voters in one of New Mexico's poorest counties have been purged. Guess their color.

Florida is refusing to accept 85,000 new voter registrations. Guess ...

Tens of thousands of voters who have had their homes foreclosed are being automatically expunged from voter rolls by federal law.

Thom Hartmann show MP3 (http://www.gregpalast.com/MultiMediaGallery/PalastandHartmann7-29-08.mp3)

In the 2006 midterm election in Ohio the Democrats won a near sweep in statewide offices over the thoroughly discredited corrupt Republican Party, but not by as much as they should have. Democrats won because their margins of victory were greater than what could be stolen - and record numbers were stolen. In some areas as many as 20% of votes were diverted, and statewide at least 6% of votes for Democrats were not counted, misplaced, flipped, made 'provisional' and never counted or were kept from being cast. But the major Democratic candidates won by margins greater than the theft.

And that is what Obama will have to do to win.

I'm guessing he needs at least a 10% margin in actual intentional votes in order to be counted as the winner.

These polls, and the electoral college maps, and all the other election forecasts that show an Obama victory assume a level playing field. Well it isn't level.

The only way Obama can win, is to win BIG

Right now we are on the road to another stolen election.

-Mark

If the DNC honestly believes that this election is being 'stolen', then they take immediate legal action to prevent it from occuring. They don't endlessly whinge about it in the hopes of garnering sympathy votes unless such claims are mostly a political maneuver to gain more votes. They don't wait until after the election to claim that it was 'stolen' if they honestly believe that it is being 'stolen' right now. Those who complain about 'stolen' elections are part of the government and hence part of the legislative process. They should have introduced legislation to prevent 'stealing' unless they would rather do nothing more then go along for the ride and endlessly complain about the government of which they are supposed to be part of.

[usmc1]

Palin has a son who is shortly going to leave for Iraq. I am waiting for the lynch mob to start attacking her over that. It is one thing to disagree with her over her stance on issues. However, personal attack is quite a different story. The radical hate mongers feel perfectly justified to attack her with a vengeance and then cry foul when she attacks them back.

Concerning this particular topic ie about caring for a downs baby, as you have mentioned Palin can afford to hire all of the help that she needs for this special needs child.

What lynch mob are you referring to? What personal attack are you referring to? What radical hate-mongers are you referring to?

Straw men! And just more tsk,tsk and cluck-clucking.

Granted the Palins aren't like most of us, although that is how the McCain campaign is spinning her. Most of us confronted with the potential for abuse of power charges, a child with Down's Syndrome, another child pregnant and unmarried, and another family member engaged in a bitter divorce, custody drama would feel that we had quite enough on our plates and not take on the responsibilities of a political campaign.

As to not being before the public and press due to family needs---quite the load actually! She'll be there, when they get her sufficiently schooled. If her family were of primary importance, she'd not be in the campaign!

And back to the point of how the campaign is spinning her as being one of "us". Well yes, if we have become a nation of medicocre, self-absorbed, separatist, holy-rolling, nitwits. And, to that, I'd say there is a certain amount of evidence before us in this forum so that perhaps, to a substantial degree, we have.
.

[Naturist Mark]

If the DNC honestly believes that this election is being 'stolen', then they take immediate legal action to prevent it from occuring. They don't endlessly whinge about it in the hopes of garnering sympathy votes unless such claims are mostly a political maneuver to gain more votes. They don't wait until after the election to claim that it was 'stolen' if they honestly believe that it is being 'stolen' right now. Those who complain about 'stolen' elections are part of the government and hence part of the legislative process. They should have introduced legislation to prevent 'stealing' unless they would rather do nothing more then go along for the ride and endlessly complain about the government of which they are supposed to be part of.

The DNC has yet to take the theft of elections seriously. There is an incredible silence about it from elected officials and the corporate media. The few times it does get discussed it is usually dismissed as tinfoil hat stuff.

Most of the real grass roots work in exposing and remedying the problem has been left to the Green and Libertarian parties. Which is why they get my contributions.

-Mark

[brazhunter]

Why would an unknown quality bring panic? After all, all is fair in love and war right?

Unknown always disrupts the status quo.

[Boreas]

Unknown always disrupts the status quo.

Very true. And we need more than that to actually disrupt the status quo sufficiently enough to bring real change.

[hm0504]

hm: "but running while having a new baby with Down's syndrome does raise some ethical issues in my mind."

What kind of ethical issues? She has a husband who can take care of their children. They can hire nannies, specifically one with experience in children with disabilities. If a man was running for VP, would those same ethical concerns come into your mind?

I see no problem with Palin running for VP while also dealing with her infant son's medical conditions. There are no ethical issues that i can think of.

Bob S.

Bob, one of the critical needs of a newborn to the age of 2 years is breastfeeding -- ideally from the mother (or father in the rare cases where that is a possibility). I don't want to pry into the family details and I do not think women (or men) should have their careers unduly limited by biological necessities, but given that there is an issue here of biological necessity, I think it needs to be addressed in the sense that denying one's infant child breastfeeding would make me wary of that person's ethics. I suppose there is the possibility that Ms. Palin is physically unable to breastfeed (rare), that Mr. Palin will be doing the breastfeeding (very unlikely), or they'll use a wet nurse. Ideally, Ms. Palin, if she were to become VP, would keep her son constantly by her side and freely breastfeed him whenever the need arises. That would be a marvelous public health statement in a country (that is, the USA) where low breastfeeding rates contribute to an embarassingly high infant mortality rate.

[Sanslines]

Bob, one of the critical needs of a newborn to the age of 2 years is breastfeeding -- ideally from the mother (or father in the rare cases where that is a possibility). I don't want to pry into the family details and I do not think women (or men) should have their careers unduly limited by biological necessities, but given that there is an issue here of biological necessity, I think it needs to be addressed in the sense that denying one's infant child breastfeeding would make me wary of that person's ethics. I suppose there is the possibility that Ms. Palin is physically unable to breastfeed (rare), that Mr. Palin will be doing the breastfeeding (very unlikely), or they'll use a wet nurse. Ideally, Ms. Palin, if she were to become VP, would keep her son constantly by her side and freely breastfeed him whenever the need arises. That would be a marvelous public health statement in a country (that is, the USA) where low breastfeeding rates contribute to an embarassingly high infant mortality rate.

This all assumes that Palin agrees with breastfeeding. Many women do not. If Palin also does not, then this is a moot point.

[usmc1]

What lynch mob are you referring to? What personal attack are you referring to? What radical hate-mongers are you referring to?

Straw men! And just more tsk,tsk and cluck-clucking.

Granted the Palins aren't like most of us, although that is how the McCain campaign is spinning her. Most of us confronted with the potential for abuse of power charges, a child with Down's Syndrome, another child pregnant and unmarried, and another family member engaged in a bitter divorce, custody drama would feel that we had quite enough on our plates and not take on the responsibilities of a political campaign.

As to not being before the public and press due to family needs---quite the load actually! She'll be there, when they get her sufficiently schooled. If her family were of primary importance, she'd not be in the campaign!

And back to the point of how the campaign is spinning her as being one of "us". Well yes, if we have become a nation of medicocre, self-absorbed, separatist, holy-rolling, nitwits. And, to that, I'd say there is a certain amount of evidence before us in this forum so that perhaps, to a substantial degree, we have.
.

Might I please repeat the question regarding the lynch mob and hate-mongers?

[Qikdraw]

Biden's family has remained out of the news so far. Palin's family has not. Since Palin's family is already in the news and she is being badgered for interviews no doubt the issue will come up concerning her desire to spend time with her son before he deploys rather then grant interview after interview. When they media feels slighted, they attack.

When was the last time a VP pick went into hiding after being nominated? Apparently Leiberman and others are grilling her on issues, telling her how to answer. If she is so 'prepared' to lead why has she been sequestered away? This is completely unusual in a presidential race. When was the last time a VP pick didn't grant any interviews after being nominated? The media is rightly going after the McCain campaign about this.

[Sanslines]

When was the last time a VP pick went into hiding after being nominated? Apparently Leiberman and others are grilling her on issues, telling her how to answer. If she is so 'prepared' to lead why has she been sequestered away? This is completely unusual in a presidential race. When was the last time a VP pick didn't grant any interviews after being nominated? The media is rightly going after the McCain campaign about this.

Palin is not in 'hiding'. She is out actively campaigning. She is campaigning as she sees fit and does not have to conform to the media's demands. If they don't like it, then too bad. The media does not run this country...........or do they?

[hm0504]

This all assumes that Palin agrees with breastfeeding. Many women do not. If Palin also does not, then this is a moot point.

What do you mean by "agrees with breastfeeding" (just to make sure I understand you)? If you mean that Palin rejects the scientific view of the significant benefits of breastfeeding, then I would, frankly, disagree with her and, though I wouldn't call her a bad mother, it is something I would note wrt to the influence she would ultimately have on health and family policy.

[Boreas]

What do you mean by "agrees with breastfeeding" (just to make sure I understand you)? If you mean that Palin rejects the scientific view of the significant benefits of breastfeeding, then I would, frankly, disagree with her and, though I wouldn't call her a bad mother, it is something I would note wrt to the influence she would ultimately have on health and family policy.

I agree. Furthermore, I would wonder about the connections she, her husband and her children have. Is there the emotional connection that families need, and attunement? IF she does not believe in breastfeeding, does she hold and cuddle her children to connect in another way?

[Sanslines]

What do you mean by "agrees with breastfeeding" (just to make sure I understand you)? If you mean that Palin rejects the scientific view of the significant benefits of breastfeeding, then I would, frankly, disagree with her and, though I wouldn't call her a bad mother, it is something I would note wrt to the influence she would ultimately have on health and family policy.

There is a huge group of women who do not breastfeed for a wide variety of reasons. Don't say I agree with them, but then again that's my opinion and they are most certainly entitled to theirs as they are the ones who will or will not do the actual breastfeeding.

Do we know for a fact that Palin breastfeeds? Do we know for a fact that she does not breastfeed? If she does not breastfeed, then do we know her personal beliefs and reasons as to why she does not breastfeed?

[usmc1]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jf1y9s73Nos&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jf1y9s73Nos&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[hm0504]

There is a huge group of women who do not breastfeed for a wide variety of reasons. Don't say I agree with them, but then again that's my opinion and they are most certainly entitled to theirs as they are the ones who will or will not do the actual breastfeeding.

Do we know for a fact that Palin breastfeeds? Do we know for a fact that she does not breastfeed? If she does not breastfeed, then do we know her personal beliefs and reasons as to why she does not breastfeed?

Only a tiny percentage of women are unable to breastfeed. Given the significant health benefits derived from breastfeeding for both mother and child, if Ms. Palin (is able to and) is not doing so presently she is making a poor choice; if she is breastfeeding and will greatly limit it due to her VP functions, then she is making an ethically questionable choice; if she is breastfeeding currently and she will not let her VP duties interfere with her breastfeeding, then she is admirable indeed.

[usmc1]

Only a tiny percentage of women are unable to breastfeed. Given the significant health benefits derived from breastfeeding for both mother and child, if Ms. Palin (is able to and) is not doing so presently she is making a poor choice; if she is breastfeeding and will greatly limit it due to her VP functions, then she is making an ethically questionable choice; if she is breastfeeding currently and she will not let her VP duties interfere with her breastfeeding, then she is admirable indeed.

Well, I waited and since no one has, I will. I mean, afterall, it's there, and if I don't someone will, and I so want to be the one...

It's hard to breast feed when they're caught in wringer!

Even the local rag up there in the far north, right next door to Russia, doncha know?, says stonewalling on Troopergate is the wrong approach, and contrary to "open" government Pallin has been preaching of late.

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/516641.html

[Sanslines]

Only a tiny percentage of women are unable to breastfeed. Given the significant health benefits derived from breastfeeding for both mother and child, if Ms. Palin (is able to and) is not doing so presently she is making a poor choice; if she is breastfeeding and will greatly limit it due to her VP functions, then she is making an ethically questionable choice; if she is breastfeeding currently and she will not let her VP duties interfere with her breastfeeding, then she is admirable indeed.

Perhaps only a 'tiny' percentage are unable to breastfeed, but there are many more who chose not to breastfeed for a viariety of reasons. I don't disagree with you about the benefits of breastfeeding but being a man it is hardly my place to tell any woman what they should or should not be doing vis a vis breastfeeding. I leave the choice or decision between Ms. Palin and her doctor.

[Sanslines]

Desperate Obama Campaigns Against Palin:

Obama and Palin battle over pet spending projects


By Deborah Charles
Reuters
Monday, September 8, 2008; 8:42 PM

FLINT, Michigan (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/) criticized Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Monday for portraying herself as a crusader against wasteful spending on pet local projects while aggressively pursuing the money for Alaska.
Obama said presidential rival John McCain (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/) had tried to revive his maverick image since choosing Palin, the Alaska governor, as his No. 2 -- but he said neither Republican was the maverick they portrayed themselves to be.
"Just about a month ago they were all saying 'oh it's experience, experience experience.' Then they chose Palin and they start talking about 'change, change, change,"' Obama said in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
"How do they have the nerve to say it when you've been supporting this current president, your party has been in power and you're not offering anything new?" he asked a cheering crowd of about 1,000 people.
Obama and McCain released dueling ads about who could deliver on their promises for change, with McCain claiming he and Palin were "the original mavericks" and Obama declaring McCain "is hardly a maverick."

The exchanges came as polls showed McCain gained a healthy bounce from his convention last week and his selection of Palin and now leads Obama or runs even with the Illinois senator in seven national polls taken since the convention ended.
The tight race seemed to fire up the rhetoric on both sides, as Obama and Palin battled over which candidate was a more credible fighter against earmarks -- the pet projects inserted in U.S. spending bills with little or no oversight.
Obama said Palin had been an enthusiastic supporter of such funding projects and rejected her claims to have opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska -- a federal earmark that has come to symbolize the expenditures.
Independent fact-checking services have found Palin spoke favorably about the project while running for governor in 2006 and claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding.
"You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid," the Democrat said of Palin while campaigning in Flint, Michigan.
"When she was mayor she hired a Washington lobbyist to get earmarks, pork barrel spending. All the things that John McCain says is bad, she lobbied to get, and got a whole lot of it."
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe called Palin "a gold-medalist earmarker" who was "fairly recklessly misrepresenting her record and not being honest about ours."
Palin said at a rally in Missouri that Obama had requested nearly $1 billion in earmarks during his time in the U.S. Senate and she was "surprised that he would even raise the subject at all. He wouldn't want to go there."
Earmarks are often blamed for waste in Washington and have been a prime target of McCain.
"He battled Republicans and reformed Washington. She battled Republicans and reformed Alaska. They'll make history," McCain's new ad said.
"Now we have a team of mavericks," McCain said in Lee's Summit, Missouri. "America knows it's time for change and it's time for the right change."

Mavericks Rule!

[Sanslines]

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/09/01-07/sarah-palin-leather-nude-drinking.jpg (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/09/01-07/sarah-palin-leather-nude-drinking.jpg)

Fake Photo or Not? lol....lol Maby it's Cloris Leachman in her younger days?

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/08/23-End/palin-in-the-car.jpg (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/08/23-End/palin-in-the-car.jpg)

[Qikdraw]

City of Wasalla documents (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136)

Do your own research, the city of Wasalla has released documents.

[jon71]

Palin is one of the biggest pork barrelers around as is McCain. They are lying through their teeth when they say they'll restrain spending. They've both made careers based on spend, spend, spend. In '06 Palin campaigned hard for the bridge to nowhere and said that since they had a friend like Stevens who could "bring home the bacon" they (Alaska) should milk it for all they could. The very recent attempt to pass herself off as a spending hawk is obviously a farce. McCain also has supported some of the biggest budgets disasters like Bush tax cuts for the rich and the biggest spending boondoggle of them all, the Iraq war.

[Sanslines]

Palin is one of the biggest pork barrelers around as is McCain. They are lying through their teeth when they say they'll restrain spending. They've both made careers based on spend, spend, spend. In '06 Palin campaigned hard for the bridge to nowhere and said that since they had a friend like Stevens who could "bring home the bacon" they (Alaska) should milk it for all they could. The very recent attempt to pass herself off as a spending hawk is obviously a farce. McCain also has supported some of the biggest budgets disasters like Bush tax cuts for the rich and the biggest spending boondoggle of them all, the Iraq war.

None of this seems to matter as women are rallying around Palin and McCain. The race so far is in a dead heat and will get much more heated as we only have 56 more days to go until THE DECISION is made.

[Boreas]

None of this seems to matter as women are rallying around Palin and McCain. The race so far is in a dead heat and will get much more heated as we only have 56 more days to go until THE DECISION is made.

I find it sad that women are rallying around them only because of Palin. I was watching AC360 last night, (something I never do usually) and they said that Palin is attractive to the women who shop at Walmart and live in small communities.

Wasn't it just yesterday that people were complaining that Clinton only had support because she was a woman, and Obama only because he was black? :confused:

[Sanslines]

Wasn't it just yesterday that people were complaining that Clinton only had support because she was a woman, and Obama only because he was black? :confused:

People love to complain just for the sake of complaining.

[usmc1]

People love to complain just for the sake of complaining.
Except of course for the lynch mob and hate-mongers, they beleive in action, right? Whoever they might be?

[Sanslines]

Yes, it is sad you vote based on gender or race regardless. I wonder what these women who shop at Walmart and live in small communities think Palin will do for them? It is McCain, if elected, who will lead, not Palin.

Well...........on the positive side..........at least they are nowhere near as bad as the lynch mob and radical hate mongers........or are they??

[ki4kxq]

The bridge to nowhere. Let's see, Obama's latest commercial states that Palin was for the bridge, before she was against it. Hmmm, does he really want to cross that bridge? Oh, this is so much fun. Let's write a new commercial shall we?

"Governor Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. Well, at least she came to her senses. That's more than we can say for the duo of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They voted for the bridge to nowhere. When the project was rejected, the senate voted to redirect those funds to hurricane Katrina victims. Barack Obama and Joe Biden again voted to keep those funds on the bridge to nowhere. Where do we stand again, Palin a woman who came to her senses. Obama and Biden, even when given a chance to redeem themselves, too stupid to do so"

Again folks it's all about judgement. Obama doesn't seem to have any when it counts.

[Sanslines]

The bridge to nowhere. Let's see, Obama's latest commercial states that Palin was for the bridge, before she was against it. Hmmm, does he really want to cross that bridge? Oh, this is so much fun. Let's write a new commercial shall we?

"Governor Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. Well, at least she came to her senses. That's more than we can say for the duo of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They voted for the bridge to nowhere. When the project was rejected, the senate voted to redirect those funds to hurricane Katrina victims. Barack Obama and Joe Biden again voted to keep those funds on the bridge to nowhere. Where do we stand again, Palin a woman who came to her senses. Obama and Biden, even when given a chance to redeem themselves, too stupid to do so"

Again folks it's all about judgement. Obama doesn't seem to have any when it counts.


Wow! This is an 'explosive' revelation!

[tinhfwv]

The candidate with the best judgement is the one we agree with most often.

[Boreas]

The candidate with the best judgement is the one we agree with most often.

Does a person need to have good judgement in order to recognize good judgement? :confused:

[Naturist Mark]

The bridge to nowhere. Let's see, Obama's latest commercial states that Palin was for the bridge, before she was against it. Hmmm, does he really want to cross that bridge? Oh, this is so much fun. Let's write a new commercial shall we?

"Governor Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. Well, at least she came to her senses. That's more than we can say for the duo of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They voted for the bridge to nowhere. When the project was rejected, the senate voted to redirect those funds to hurricane Katrina victims. Barack Obama and Joe Biden again voted to keep those funds on the bridge to nowhere. Where do we stand again, Palin a woman who came to her senses. Obama and Biden, even when given a chance to redeem themselves, too stupid to do so"

Again folks it's all about judgement. Obama doesn't seem to have any when it counts.

Hmmm ... it is also about bold faced lies.

Palin lied about her actions with regard to the bridge project. She continues to lie about it.

She didn't come to her senses and change her position. She lied. And is still repeating her lie.

Don't misdirect with flap-doodle about Obama and Biden voting "for the bridge". They didn't. They voted for the bill that Palin pal Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (now under SEVEN criminal indictments) attached the earmark to. Anyone who knows anything about earmarks understands that the reason they get attached to bills is because that way they get passed without being voted on their merits. The Bridge to Nowhere was the "vig" Ted Stevens extracted in order to get his support to pass the bill - Obama and Biden were not part of that particular transaction.

Care to make any more humorous sport in support of Palin's lies?

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

Except of course for the lynch mob and hate-mongers, they beleive in action, right? Whoever they might be?

I hardly know how to respond. The real lynch mob and hate-mongers have identified themselves.

I don't see how anyone with a conscience can hold his head high in public after 'approving this message'.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uVLQhRiEXZs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uVLQhRiEXZs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This is the most vile lie, worse than the "Willie Horton" ad.

Obama passed a bill to help fight child molestation. McCain's ad fabricates a complete lie about it, suggesting he wants to teach kindergartners to have sex.

Don't even try to defend this obscenity. Seriously. Don't.

McCain may have been a hero once.

No more.

He is a man utterly without honor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/mccain-ad-obamas-lone-edu_n_125205.html

-Mark

[tinhfwv]

The words "lie", "lies" and "lied" are once again being fired off like anti-aircraft flack. Consider that it may be time for new material, and that statements by both sides, with which we happen to strongly disagree or dislike, seem at times like lies to all of us, on both sides. Some self-awareness of this part of our nature would help to keep the conversation real. Neither side is "lying" any more or less than the other. Not only has the use of this kind of rhetoric become boring, it has no persuasive potential. Perhaps it would help if we all acknowledged that we all think the people we strongly disagree with are lying, and then we wouldn't have to keep typing the words "lie", "lies" and "lied" over and over again. This would free up space, and make us work harder to say something interesting.

[tinhfwv]

Does a person need to have good judgement in order to recognize good judgement? :confused:

That's a very interesting question. I like it.

[usmc1]

I hardly know how to respond. The real lynch mob and hate-mongers have identified themselves.

I don't see how anyone with a conscience can hold his head high in public after 'approving this message'.

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uVLQhRiEXZs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

This is the most vile lie, worse than the "Willie Horton" ad.

Obama passed a bill to help fight child molestation. McCain's ad fabricates a complete lie about it, suggesting he wants to teach kindergartners to have sex.

Don't even try to defend this obscenity. Seriously. Don't.

McCain may have been a hero once.

No more.

He is a man utterly without honor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/mccain-ad-obamas-lone-edu_n_125205.html

-Mark

Well as to the lynch mob and hate-mongers, I think the correspondent in question on that one fessed up and said it has to do with some old TV show.

As to how to respond to the ad, Mrs. usmc had this response, "mean-spirited assholes". That sums it up fairly nicely from a sweet little gray-haired lady that can usually find the good in anyone.

Someone discounted the use of the word "lies" in these back-and-forths. Lies need not be allowed to gain traction and by beiong exposed lose their power. My hope is that Obama and Biden, in the debates, will confront head-on the more egregious lies coming from the McCain camp.

[ki4kxq]

Hmmm ... it is also about bold faced lies.

Palin lied about her actions with regard to the bridge project. She continues to lie about it.

She didn't come to her senses and change her position. She lied. And is still repeating her lie.

Don't misdirect with flap-doodle about Obama and Biden voting "for the bridge". They didn't. They voted for the bill that Palin pal Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (now under SEVEN criminal indictments) attached the earmark to. Anyone who knows anything about earmarks understands that the reason they get attached to bills is because that way they get passed without being voted on their merits. The Bridge to Nowhere was the "vig" Ted Stevens extracted in order to get his support to pass the bill - Obama and Biden were not part of that particular transaction.

Care to make any more humorous sport in support of Palin's lies?

-Mark

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Obama and Biden when given the chance to change their votes from funding the bridge to nowhere to redirecting that money to hurricane Katrina victims, they voted for the bridge yet again. Please check your facts.

The bill in question was not an earmark the 2nd time around, they knew what the funding was for, just as I'm sure they knew the first time around. After all, Obama is very familiar with earmarks.

[tinhfwv]

Here's an opinion appearing in today's Wall Street Journal (lying right wing rag) on this subject from Jim Demint (lying Republican Senator from SC), for those interested in considering different points of view.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

[Naturist Mark]

The words "lie", "lies" and "lied" are once again being fired off like anti-aircraft flack. Consider that it may be time for new material, and that statements by both sides, with which we happen to strongly disagree or dislike, seem at times like lies to all of us, on both sides. Some self-awareness of this part of our nature would help to keep the conversation real. Neither side is "lying" any more or less than the other. Not only has the use of this kind of rhetoric become boring, it has no persuasive potential. Perhaps it would help if we all acknowledged that we all think the people we strongly disagree with are lying, and then we wouldn't have to keep typing the words "lie", "lies" and "lied" over and over again. This would free up space, and make us work harder to say something interesting.

It is long overdue to call a lie a lie.

I'm sick and tired of the media letting them pass as "mis-statements", "innaccuracies" or "misrepresentations". When the statement is deliberate, and the person making it KNOWS it is untrue, it is a lie.

We aren't talking about opinions, we are talking about statements of fact. Don't sugar coat it or dismiss it as mere rhetoric. It is lying. Have the balls to admit it, and the integrity to condemn it.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

The words "lie", "lies" and "lied" are once again being fired off like anti-aircraft flack. Consider that it may be time for new material, and that statements by both sides, with which we happen to strongly disagree or dislike, seem at times like lies to all of us, on both sides. Some self-awareness of this part of our nature would help to keep the conversation real. Neither side is "lying" any more or less than the other. Not only has the use of this kind of rhetoric become boring, it has no persuasive potential. Perhaps it would help if we all acknowledged that we all think the people we strongly disagree with are lying, and then we wouldn't have to keep typing the words "lie", "lies" and "lied" over and over again. This would free up space, and make us work harder to say something interesting.

Most people are now convinced that everything is a lie including the election. No one is truly qualified to lead (according to the rhetoric from both sides) and since both sides accuse the other side of lying, then it appears that everything is sitting on a foundation of lies.

[Sanslines]

It is long overdue to call a lie a lie.

I'm sick and tired of the media letting them pass as "mis-statements", "innaccuracies" or "misrepresentations". When the statement is deliberate, and the person making it KNOWS it is untrue, it is a lie.

We aren't talking about opinions, we are talking about statements of fact. Don't sugar coat it or dismiss it as mere rhetoric. It is lying. Have the balls to admit it, and the integrity to condemn it.

-Mark

Yes, but the problem is when one side claims the high ground by claiming that the other side lies and yet will either ignore or make excuses for lies propogated by their side. Both sides lie but unfortunately both sides continue to lie about lying. Its all a bunch of lies! How utterly deceitful indeed!

[ki4kxq]

Here's an opinion appearing in today's Wall Street Journal (lying right wing rag) on this subject from Jim Demint (lying Republican Senator from SC), for those interested in considering different points of view.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

Great article. Of course I was basically called a liar when I brought this same subject to light yesterday. You're right though, this article will just be dismissed by some of these folks as lies perpetrated by the right. I enjoyed it though.

[tinhfwv]

It is long overdue to call a lie a lie.

I'm sick and tired of the media letting them pass as "mis-statements", "innaccuracies" or "misrepresentations". When the statement is deliberate, and the person making it KNOWS it is untrue, it is a lie.

We aren't talking about opinions, we are talking about statements of fact. Don't sugar coat it or dismiss it as mere rhetoric. It is lying. Have the balls to admit it, and the integrity to condemn it.

-Mark


Some introspection would help all of us.

[Croydon]

It is long overdue to call a lie a lie.

I'm sick and tired of the media letting them pass as "mis-statements", "innaccuracies" or "misrepresentations". When the statement is deliberate, and the person making it KNOWS it is untrue, it is a lie.

-Mark
Continue to be tired and sick because Palin will get away with everything. She can do no wrong. People, especially women, choose to ignore anything about her lack of experience or her many questionable policies. They don't care, they are just in love with Palin. If reports came out that Palin had a child with a black man (not that anything wrong with it), she is still the republican darling.

What completely upsets me is the constant accusation from McCain campaign that EVERYONE is being sexist towards Palin: media is being sexist, democrats are being sexist, hollywood is being sexist, Obama is being sexist. It appears that if ANYONE dares to question Palin on ANYTHING, it is sexism.

Why must be she treated any differently from any politician running for office? Because she is a woman, we are not allowed to question and/or criticize her the same we do for Obama and Biden?

Where were these people when Hillary was being slammed, criticized, questioned? How come for Hillary it isn't sexism but for Palin, it is?

Why isn't the McCain camp allowing media access to Palin? I'll tell you why, she is NOT QUALIFIED. There is a reason why Palin has not spoken to the media, why she ignores them at campaign stops and when she boards the plane. There is a reason why McCain camp does not allow any member of the media on that plane. If questioned about economy, the war, foreign policy, Palin would not have a clue how to answer.

What amazes me even more is how women voters gullibly believe McCain's accusations. Why should Palin be treated differently b/c she is a woman? I call that sexism.

[Fitz1980]

The Daily Show did a great montage of right wing pundits or politicians being straight out sexist when talking about Hillery a few months back, than showed a bunch of current footage of those same people characterizing any questioning of Palin as sexist. The best clip was Palin herself saying that she hates hearing any kind of "whine" from female candidates that they aren't getting a fair shake because of their gender.

[ki4kxq]

Well, here we go. I don't know who it was who was bragging about Hillary campaigning for Obama, but, not so fast. Looks like all of us conspiracy theorists may be correct about the Clinton's gunning for Obama afterall.

Today when asked if she thought Gov Palin was qualified to be VP, Hillary said that she was going to stick to the issues and went on to say, that she thought that it was a great thing for a woman to be on the ticket. Her campaigning seems to be a little lackluster too.

Of course when asked by the Obama campaign earlier in the week for help with dealing with Palen, Hillary said she would not go up against Sarah Palin.

[Croydon]

The Daily Show did a great montage of right wing pundits or politicians being straight out sexist when talking about Hillery a few months back, than showed a bunch of current footage of those same people characterizing any questioning of Palin as sexist. The best clip was Palin herself saying that she hates hearing any kind of "whine" from female candidates that they aren't getting a fair shake because of their gender.
Which goes back to my point: what is sexist is the idea that we must treat Palin differently because she is a woman. Because she is a woman, we can not criticize her.

Rather than examine her policies and history, McCain camp want us to focus on the fact that Palin is a "hockey mom" who raised 5 kids, loves moose meat and all the crap.

Loving moose meat is nice and I am sure it tastes DELICIOUS, JUICY and I am sure Palin has many wonderful recipes BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE MANY PROBLEMS FACING US TODAY

[Croydon]

Well, here we go. I don't know who it was who was bragging about Hillary campaigning for Obama, but, not so fast. Looks like all of us conspiracy theorists may be correct about the Clinton's gunning for Obama afterall.

Today when asked if she thought Gov Palin was qualified to be VP, Hillary said that she was going to stick to the issues and went on to say, that she thought that it was a great thing for a woman to be on the ticket. Her campaigning seems to be a little lackluster too.

Of course when asked by the Obama campaign earlier in the week for help with dealing with Palen, Hillary said she would not go up against Sarah Palin.
So I gather that you get the inside info on discussions Hillary and Obama had in regards to Palin.

Hillary and Obama made it clear that Hillary role is NOT to go after Palin but discuss the election issues. Hillary stated that it is nice that Palin is on the ticket and that is all she needs to say. In addition, she also reiterated the line from her convention speech, "No Way, No How. No McCain and NO PALIN." I think that says it all, don't you?

P.S.

I noticed how you conveniently decided not to discuss the charges of sexism by McCain campaign.

[brazhunter]

Which goes back to my point: what is sexist is the idea that we must treat Palin differently because she is a woman. Because she is a woman, we can not criticize her.

Lessee.... it's racist to not vote for Obama. It's racist to dismiss the executive leadership experience of being a community organizer, but it's not sexist to question Palin's ability to raise her family and do her job, call her a pig with lipstick, p*&ss and moan about her hair styles, her eye glasses, etc.

How much discussion has there been about Biden's ability to raise his family when his wife died? Anybody complaining about Obama's hair style?

Move along folks, no hypocrisy here.

[Sanslines]

LOL --- isn't that the truth. I lie, you lie, they lie,we all lie. :D

Yes, but there also those who will never admit that they are wrong (a lie) or that they ever lie (another lie).

Is selectively picking and chosing those partial facts and half truths which support a person's candidate and ignoring or downplaying those facts which do not support a person's candidate a lie? Are 'half-truths' really 'half-lies'?

[Croydon]

Lessee.... it's racist to not vote for Obama. It's racist to dismiss the executive leadership experience of being a community organizer, but it's not sexist to question Palin's ability to raise her family and do her job, call her a pig with lipstick, p*&ss and moan about her hair styles, her eye glasses, etc.

How much discussion has there been about Biden's ability to raise his family when his wife died? Anybody complaining about Obama's hair style?

Move along folks, no hypocrisy here.
What he hell is in your drinking water b/c it is clouding your ability to think.

No one is stating that it is racist to vote for O. I am damn sure there are quite a handful of people out there who can't bring themselves to vote for a black man.

I further do not hear anyone calling Palin racist regarding her comments about Obama's community experience. The anger was because she belittled him and his work as a community organizer. The man graduated from Harvard law and instead of taking a job with the best law firms in the country making over $150,000 he chose a job paying less than 40K helping the community of Chicago's south side. I thought Palin's criticism of that was childish. What is funny is that in his speech at the convention, McCain calls for Americans to be more involved in their country and doing good by being teachers, volunteers, going into the army and guess what, A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER.

NO ONE has called into question Palin's ability to lead because she is a mother of 5. What many are saying is that her work as a mother is NOTa prerequisite nor does it qualifies as experience to be VP. I am sure there are qualities that will come in handy in governing but it does NOT cover the fact that this woman knows very little about the issues facing America and the world.

Lipstick on a pig. You really believe O was referring to Palin? You damn well know what he mean & let us NOT forget that McCain has used that term quite a few times...

Case in point: In 2007 McCain used the exact phrase to describe Clinton's universal health plan. In addition, on Fox News yesterday, McCain's daughter stated that her dad has used that term before with her.

I am copying and pasting a transcript of a great segment on CNN yesterday:

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, listen, you can say all you want, John McCain said this about Hillary's health care proposal. But it was still foolish for Barack Obama to say because every night is precious for him, Anderson, in terms of getting his message out. This is one night lost on your program where his message got muffled by this silliness over lipstick on a pig.

COOPER: Mark, you're shaking your head.

MARK HALPERIN, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Stop the madness. I think, with all due respect to the program's focus on, listen to David just said. I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign's crocodile tears.

COOPER: Crocodile tears.

Story continues below
advertisement

HALPERIN: Yes.

COOPER: They knew exactly what it is.

HALPERIN: They knew exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign in the sense that every day they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more. But I think this is a low point in the day and one of the low days of our collective coverage of this campaign. To spend even a minute on this expression, I think, is amazing and outrageous.

COOPER: Let's move on. David Gergen, what do you make of the McCain campaign's continuing use of Sarah Palin's line about the "bridge to nowhere," that she said thanks, but no thanks when clearly she supported it initially, then later on she changed her position, though she still took all the tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars that was supposed to go to the bridge and used it on other pet projects around Alaska?

GERGEN: Well, I'm surprised they're doing that. You know, and they've got enormous momentum. They still -- Ohio has changed over in her direction, as John King will soon report. But I'm surprised that they're continuing on that. I'm surprised that they're not letting her speak to the public. She's not taking public questions as she's moved about. She goes on her airplane and it's off the record for the press. You can't quote her there. They still haven't talked to the press. At the end of this week on 9/11 and very conveniently the day her son is going off to Iraq she's going to have her first press interview. I'm surprised by all of that. And I just tell you -- where I traveled -- I was in Washington today and Boston today talking to people, and there are just a lot of people now getting on both sides of this who are getting really angry or upset on both sides. Getting upset at the other side for what they think are -- I think Mark is right. There's a lot of lowness in all of this.

COOPER: Mark, has there ever been a vice presidential candidate who has yet to talk to the press at this point in the race?

HALPERIN: No. It's another thing that, again, I'm embarrassed about our profession for. She should be held more accountable for that. The "bridge to nowhere" thing is outrageous. And if you press them on it, they'll fall because they know they can't defend what they're saying. They're staying it on the stump as a core part of their message, it's in their advertising. I'm not saying the press should be out to get John McCain and Sarah Palin. But if a core part of their message is something that every journalist -- journalism organization in the country has looked at and says it's demonstrably false, again, we're not doing our jobs if we just treat this as one of many things that's happening.

COOPER: And yet, we're getting tons of e-mails from people saying that we're attacking Palin by looking at her record. It's fascinating to see how polarized people are.

HALPERIN: The other three people who are on the national ticket have been scrutinized for months and in cases, years. We've got less than 60 days to do this. We'd better get about doing it. And if she doesn't cooperate in that more than she has, the public should be told that clearly.

[Sanslines]

No, she shouldn't be against Sarah Palin, but the whole ticket MCCAIN/Palin. Yes, she is honest to say that it is a great thing a woman is on the ticket. I agree with that but not this particular one. And yes, she should stick to the issues.

The interesting thing about this election (at least for now) is that it is ALL about Sarah Palin. Joe Biden seems to have faded away. Obama is busy campaigning against Palin. McCain is campaigning for Palin and against Obama and is free from being in the spotlight to do what he needs to do to win the election. What a circus!

[Boreas]

That's a very interesting question. I like it.

It is a twist on something a colleague and I used to say a few years ago. We had another colleague who always said that there was no such thing as common sense. We always comment (behind her back :o) that you had to have it to know it.

I suspect the same could be said about judgement.

*I am not intending to start a discussion on common sense in this thread. :)

[Sanslines]

No one is stating that it is racist to vote for O. I am damn sure there are quite a handful of people out there who can't bring themselves to vote for a black man.



There are many people who are going to vote for Obama specifically because of his race. There are also those who will not vote for Obama specifically because of his race. Both of these siuations are clearly racist. What is not racist is to look at Obama for his accomplishments, abilities, intelligence, experience, and stance on issues and make voting decisions accordingly.

[Sanslines]

Now back to the lies:

Untruths become facts as campaign heats up

McCain, Obama camps argue over 'Bridge to Nowhere,' tax increases


By Jonathan Weisman
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/SITEWIDE/PartnerColorBoxLogos/WaPost_333_GCH.gif (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/front.htm)
updated 2 hours, 7 minutes ago

From the moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared that she opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called it a fabrication, a distortion or, at best, a half-truth. But yesterday in Lebanon, Ohio, and again in Lancaster, Pa., she crossed that bridge again.
"I told Congress: 'Thanks but
no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,' " Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited. Palin has continued to say she opposed a project she once campaigned for — then killed later, only after support for it had collapsed in Congress.

As the presidential campaign moves into a final, heated stretch, untrue accusations and rumors have started to swirl at a pace so quick that they become regarded as fact before they can be disproved. A number of fabrications about Palin's policies and personal life, for instance, have circulated on the Internet since she joined the Republican ticket.

Aggressive repetition
Palin and John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, have been more aggressive in recent days in repeating what their opponents say are outright lies. Almost every day, for instance, McCain says rival Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes, even though the Democrat's tax plan exempts families that earn less than $250,000.

Fed up, the Obama campaign broke a taboo on Monday and used the "L-word" of politics to say that the McCain campaign was lying about the Bridge to Nowhere.

Nevertheless, with McCain's standing in the polls surging, aides say he is not about to back down from statements he believes are fundamentally true, such as the anecdote about the bridge.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers noted an Obama advertisement released yesterday that says, with no citation, that McCain's economic plan would take money away from public schools. "Absolutely, it's a lie," Rogers said.

Quoting the National Education Association, Obama aides said McCain's plan to freeze discretionary spending would cut funding for local education agencies, Head Start, teacher quality grants and special education.

Dominant themes trump facts
John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.
"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

For now, there appears to be little political reason to back down. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Sept. 5 to Sept. 7 found that 51 percent of voters think Obama would raise their taxes, even though his plan would actually cut taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Obama has proposed eliminating income taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year, but 41 percent of those seniors say their income taxes would go up in an Obama administration.

McCain's pitch as a reformer — especially as an opponent of pork-barrel spending — does not seem to have been damaged by media reports of his running mate's pursuit of earmarks, first for her home town of Wasilla and then for Alaska. Obama's once-sizable 32-point advantage on which candidate would do more to change government is down to 12 points.
"We have created a system where there is not a lot of shame in stretching the truth," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

A slew of distortions that have spread through e-mail and on the Internet has also put Palin on the receiving end of some of that truth-stretching — so much so that the campaign dispatched a group of supporters yesterday to act as a "truth-squadding team." The unfounded charges include that Palin cut special-needs funding in Alaska and that she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party.

Palin actually increased special-needs funding and has never been a member of the Alaska Independence Party, according to FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Aside from the dispute over the Bridge to Nowhere, the Obama campaign has also complained about a McCain advertisement that says the Democrat called Iran a "tiny" threat, even though a chorus of media critics noted that Obama had listed Iran with Cuba and Venezuela as countries whose menace was tiny compared with that of the former Soviet Union. On Friday, in Cedarburg, Wis., McCain repeated that Palin had sold Alaska's state jet on eBay, although Palin herself was careful during her vice presidential acceptance speech to say she merely "put it on eBay." It did not sell on the online auction site.

McCain aides said yesterday that nothing they have said about the bridge is untrue.

Palin did at one time support the Bridge to Nowhere, and the $223 million earmarked for the project was sent to Alaska. Some of it was used for other state projects, about $40 million was used to build an access road to the now scrapped bridge project and $73 million is sitting in an account, awaiting some other proposal to link the tiny towns of Ketchikan and Gravina, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation.

But, McCain aides said, Palin indisputably turned on a project championed by two of her state's Republican legends, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young. Even Alaska Democrats gave her credit for finally ending it.
"We're not relitigating the 2006 gubernatorial campaign and everything that was said," Rogers said. "We're not talking about that campaign. We're talking about when she got into office and what she did."

Tax cuts and 100-year wars
The claim that Obama will raise taxes is based on his support this year of a Democratic budget resolution that envisions all of President Bush's cuts expiring on schedule in 2011, a move that would indeed raise rates for everyone who pays income taxes. Such resolutions are nonbinding and irrelevant in future years, such as 2011, because budgets are passed annually. Moreover, this year's budget runs counter to Obama's tax plan, which would extend all of Bush's tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 and provide new tax breaks for low-income workers.

Obama and the Democratic National Committee asserted for months that McCain wanted to keep U.S. troops fighting in Iraq for 100 years, when, in fact, the context of McCain's 100-year statement was a comparison to U.S. bases in Japan and Germany. McCain explicitly said the troops would be there only if the country was at peace and there were no casualties associated with their presence.

A McCain quote Obama has often used — that the economy is fundamentally sound — is months old. Since he said that, McCain has said almost daily that the economy is struggling. As for exaggerations, Obama said yesterday that he had supported a measure in the Illinois Senate to double the number of charter schools in Chicago. In fact, he was one of 14 state senators co-sponsoring a non-controversial measure that passed unanimously.

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

The lies seem to be working. Obama needs to get very busy very fast and start telling more lies.

[Boreas]

The interesting thing about this election (at least for now) is that it is ALL about Sarah Palin. Joe Biden seems to have faded away. Obama is busy campaigning against Palin. McCain is campaigning for Palin and against Obama and is free from being in the spotlight to do what he needs to do to win the election. What a circus!

Certainly is!

And we are getting the Canadian version of that now. We get to see Stephen Harper talking about how wonderful it is to be a dad (who cares!) and two of the leaders threatening to not participate in the TV debate if the Green leader is invited to participate.

Wouldn't it be nice if they actually talked about what matters??? :rolleyes:

[Sanslines]

LOL Indeed! The republicans certainly pulled one heck of rabbit out of their top-hat. And, it's working.

Yes and furthermore McCain is boosting his ratings by telling 'lies'. The more he tells,the higher his ratings go as people keep buying into the 'lies'. What a way to win an election. Tell a bunch of lies!!! Oh what has our political system come to! A presidency built upon a foundation of lies. Told ya.......if Obama wants to win this election he needs to stop complaining about the 'lies' and start telling more 'lies'. This election will come down to who can tell more 'lies'.

[Sanslines]

LOL

Yes! Was chatting with a friend of mine and we concluded that the way to win is to be the nastiest, the meanest, lie like a rug, smear everything in sight. It seems people who vote for these individuals love fighting and the nastier a candidate is the more they are liked. Go figure!

That seems to be the American Way. Do whatever you must to win an election and then once you win go off and do whatever you wish as most of what was used to create a political running platform consists of either half truths or outright lies.

[Boreas]

Yes and furthermore McCain is boosting his ratings by telling 'lies'. The more he tells,the higher his ratings go as people keep buying into the 'lies'. What a way to win an election. Tell a bunch of lies!!! Oh what has our political system come to! A presidency built upon a foundation of lies. Told ya.......if Obama wants to win this election he needs to stop complaining about the 'lies' and start telling more 'lies'. This election will come down to who can tell more 'lies'.

Such a cynic! ;)

I think you are right on.

[brazhunter]

LOL

Yes! Was chatting with a friend of mine and we concluded that the way to win is to be the nastiest, the meanest, lie like a rug, smear everything in sight. It seems people who vote for these individuals love fighting and the nastier a candidate is the more they are liked. Go figure!
Been that way for years, maybe into centuries... and it's probably the world over too. It's not right, but that's reality.

[Qikdraw]

call her a pig with lipstick,

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BR8IhMMhe8w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BR8IhMMhe8w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Qikdraw]

The words "lie", "lies" and "lied" are once again being fired off like anti-aircraft flack. Consider that it may be time for new material, and that statements by both sides, with which we happen to strongly disagree or dislike, seem at times like lies to all of us, on both sides. Some self-awareness of this part of our nature would help to keep the conversation real. Neither side is "lying" any more or less than the other. Not only has the use of this kind of rhetoric become boring, it has no persuasive potential. Perhaps it would help if we all acknowledged that we all think the people we strongly disagree with are lying, and then we wouldn't have to keep typing the words "lie", "lies" and "lied" over and over again. This would free up space, and make us work harder to say something interesting.

The problem is is that there are 'lies' being told. McCain's recent ad attacking Obama's support of a child molestation bill is a prime example. Things like that need to be adressed and not tossed about as 'well that's just American politics'. This is not acceptable at all. Politics can't get better until we hold our politicians accountable for their actions and words. Pretty much everyone views all politicians as liars and cheats, but we continue to allow them to be so. This is supposed to be a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people', yet as a people we do not hold the government to that standard. So its less our government is failing us, than the American people are failing its government.

You know when you buy a cheap item and it falls apart real quick, and you have to buy another, and keep on doing that, yet your neighbour spent more and bought one and is happy with it? 'You get what you buy', that is American politics. It needs to change.

'Well thats just American politics' is idiotic. That attitude literally harms the US. Trillions of dollars go 'missing' and people just shrug it off like nothing happened. The main problem with American politics is you get what you buy. You expect your politicians to be corrupt, and complain about it, but you do absolutely nothing to change it.

[Qikdraw]

The interesting thing about this election (at least for now) is that it is ALL about Sarah Palin. Joe Biden seems to have faded away. Obama is busy campaigning against Palin. McCain is campaigning for Palin and against Obama and is free from being in the spotlight to do what he needs to do to win the election. What a circus!


Well the McCain campaign certainly is winnign that battle. They've said they are makign this campaign about personalities and not politics, and they are, and they are doing very well at it.

I hope it changes, we still have 2 months to go, so I am sure people will get sick of hearing about Palin at some point. The Obama campaign needds to keep on hitting with issues though, that is the only way they are going to win. If it stays the way it it, the democrats will lose.

[usmc1]

LOL

Yes! Was chatting with a friend of mine and we concluded that the way to win is to be the nastiest, the meanest, lie like a rug, smear everything in sight. It seems people who vote for these individuals love fighting and the nastier a candidate is the more they are liked. Go figure!
Well I sat at the feet of people such as Ralph Yarborough and John Henry Faulk, and what they always claimed about Texas poltics was that it boiled down to accusing your opponent of "screwing a pig" and letting him deny it.

Of course back then pigs weren't as attractive as they are now, what with lipstick and stuff.

But, even with good looking, lipstick wearing pigs and pit bulls, things haven't changed at all.

Politics is a blood sport and the stakes are very high. And, truthfully, I can't see at any other time in our history where the stakes were any higher. This election really is about the heart and soul of this country and determining what sort of nation we're going to be.

If you want to preserve Social Security, improve Medicare, and see to it that everyone, regardless their starting point, has an opportunity for affordable, quality health care, and a plus-12 education, it is very clear which way you should vote. If your concern is for older Americans, working families, and single parents, then it is exceedingly clear.

If you like what's been happening for the past eight years, but multiplied to the power of 10, then that also should be your clear signal of how to vote. If you think the oil companies, HMOs, insurance oligarchs, wall street investment banks are doing a really bitching job, then that too is exceedingly clear.

[Sanslines]

Well the McCain campaign certainly is winnign that battle. They've said they are makign this campaign about personalities and not politics, and they are, and they are doing very well at it.

I hope it changes, we still have 2 months to go, so I am sure people will get sick of hearing about Palin at some point. The Obama campaign needds to keep on hitting with issues though, that is the only way they are going to win. If it stays the way it it, the democrats will lose.

McCain and Company are in this to win this election and will do whatever it takes. Why is this so hard for some (not necessarily you) to understand. Obama should also do whatever it takes to win if he is serious about winning. All of these cries about 'lies' and so forth don't mean squat to those who lose so it would be far better to stop complaining (and allowing one's party to be portrayed as a 'weak victim') and get up, fight, and win this election by doing whatever it takes to win. All smart politicians will say and do whatever it takes to get elected and tell people what they want to hear. If telling people a bunch of lies or half truths is what it takes to win, then you can be assured that smart politicians will do just that. Politics is a dirty business. Both parties are guilty of telling lies. It is just that those who tell bigger lies get elected and the losers who don't tell enough lies try to dupe the public further by claiming the high road (by either denying that they tell lies or refusing to comment about their 'lies') and then cry 'foul'.

Complaining about the Repubs and their tactics obviously gets no sympathy votes. Perhaps it would be better to complain about Obama and his lack of doing whatever it takes to win.

[Qikdraw]

McCain and Company are in this to win this election and will do whatever it takes. Why is this so hard for some (not necessarily you) to understand. Obama should also do whatever it takes to win if he is serious about winning. All of these cries about 'lies' and so forth don't mean squat to those who lose so it would be far better to stop complaining (and allowing one's party to be portrayed as a 'weak victim') and get up, fight, and win this election by doing whatever it takes to win. All smart politicians will say and do whatever it takes to get elected and tell people what they want to hear. If telling people a bunch of lies or half truths is what it takes to win, then you can be assured that smart politicians will do just that. Politics is a dirty business. Both parties are guilty of telling lies. It is just that those who tell bigger lies get elected and the losers who don't tell enough lies try to dupe the public further by claiming the high road (by either denying that they tell lies or refusing to comment about their 'lies') and then cry 'foul'.

Well you are right, but we can't change politics if we keep putting in the same lying cheats all the time. Ask anyone and they'll say that all politicians are corrupt, yet they don't want to do something. This is what is sooo frustrating to me. We all know what needs to be done, republicans, democrats, independants, we all agree to take the money out of politics, and then we want the politicians to do it. There are no marches, there are no mass complaints, there is nothing organised about it. Apathy in American politics needs to stop.

Complaining about the Repubs and their tactics obviously gets no sympathy votes. Perhaps it would be better to complain about Obama and his lack of doing whatever it takes to win.

I've said it before and I'll say it again and that is the republicans are far better at manipulating the media than democrats are. Look at the McCain campaign right now, anything negative about them and they complain about bias and not just to the media, they make formal complaints to the station or newspaper, etc... Even if it is the 'truth' about their policy, they'll still do it. It is a smart tactic and I hope more of the media doesn't cave in. I can't believe NBC did.

However I've said it a few times, I don't care about the poll numbers until after the debates. Most people know its mostly hype right now, and they'll wait until they decide how they perform at the debates.

[Sanslines]

However I've said it a few times, I don't care about the poll numbers until after the debates. Most people know its mostly hype right now, and they'll wait until they decide how they perform at the debates.

You also have to remember that Obama spent a tremendous amout of time and energy trying to defeat Hillary. If we can assume that Obama is human , then that effort did take a toll on Obama. Now Obama has to go full speed ahead and fight on multiple fronts. Like it or not he is engaged in debate with Palin. McCain has taken a bit of a back seat and can act more like a coach then a front leader. He can advise Palin and turn her loose on Obama. She is fresh and full of energy and can go full throttle at Obama. Joe Biden seems to have taken a back seat too and part of this may be that Biden has a bad habit of talking too much and putting his foot in his mouth.

Nothing much will happen until the debates and it is going to be a very interesting debate between Biden and Palin. The election is still very close and very much open to all. No one has lost - yet.

[Naturist Mark]

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Obama and Biden when given the chance to change their votes from funding the bridge to nowhere to redirecting that money to hurricane Katrina victims, they voted for the bridge yet again. Please check your facts.

The bill in question was not an earmark the 2nd time around, they knew what the funding was for, just as I'm sure they knew the first time around. After all, Obama is very familiar with earmarks.

Again, don't be naive.

Ask yourself "Why would Obama and Biden be so keen to fund an expensive bridge in far away Republican Alaska for the benefit of 50 residents of Gravina Island?" They wouldn't. They would be happy to see that project go away, it was of no value to them or their constituents. They voted on the merits of the main bill, not on the earmarks added to it. And later they voted to preserve the bill, rather than unravel its support by stripping out some of the earmarks that ensured its passage.

The problem with 'earmarks', or 'pork', is that that is how the negotiation process works in Washington. When you strip someone's earmark out of a bill, you unravel the string of deals between congressmen that add up to the bill being passed.

It isn't a very elegant, or for that matter very open and upright way to pass bills, it really amounts to little more than blackmail. But you can't unilaterally disarm, particularly if the bill the earmarks are attached to is critical. That is why Senator Coburn's proposal to strip funding from some unpopular earmarks in order to fund some Katrina rebuilding projects failed by an overwhelming and bipartisan 80 to 15 votes. (Katrina funding came instead from a special appropriation - much of which was looted by no bid Bush cronies).

This attempt to saddle Obama and Biden with the "bridge to nowhere" is laughably illogical. Just another example of distract and attack.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

This attempt to saddle Obama and Biden with the "bridge to nowhere" is laughably illogical. Just another example of distract and attack.

-Mark

What works in this election is to make accusations that stick. This is easy to do because the electorate believe that all politicians vote for pork. To claim that politicians are ignorant of pork is a poor excuse that the electorate won't believe. Given this belief, it is easy to claim that someone voted for a bill that contained pork and then it is up to the person to defend their position as to either why they voted for the bill which contained the pork or why they were ignorant of the pork that was attached to the bill. This method works and works well. Give the Repubs credit for runing a very aggressive campaign that is in touch with the pubic and generates results (ie votes) regardless of the means used to get those votes. Rather then complain about the way that the Repubs are running their campaign, the Dems should focus on finding a way to win the election any way that they can.

[Fitz1980]

Well Obama hopefully learned something from Kerry in 2004. Kerry tried to be a gentleman and let the gutter-style slinging lies, slander and personal attacks go unchallenged back in 2004. He ran one of the crappiest campaigns since 1988 and still lost by only a sliver. If he had fought against just a bit of the slander, distortions and lies he probably could have won it.

[Qikdraw]

You also have to remember that Obama spent a tremendous amout of time and energy trying to defeat Hillary. If we can assume that Obama is human , then that effort did take a toll on Obama. Now Obama has to go full speed ahead and fight on multiple fronts.

Yeah, that is a good point.

Like it or not he is engaged in debate with Palin. McCain has taken a bit of a back seat and can act more like a coach then a front leader. He can advise Palin and turn her loose on Obama. She is fresh and full of energy and can go full throttle at Obama.

This could be a problem for McCain though. He is supposed to be the shining star instead of her. If he does it too much Obama can start running ads about who he is running against. But even so, Obama should be concentrating on issues, and pointing out how little McCain actually talks about the issues that concern Americans.

Joe Biden seems to have taken a back seat too and part of this may be that Biden has a bad habit of talking too much and putting his foot in his mouth.

Has he? I see youtube videos of him still and articles about him speaking. So has he slowed down or is it that Palin has just taken over the news?

Nothing much will happen until the debates and it is going to be a very interesting debate between Biden and Palin. The election is still very close and very much open to all. No one has lost - yet.

Exactly. Wait till the debates... When is the first one? Soon isn't it?

[tinhfwv]

The debate schedule:

Presidential: 9/26, 10/7 and 10/15

VP: 10/2

[Qikdraw]

The debate schedule:

Presidential: 9/26, 10/7 and 10/15

VP: 10/2

Thank you! :D

[Sanslines]

The debate schedule:

Presidential: 9/26, 10/7 and 10/15

VP: 10/2


This is where the decisions will be made. Obama will probably outshine McCain as McCain is not as gifted a speaker and Palin will be a real challenge to Biden.

[usmc1]

Poll results:

Poll continues until September 24.

96 people have voted:

12% believe Palin will be dropped or will withdraw from the ticket
38% believe Palin will not be dropped or withdrawn from the ticket
19% believe Palin should, but won't be dropped or withdrawn from the ticket
32% believe Palin should not be dropped or withdrawn from the ticket and see liberal skulduggery in even asking the question.

Comments; I find it interesting the number of people who find it wrong to even ask the question. I don't know if it is reflective of their political biases, or representative of the attitude that one doesn't question authority, or just general paranoia.

There might be a clue to that mindset in the McCain's campaign attacks on the media which, in effect say, read our press releases to the people but do not question us or fact check them.

One fellow even dropped in to quickly suggest that somehow or another the questions were "weighted" against Palin in order to force a negative result, and he was going to set us straight by rolling results together.

[brazhunter]

Maybe the poll should be changed to "Will Biden Withdraw?"

[usmc1]

Maybe the poll should be changed to "Will Biden Withdraw?"

No, maybe if you're interested in that question you should initiate a new poll around that question.

[brazhunter]

Obama will probably outshine McCain as McCain is not as gifted a speaker and Palin will be a real challenge to Biden.

Without uh uh a uh teleprompter, Obama uh uh doesn't speak uh uh much better uh than uh uh W.

[jon71]

Not that oratory skills are as important as Republicans want to make them out to be, yes he can. Obama actually is extrememly well informed across the board and can speak intelligently on pretty much any subject. Bush is a poor speaker not because he lacks speaking skills but because he literally doesn't know what he's talking about. There was no teleprompter at Saddleback and Obama was clearly informed and expressed himself well.

[usmc1]

Oratory Skills be damned. It would helpful if she had even a clue as to how things work.

Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51940.html), "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/eO4k1fIjivg&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>
Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, which came before the government had spent funds bailing the two entities out, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.

"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."

Added Andrew Jakabovics, an economic analyst for the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress: "It is somewhat nonsensical because up until yesterday there was sort of no public funding there. Even today they haven't drawn down any of the credit line they have given to Treasury. 'Gotten too big and too expensive' are two separate things. The too big has been a conservative mantra for a while and there is something to be said of that in that they hold about half of the mortgage guarantees that are out there. And in the last year they have been responsible for roughly 80 percent out there. The 'too expensive to tax payers,' I don't know where that comes from."

Even conservative analysts acknowledged that the statement simply did not hold true.

"Heretofore, if the treasury had a balance sheet there would have been a liability but there was never a taxpayer payment before [the bailout]," said Gerald P. O'Driscoll, an economist with the Cato Institute. "[Fannie and Freddie] were not taxpayer funded. They had taxpayer guarantee, which is worth something, especially in the stock market..."

The Palin misstatement comes as Fannie and Freddie are set to be placed under control of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, created by President Bush in late July to help regulate the two housing giants. Both presidential candidates (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayx1bu.ANjrs&refer=home) have been critical of Fannie and Freddie but neither is opposed to the government's plans for the companies. The treasury is hoping that the government's role will help stabilize credit markets and incentive more mortgage lending.

"With the takeover they will be taxpayer funded," said O'Driscoll. "As I understand it they get to withdraw funds with permission going forward."

How politically significant a "gaffe" it is remains to be seen. The major concern about Palin's position on the ticket is that she lacks the economic and foreign policy wherewithal to serve as vice president. This certainly doesn't help on that front. At the same time, the remark went almost entirely unnoticed over the weekend and discussions on the developments of the housing market can be difficult to process for even the most attuned voter.

There are varying explanations that could be offered for Palin's defense. As O'Driscoll noted, both Fannie and Freddie "were hybrid institutions because they had private ownership but... an implicit government guarantee which people thought at the end of the day was explicit." Meanwhile, as Baker noted, as of July the two lenders were being offered low market interest rates by the fed again, theoretically, at the taxpayer's expense. But, he added, "I kind of doubt she had any sense of that."

[Qikdraw]

Palin charged rape victims (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/10526/9939/96/594843)

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," [Former Governor Tony] Knowles said.

The funny thing is there should not have been any new law requiring this because:

In all too many instances, women are still being stuck with the bill for rape kits. This despite the fact that in order to qualify for federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act, states are supposed to pick up the entire tab.

If on her watch Sarah Palin allowed women to be charged for rape kits, she has some serious explaining to do.

Just for the people who will not go to the link I provided... Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act.

If women want a future where equality matters don't vote for McCain/Palin. They are not pro women. Past records show this.

[Qikdraw]

Just Like Bush White House, Palin Uses Personal E-mail Accounts And Claims Executive Privilege (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/palin-email-privilege/)

This is insane, using Yahoo mail to conduct state business? WTF kind of security is that?

The Washington Post reports that Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) is “being asked by a local Republican activist to release more than 1,100 e-mails she withheld from a public records request, including 40 that were copied to her husband, Todd.” Invoking a favored practice of the Bush administration, Palin has claimed executive privilege to keep the e-mails secret — despite the fact many of them were sent to Todd, who is not an elected official.

What’s more, Palin and her staff intentionally use her personal Yahoo e-mail account, perhaps to avoid document release requests:

Palin also routinely does government business from a Yahoo address, gov.sarah@yahoo.com, rather than from her secure official state e-mail address, according to documents already made public.

“Whoops!” Palin aide Frank Bailey wrote, after addressing an e-mail to the governor’s official state address.

“Frank, This is not the Governor’s personal account,” a secretary reminded him.

The lawyer filing the request pointed out that the point of government e-mail is to ensure “security and encryption.” “She’s running state business out of Yahoo?” he asked. Mother Jones reports that Palin’s refusal to hand over e-mails stands in violation of the Alaska Public Records Act.

Palin’s move is eerily reminiscent of Bush administration ploys to dramatically increase secrecy in government, such as when White House aides switched to personal e-mail accounts to avoid subpoenas during the investigation into U.S. Attorney scandal last year:

But just a week after E-mails in the U.S. attorneys case became a main focus of congressional Democrats probing the firings, several aides said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence. […]

At least two aides said that they have subsequently bought their own private E-mail system through a cellular phone or Blackberry server. When asked how he communicated, one aide pulled out a new personal cellphone and said, “texting.”

As Josh Marshall pointed out at the time, if the White House was using personal e-mails, “they can’t have even the vaguest claim” to executive privilege. Similarly, the fact that Palin copies her husband on her e-mails and often uses a personal account raises the question of whether her e-mails are actually official executive business.

Palin’s commitment to secrecy and her stonewalling of an ethics investigation into her role in “Troopergate” are more evidence that a McCain-Palin administration would be little more than a third Bush term.

[Qikdraw]

McCain connected 35W bridge collapse to Palin’s pork (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=208685)

Over 37 million people saw Sarah Palin declare in her acceptance speech that she told Congress, “thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.” That statement is demonstrably false, but the campaign of Sen. John McCain continues to tout Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s opposition to the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” despite once linking it to the collapse of the 35W bridge.

During the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Palin was a strong proponent of the project, which aimed to connect the town of Ketchikan, Alaska, to a nearby airport on Gravina Island.

“I support these infrastructure projects,” Palin said during a gubernatorial debate. “It will build Alaska, and it’s cheaper to do it today than it is tomorrow.”

Once governor, Palin killed the effort only after it became apparent that the federal government wasn’t going to put any more money into the bloated project beyond the $233 million in earmarks that Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, had already secured. Under pressure to cut wasteful spending, Congress then stripped the stipulation that the money be spent on a bridge but allowed the state of Alaska to keep the $233 million for other transportation projects. Palin then directed her transportation commissioner, Leo von Scheben, to review transportation projects statewide to prepare a list of possible uses for the funds.

Days after the 35W bridge collapse John McCain connected that $233 million with the tragedy that claimed 13 lives in Minneapolis.

“Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country,” McCain said at a campaign stop in Ankeny, Iowa on Aug. 4, 2007. “Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it.”

One month after McCain’s critical comments Palin changed her position on the bridge, citing the project’s high cost to Alaskans, while continuing to defend the project.

“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Palin stated in a released statement dated Sept. 21, 2007. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”

[nuovonudo]

the only panic out there (regarding governor palin's nomination) is panic on the far left, who now realize, too late, that they've nominated a couple of turkeys (obama and biden), around whom mccain and palin are running circles.

hence all the hysterical (and hypocritcal, anti-feminist) attacks on governor palin. the lunatic lefty libs realize that in picking this woman as his running mate, mccain has basically won the election. in my estimation, the democrat ticket can hope to carry at most fourteen states; mccain/palin will garner somewhere between 55 and 60 percent of the popular vote overall and carry at least 36 states. i would not be surprised if they win 45 states or even more. obama and biden are both daily showing the world who crass and unsuited for the office they each are.

Is she known in the conservative base? Why would an unknown quality bring panic? After all, all is fair in love and war right?

governor palin was known to some conservatives, though certainly not by many. but her record on the issues speaks for itself and has delighted conservatives, who were not particularly happy with mccain's nomination, inasmuch as he has not proven himself to be very conservative on a number of issues.

[nuovonudo]

Oratory Skills be damned. It would helpful if she had even a clue as to how things work.

. . . as if obama does??!?

let's see ...

--a few years as a "community organizier" on the south side of chicago;

--a few more as a member of the illinois legislature, where his biggest accomplishment was abstaining from (or voting "present" on) over a hundred pieces of legislation;

--and then 143 days of actual work in the u.s. senate before announcing his candidacy for president.

it is YOUR candidate, sir, who lacks the requisite experience for the office of president of the united states of america, and that is one of the many reasons why he and his scurrilous running mate are going to lose huge in november.

but if you want to believe that the lady is inexperienced, be my guest. just as you and your hysterical buddies in the "mainstream" media and the hollywood elite have consistently "misunderestimated" president george w. bush, you are misunderestimating governor palin, and the result will be the defeat of your candidates in november -- an outcome devoutly to be wished.

[usmc1]

the only panic out there (regarding governor palin's nomination) is panic on the far left, .
Not the Democrats mind you. Not the liberals. Not the progressives either. No panic there, but the fa-a-a-a-a-r left, now that's different, they're in a panic.

Actually, Obama has a firm hold on all the Kerry states, and really only needs to pick up three others. Again, even though McCain has a light edge in the polls right now, his edge is not as high as Obama's was prior to the convention, and it will wane. It is as I've said all along, every bounce McCain gets is a catch up, but it just never sticks and holds him in front.

Palin tonight on ABC just repudiated the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war, and locked herself and McCain into that repudiation. It'll get worse for her. And, here's a nasty little stat you can gnaw on, her unfavorables with moderates are higher than her favorables with conservatives. There is softness for the McCain ticket in those numbers.

Her clueless, blase, moose in the headlights, misunderstanding of the "Bush Doctrine" really exposed her ditzy weakness. I don't use the term nitwit loosely, this woman is a nitwit!

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Shane/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z75QSExE0jU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z75QSExE0jU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Qikdraw]

an outcome devoutly to be wished.

Ok... so just so I have this clear... You are for a candidate who likes to charge rape victims for medical exams...

Does that sound about right?

[jon71]

I don't know one liberal (myself included) who is remotely worried. Our primary response to Palin to is laugh. Honestly my biggest concern is over-confidence. If too many people think that Obama's victory is a gimme they may stay home. That's really McCain's only chance. In a typical Presidential election turnout is about 55%. If we hit that Obama wins, guaranteed. If it's under 50% McCain will probably have won. I think with all the excitement we should definitely see 55% and perhaps even 60%. If that's the case it'll be big. Almost all that additional 5% will be for Sen. Obama and that will push every close state (including N. Carolina and a few others that are closer than the scant attention they're getting would suggest) into his column. I can't wait.

[usmc1]

As Mark has noted, this is not a typical election, nor has there been a typical election since 2000.

The chicanery in OHIO is well underway:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080911/NEWS0108/309110032/

[LamontCranston]

Sooo... where's the Joe Biden thread? I clicked around and can't find it. And no news agencies are clamoring for his interview. And the man was already proven lacking by his own party in past primaries. Boring pick.

McCain has energized his campaign by making a surprise VP choice that cancelled any post-convention momentum his opponent was enjoying. Still two weeks later and the talk is all McCain/Palin.

It takes away the minority candidate talk, it highlights his opponent's lack of experience by comparison, it addresses oil and energy, it plays to the Hillary Clinton crowd, mothers, the NRA, young people, heck she's even got a baby that's not a trumped up photo op...

Brilliant chess move.

Obama must counter with something other than rhetoric or he's in trouble. He's got the best politician of our generation -- Bill Clinton -- on the sideline, a man who's beaten a Bush. Rhetoric would be like running a draw play on a passing down. Safe play but the crowd boos.

[lordshipmayhem]

Brilliant chess move.

Agreed.

I may not agree with all of Palin's policies - her social conservatism and her support of the teaching of mythology and superstition in biology class, for two - but nominating her for Veep is absolutely brilliant tactics. She's young, attractive, has an attractive family, has issues within that family that all too many of us can relate to (teen daughter's pregnancy, baby's Down syndrome, hockey... OK 'hockey mom' gives her more appeal to parents in the northern 1/4 than the lower 3/4 of the States...), and has more administrative and executive experience than both Biden and Obama put together. Plus, she is definitely an outsider and a maverick in an election campaign dominated by insiders on both sides of the aisle.

She has a lot about her that would be appealing to those who considered themselves "disenfranchised outsiders". Unless Obama gets his act together, the public will elect her as President, McCain as interim President.

[LamontCranston]

Beyond the red and blue and what-will-I-do-when-elected noise of politics, what I'm really looking for is innovative decision-making.

Most of what any candidate says is baloney. Most of us can agree on that. But every chief executive will be faced with a crises of some kind and there are generally two obvious courses of action. Sometimes neither are good.

What I'm looking for is that third choice no one else thought of that carries the day. The kind of choice that turns heads.

That's what McCain has done with his VP pick... turned heads.

Bill Clinton did it in 1992. He was dogged about infidelity and could've denied it or ignored it. Instead he went on 60 Minutes and talked about it with his wife next to him. It took courage and turned heads. He won.

Contrast that with Sen. Kerry. "I served in Viet Nam but tossed my medals." "The Iraq War is wrong but I voted for it when asked." Boring. He lost.

If the Clintons get on the campaign trail -- visible, behind him, every day -- there's no doubt for me that Obama can carry the election. But they don't. They aren't. There's a problem there. Obama couldn't close out the primaries and he can't unite his own party. There's a problem there somewhere.

He wants a job that's all about coalition building and persuasion, not raising money and making speeches. I need to see Obama make a move that turns my head.

[jon71]

We found out one of the books she was trying to ban. The pastor of a neighboring town had written a book called "Pastor I am gay". It kept "disappearing" from the Wasilla library and Palin's church was doing everything it could to get the book banned. How sad. GOD loves HIS gay children just as much as he does HIS straight kids. Anyway I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this book was at the top of Palin's ban list. She's now trying to spin it and call it "theoreticalbut that's so transparently false you could read a newspaper through it.

[usmc1]

Sooo... where's the Joe Biden thread? I clicked around and can't find it. And no news agencies are clamoring for his interview...


None (thread) was needed.

1. He's not a nitwit
2. He knows what the Bush Doctrine is about
3. His family is functional
4. He has a lifetime of service, accomplishment and experience
5. And, best of all, he's not a blond joke in a brunette wig.
6. Did I mention, he's not a nitwit.
7. He doesn't assert that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a mission from God.
8. He isn't under investigation for abuse of power.
9. He didn't lie about supporting the Bridge to No Where!
10 There are more people in his senatorial district than live in the entire state of Alaska.
11. He doesn't sleep with a BP oil official and then bill the state for it.
12. He's not a nitwit
13. He didn't get his Foreign Policy credentials from breathing in the west winds blowing out of Siberia.
14. He's not a holy roller believing in the "end time".
15. He's not a nitwit.

So, yeah! compared to Palin, he's boring and normal. After the last eight years some of us would be relieved to have a little boring and normal.

[Qikdraw]

McCain has energized his campaign by making a surprise VP choice that cancelled any post-convention momentum his opponent was enjoying. Still two weeks later and the talk is all McCain/Palin.

I absolutely agree with you that this was a brilliant chess move for him to solidify his base, however I also think that is its downfall. If you have to solidify your base you are not reaching out to independants, and Palin being so hard core conservative that is going to turn off moderates. Polls show McCain losing independants.

Palin is in the news so much right now because nobody knows who she is, so they are scrambling to come up with stories on her. Some by the media were being overly personal about her family, but then the McCain campaign brings out the boyfreind of her daughter and, to me, that smacks of trying to make political hay out of the situation themselves.

Remember when nobody thought Obama had a chance in the presidential election and people mostly ignored him, then after Obama's first win all that changed and the media pounced on him. All kinds of allegations, lies, and stories so convoluted that it was like playing that Kevin Bacon game where you try and tie an actor to Kevin Bacon through movies.

Both are young, bright, stars in their political parties, gaurenteed that no matter how the election turns out both will continue to be top dogs in their parties. While Palin was unknown, she isn't now, and she won't step lightly into the shadows. I guarentee if she isn't the VP, she'll be an Alaskan senator before long.

Beyond the red and blue and what-will-I-do-when-elected noise of politics, what I'm really looking for is innovative decision-making.

The first thing that had me take a look at Obama was his stance on companies that outsource. Currently they get tax breaks to do it, and Obama wants to take all tax breaks away from companies that outsource. Pesonally that should have been done a long time ago, and I am suprised it has taen this long for someone to talk about it.
The second thing is his energy policy. McCain's/Palin's plan is a handout to oil companies. There are no provisions to make sure that oil is used only in the US. It'll be sold on the open market and we'll still have to pay high prices. Plus we won't see a drop of that oil for 20 years according to the government. Obama is talking about production of turbines and starting a large economy based on renewable energy. This is a sidebar for McCain's campaign. We can't wait till gas reaches $10 a gallon, and thats what McCain seems to want to do.

Those two things are the main reasons why I like Obama more than McCain. There are other reasons, but those were the two that made me seriously think about him.

[usmc1]

None (thread) was needed.

1. He's not a nitwit
2. He knows what the Bush Doctrine is about
3. His family is functional
4. He has a lifetime of service, accomplishment and experience
5. And, best of all, he's not a blond joke in a brunette wig.
6. Did I mention, he's not a nitwit.
7. He doesn't assert that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a mission from God.
8. He isn't under investigation for abuse of power.
9. He didn't lie about supporting the Bridge to No Where!
10 There are more people in his senatorial district than live in the entire state of Alaska.
11. He doesn't sleep with a BP oil official and then bill the state for it.
12. He's not a nitwit
13. He didn't get his Foreign Policy credentials from breathing in the west winds blowing out of Siberia.
14. He's not a holy roller believing in the "end time".
15. He's not a nitwit.

So, yeah! compared to Palin, he's boring and normal. After the last eight years some of us would be relieved to have a little boring and normal.

Oh yeah, I forgot.

16. He doesn't have a bitchy tone to his voice.

[Naturist Mark]

As Mark has noted, this is not a typical election, nor has there been a typical election since 2000.

The chicanery in OHIO is well underway:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080911/NEWS0108/309110032/

Something is going on for sure. There are reports coming in from so called 'battleground' states all over the country that millions of registered Democratic voters are receiving unsolicited absentee ballot request forms from the McCain campaign.

Why is the McCain campaign so keen to facilitate absentee voting by probable Obama voters? Why is this effort worth a million dollars or more in mailings? And is it just a coincidence that so many of the request forms are defective in one way or another?

The Guru of the election fraud watchers - Brad Friedman (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6378#more-6378) says that the fears are probably unfounded: "While it appears to be a massive and very aggressive GOTV effort from the McCain campaign --- even targeting Democrats in places they consider "swing states", like Wisconsin --- there doesn't seem to be anything nefarious going on with these particular mailings. At least so far as I've been able to tell..."

Brad's interview on the Thom Hartmann Show by guest host Lee Rayburn:
<blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.bradblog.com/audio/ThomHartmann_LeeRayburnGuest_Brad_091208.mp3"><i>MP3 Download</i></a><i>, or listen online here...<br>
</i><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.bradblog.com/wp-content/plugins/audio-player/player.swf" id="audioplayer1" width="290" height="24"><param name="movie" value="http://www.bradblog.com/wp-content/plugins/audio-player/player.swf"><param name="FlashVars" value="playerID=1&amp;bg=0xf8f8f8&amp;leftbg=0xC0C0C0&amp;lefticon=0x 666666&amp;rightbg=0x003366&amp;rightbghover=0x0263BE&amp;righ ticon=0xFFCC00&amp;righticonhover=0xFFFF00&amp;text=0x6666 66&amp;slider=0x003366&amp;track=0xFFFFFF&amp;border=0x666666&amp; loader=0xFFCC00&amp;soundFile=http://www.bradblog.com/audio/ThomHartmann_LeeRayburnGuest_Brad_091208.mp3"><param name="quality" value="high"><param name="menu" value="false"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></object><br>
(<i>Thanks to Ben Burch of <a href="http://whiterosesociety.org">WhiteRoseSociety.org</a> for the archive!</i>)</p></blockquote>
Vigilance!

-Mark

[rone]

Oh yeah, I forgot.

16. He doesn't have a bitchy tone to his voice.

17. He's a proven plagiarist. {not that I care, but some might.}

[usmc1]

17. He's a proven plagiarist. {not that I care, but some might.}
43 years ago as a first year law student he dropped in some pages without proper attribution, in a class assigned paper. yep, that makes him a bad character. Horrible man. Damned careless and stupid, and acknowledged as being that by him, but not as though he did it for profit or to advance himself as a legal scholar...merely a dumbass college kid trying to get slick.

Now there's Cliff Notes. And the internet, and guys like me that will do your paper for you, for a fee!

[Qikdraw]

17. He's a proven plagiarist. {not that I care, but some might.}

And McCain has broken intelectual property laws by using music and video he had not cleared with the owners or paid for. Five times we know of for sure. You'd think that after the first time they'd be more careful.

[Naturist Mark]

17. He's a proven plagiarist. {not that I care, but some might.}

LOL,

For those of you who don't know the story ... in the 1988 primary campaign Biden used a paraphrase of a story by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his standard stump speech, which he properly attributed. But in an early debate he forgot to include the attribution and was pounded in the media for 'plagiarizing'. Of course the media would probably have never realized it was a Neil Kinnock line if Biden hadn't so often attributed it to Kinnock in previous speeches.

But once the media decides on how to frame their characterization of a candidate, everything in their history must fit that meme. Thus Gore became an "exaggerator" even though every single alleged exaggeration touted by the media was shown to be an accurate statement. Thus John McCain is a "Straight Talker" even though he has changed nearly every one of his core beliefs and values. Thus they dug into Biden's background and discovered he had repeated a law course because he had received a failing grade the first time around due to failing to use the correct protocols for reciting sources in a law review article - which the press labeled 'plagiarism', but which the college dean and course professor downplayed, which is why Biden was permitted to repeat the course. Not that it mattered, because by then the press had turned these two incidents into a 20 year history of serial plagiarism.

The same attack was attempted on Obama early in the primaries for using a quote from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. That attack was defused by Patrick, who is an Obama supporter and advisor when he stated in Obama's defense: "I am neither surprised nor troubled that he used the words. I asked him to use of my own." Since it didn't work to frame Obama with that meme, they had to settle on the "secret Muslim" one instead.

-Mark

[LamontCranston]

... The first thing that had me take a look at Obama was his stance on companies that outsource. Currently they get tax breaks to do it, and Obama wants to take all tax breaks away from companies that outsource. Pesonally that should have been done a long time ago, and I am suprised it has taen this long for someone to talk about it ... This is that "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot was warning about. I lost a job to outsourcing. I hate outsourcing. We have labor laws that make me more expensive. I hate outsourcing. If an employer was made to pay social security tax, unemployment tax, medicare tax, and ten paid holidays to their off-shore wage earners they wouldn't be that much less expensive. These are things I can't negotiate because they are law. And on top of that wage break, the employer gets a business profit tax break.... I HATE OUTSOURCING.

If McCain starts making speeches about how great it is for business, his Palin bouce will have worn off and I'll go back to supporting a 3rd party candidate.

[Qikdraw]

This is that "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot was warning about. I lost a job to outsourcing. I hate outsourcing. We have labor laws that make me more expensive. I hate outsourcing. If an employer was made to pay social security tax, unemployment tax, medicare tax, and ten paid holidays to their off-shore wage earners they wouldn't be that much less expensive. These are things I can't negotiate because they are law. And on top of that wage break, the employer gets a business profit tax break.... I HATE OUTSOURCING.

If McCain starts making speeches about how great it is for business, his Palin bouce will have worn off and I'll go back to supporting a 3rd party candidate.

I'm sorry you lost a job to outsourcing, I know a fair amount of people that had that happen to them too. :(

It does need to stop, we can't keep being a 'service' industry.

[brazhunter]

I'm sorry you lost a job to outsourcing, I know a fair amount of people that had that happen to them too. :(

It does need to stop, we can't keep being a 'service' industry.

Some people on this forum are okay with jobs being lost if they're lost to illegal aliens.

[usmc1]

Some people on this forum are okay with jobs being lost if they're lost to illegal aliens.

Really, please name one and cite your authority for that. Otherwise retract your falsehood.

[Qikdraw]

Some people on this forum are okay with jobs being lost if they're lost to illegal aliens.

Yes and I remember McCain saying he would pay anyone $50 an hour to do the job these illegals are doing for one season, (pick lettuce in AZ) some people took him up on that and he responded 'You couldn't do it, my friend, you couldn't do it'. Sounds to me like John McCain likes illegals and he doesn't have faith in the American workforce.

One of the main problems with illegal immigration is that for years the companies that have hired the illegals get away with it. The place will get raided, people rounded up and deported, and the next day the place is up and running again with more illegals. If the corporations were targeted with very heavy fines for this, and criminal prosecution for the owners or CEOs, you'd not see the problem you complain about so much.

[LamontCranston]

Yes and I remember McCain saying he would pay anyone $50 an hour to do the job these illegals are doing for one season, (pick lettuce in AZ) some people took him up on that and he responded 'You couldn't do it, my friend, you couldn't do it'. Sounds to me like John McCain likes illegals and he doesn't have faith in the American workforce.

One of the main problems with illegal immigration is that for years the companies that have hired the illegals get away with it. The place will get raided, people rounded up and deported, and the next day the place is up and running again with more illegals. If the corporations were targeted with very heavy fines for this, and criminal prosecution for the owners or CEOs, you'd not see the problem you complain about so much. Right. Senator McCain represents Arizona so he's got a first hand view. I think the illegal alien problem is largely an Arizona and California problem that's been nationalized.

Here in Connecticut we all worked the tobacco fields when I was a teenager. It's the only job you could get as young as 14. Tough work under the nets. I have to say that these teenagers I see nowadays -- my two included -- wouldn't be up for that kind of manual labor. They work, but it's service work, not manual labor work. Maybe that's what McCain was driving at.

Still, I want to know which companies and products are running off the backs of illegal immigrants. That way I can be sure I'm not invested in those companies or consuming those products.

Where's Jimmy Hoffa when we need him?

[Naturist Mark]

Still, I want to know which companies and products are running off the backs of illegal immigrants. That way I can be sure I'm not invested in those companies or consuming those products.

http://www.wehirealiens.com/index.asp

[LamontCranston]

http://www.wehirealiens.com/index.asp Thanks Mark. I found two nationally that I already don't frequent because the products or reputation are junk (one brewer, one auto insurer). One local steak house is already beaten by better fare elsewhere. But there is one national lending institution that I once had a mortgage with. I'll forever steer clear of them. NO INTEREST FOR YOU...

Then there's the computer company that sent its customer service oversees. For that reason alone, they lost a $950 sale from me last May.

[Qikdraw]

Thanks Mark. I found two nationally that I already don't frequent because the products or reputation are junk (one brewer, one auto insurer). One local steak house is already beaten by better fare elsewhere. But there is one national lending institution that I once had a mortgage with. I'll forever steer clear of them. NO INTEREST FOR YOU...

Then there's the computer company that sent its customer service oversees. For that reason alone, they lost a $950 sale from me last May.

Yeah I boycott companies I don't like as well. Walmart is my big one, and I probably should not drink Coke as their history around the world has not been clean, but I'm addicted, sooo... I'm a bad person. :(

I think your kids would get used to it. I think we underestimate kids these days, and also coddle them too much. Working the tobacco fields, certainly as a first job, would build important job skiils, like you have to work hard for your money. :D

[jon71]

All these jobs are not being lost, they are going to first generation Americans and that's true whether they're legal or "illegal". If we didn't have these immigrants doing this work then these farms and factories and other businesses would shut down, all the jobs would be truly lost and we'd just import more. Immigration both legal and illegal SAVES American jobs and strengthens our economy. Until my father-in-law passed away we ran a produce packing business with my wife as the book-keeper and her brother working in the office. I remember when they used natural born Americans to work the line and they were notoriously unreliable. They'd hire somebody, they'd work a few days, and never show up again. When they started going to immigrants there was no more problem. The people they hired showed up and did the work. Immigration, both legal and illegal, is extremely good for America.

[Boreas]

Walmart is the organization that made outsourcing so prevalent. We can thank Sam Walton for some of those policies.

So much for valuing the "free market".

[Qikdraw]

Walmart is the organization that made outsourcing so prevalent. We can thank Sam Walton for some of those policies.

So much for valuing the "free market".

Actually Sam Walton also placed a higher value on American products, but as soon as he died that changed asap. He was willing to pay more for goods made in America, current Walmart does not.

[Naturist Mark]

All these jobs are not being lost, they are going to first generation Americans and that's true whether they're legal or "illegal". If we didn't have these immigrants doing this work then these farms and factories and other businesses would shut down, all the jobs would be truly lost and we'd just import more. Immigration both legal and illegal SAVES American jobs and strengthens our economy. Until my father-in-law passed away we ran a produce packing business with my wife as the book-keeper and her brother working in the office. I remember when they used natural born Americans to work the line and they were notoriously unreliable. They'd hire somebody, they'd work a few days, and never show up again. When they started going to immigrants there was no more problem. The people they hired showed up and did the work. Immigration, both legal and illegal, is extremely good for America.

I appreciate what you are saying, and as a businessman I can vouch for the fact that (legal) immigrants are some of our very best employees, but the fact remains that low wage employers are attracting illegal workers so that they can avoid paying wages attractive to citizens. And that forces everyone else in those industries to do the same in order to stay in business. Government and business has allowed this because those with the power to stop it would rather see wages depressed and the middle class streamlined.

There is no honest work that Americans won't do for an honest wage.

The honest employer won't be undercut by low wage competition if others weren't able to attract desperate workers with dishonest wages. And so called 'free trade' wouldn't undercut the honest employer if we used careful and common sense tariffs to protect wages and safe practices just as we did for the first 200 years of our nation - when we managed to grow into the mightiest industrial power the world had ever seen.

My outlook has changed considerably (you can track this by reading some of my very old posts here). I believe in competitive markets and the genius of capitalism to find the best way to fulfill needs. But I'm not naive (at least not any longer), free markets don't happen by accident - left unregulated power concentrates and capitalism devolves into robber baron feudalism. The so called 'free trade' movement exemplified by NAFTA and GATT is shaping world wide robber baron feudalism - not a capitalist utopia of free peoples. I want to see "fair trade" instead - where people can trade freely and compete on the basis of the quality of their work - not on the sparseness of their wages.

How do we get there? To start we reframe the issue. It isn't about illegal workers, and for that matter it isn't even about illegal employers - it is about eliminating the business advantage to making workers poor and desperate.

<blockquote>The economic frame and the progressive solution: (1) make good working conditions a requirement and there will be no advantage in hiring foreign workers without papers and (2) make it easy to report those who cheat and fine those who knowingly exploit workers.

[1] If every American job paid a decent wage and offered safe and humane conditions, and if we had a real national health care system that is not connected to employment, then there would be no "jobs Americans won't do", no market of jobs that only an "illegal" immigrant would take. And there would be no incentive for employers to seek out "illegal" immigrants, who don't have rights or leverage, in preference to American workers, who do. If we eliminate the unfair advantage that employers seek when they hire easily exploitable "illegal" immigrants, we also eliminate 90% of the "illegal" immigrant problem. . .

[2] The big penalties should not be for employers who hire "illegal" immigrants, but for employers who try to cheat on the rules governing living wage and decent working conditions regardless of the legal status of their workers.

If our government did this, every worker in America would benefit. That's the progressive frame.

from Ending the Amnesty for Abusive Employers (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/rockridge/005)</blockquote>

-Mark

[jon71]

I like what you say Mark. I worry though that without cheap labor here too many businesses would just take the easy route and import. I don't like that possiblity.

[Naturist Mark]

I worry though that without cheap labor here too many businesses would just take the easy route and import. I don't like that possiblity.

That isn't a new problem. For nearly 200 years we addressed it by levying tariffs to level the playing field. Today the few remaining tariffs protect favored industries - or rather favored political backers. But the Founding Fathers understood the need to develop a domestic industrial infrastructure, and that for democracy to succeed you need good wages and a prosperous populace. Their solution worked well - under "protective" tariffs America grew into the world's greatest industrial power.

Today we could return to intelligent tariffs that level the playing field between the developed nations and the developing world. Tariffs that equalize the labor component of trade would protect first world middle class wages while removing the incentive for developing nations to keep wages at sweatshop levels.
<blockquote>From the founding of this country, our operational principle was: If there's a dollar's worth of labor in a pair of shoes made here, and you can make the same shoes in some other "cheap labor" country with 10 cents' worth of labor, there will be a 90-cent import tax (tariff) when you bring them into the country, to protect our domestic industries and our manufacturing jobs. Tariffs level the field for both American business and American labor. Without tariffs the only winners are the East India Company's modern incarnations-- the multinational corporations (which is why the multinationals push so hard for the WTO and other such institutions, treaties, and trade agreements).

This is not a new idea, by the way-- it's how America has protected its economy from the founding of this nation right up until Clinton signed NAFTA and GATT. The first law imposing tariffs was in place before the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Tariffs represented 100 percent of federal government revenues from the founding of this nation until around the time of the Civil War and about a third of our total federal revenues up to World War I. They were still a major source of revenue right into the 1980s, when Reagan first took a whack at them.
Thom Hartmann (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15455.htm)</blockquote>
-Mark

[Boreas]

Actually Sam Walton also placed a higher value on American products, but as soon as he died that changed asap. He was willing to pay more for goods made in America, current Walmart does not.

Thanks for the clarification Qikdraw.

[Qikdraw]

Thanks for the clarification Qikdraw.

You're welcome. :D

[jon71]

While Reagan was president he made a big deal about "free trade". What this meant to him was that America dropped our tariffs and restrictions on imports and he couldn't care less what other countries did. Reagan would lower or eliminate our tariffs and the countries we traded with would keep them as high as ever. This shamefully made America the world's economic whipping boy. Clinton's approach was balanced. America and our trading partners would both lower tariffs together. This is fair. They drop tariffs on what we export to them and we drop tariffs on what we import from them. We can compete in this system and after NAFTA American exports went up significantly. We really need to return to being more of an exporter. Also Clinton insisted that environmental concerns be addressed by NAFTA. This was an issue that G.H.W. Bush was either indifferent to or opposed to making what he finally signed a better bill than what was originally proposed. I won't claim that NAFTA was perfect but overall I like the bill. After it passed unemployment went down in large part due to more American exports.

[usmc1]

As a vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin has railed against federal earmarks, or congressional funding for pork-barrel projects. "In our state, we reformed the abuses of earmarks," Palin recently boasted to a rally in Lancaster, Pa. "We championed earmark reform up there," she said, "to stop Congress from wasting public money on things that didn't serve the public interest."

But musty records culled from the archives of the Wasilla, Alaska, city government reveal that Palin was directly involved in soliciting millions of dollars in earmarks for Wasilla when she was mayor. And she got help from a well-connected Washington lobbyist.

In a monthly status report to the city on March 7, 2000 (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/tvnews/deep%20background/sfx2abb.pdf), newly hired "City Lobbyist" Steve Silver describes how the Palin administration had requested $6.6 million in federal earmarks for water and sewer improvements for Wasilla, and another $1 million for police equipment. Mayor Palin reviewed and signed the lobbyist's report, dated April 5, 2000.

Those earmark requests have not previously been disclosed, said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator for the non-profit Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/index.php), a budget watchdog group. Ashdown said the lobbyist's report offers a rare window into a normally closed-door process. "The document you've found is a peek behind the curtain of how earmarks get approved in Washington," he said.

Steve Silver, the Wasilla lobbyist, is a former top staffer for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who now is under federal indictment for allegedly failing to disclose thousands of dollars in services he received from a company that helped renovate his Alaska home. He has pleaded not guilty. Under Palin, the city paid Silver about $40,000 a year to lobby on behalf of Wasilla (the contract began years before Stevens was indicted.)

In Silver's April 2000 memo to Palin, he writes that he had spent the month of February making appropriations requests to Sen. Stevens, a proud distributor of earmarks to his homestate of Alaska. "I am very hopeful that a good funding package will be approved later in the year," Silver writes.
Silver also attaches the five-page letter he sent directly to Senator Stevens and his staff, requesting the federal earmarks. Silver breaks down why Wasilla, "one of the fastest growing communities in Alaska," needs federal help, and says the small town "has tremendous needs which the State of Alaska cannot meet."

"This further confirms that Palin was very supportive of the earmark system," Ashdown said. "She was getting very specific feedback from this lobbyist."

In the letter, Silver asks Stevens for $6.6 million for wells, a pump house, a reservoir and piping to improve water and sewer service for the city of 7,000 people. Silver then asks his former boss for police equipment for Wasilla, including $100,000 worth of radar units, bulletproof vests, Remington shotguns, Colt rifles and other gear. (The police earmark seems to have shrunk from the initial $1 million request.)

It's unclear how successful Palin was in 2000 in securing earmarks for her state, Ashdown said. Part of the problem many critics have with earmarks is that they often are handed out in near secrecy, with few fingerprints left behind.

But Ashdown said that his research shows that as Mayor of Wasilla, between 1996-2002, Palin helped get nearly $27 million in earmarked federal funding. As previously reported, Palin and Silver were instrumental in bringing in millions for a local commuter rail project, a regional dispatch center, bus and airport facilities and other Wasilla projects.

In the lobbying documents, Silver also encourages Palin and other city officials to visit Washington, D.C., to meet with Sen. Stevens and the rest of the Alaska political delegation. "It is always a good idea for representatives of the City to meet personally with them during the process on their turf, so to speak," he writes.

As the Alaska papers have reported, Palin took him up on the invitation and began making regular D.C. trips. "It was about being face to face with those who were actually writing the budget," Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in 2006.