Silly spin here. Which blog did you get it from?

The term 'Main Street' has been used many times by both candidates during the two debates. That term is referencing the 'middle class' or 'blue collar' workers.

The modern GOP are just statists warmongers, moralist voyeurs and the party of the status quo. Don't even get me started on American exceptionalism.

But I guess that's the soup de jour these days for both parties. Even if you rooted the elements out of GOP, they've already forced a different conversation onto the Dems to where they're forced to talk about things like religion and other things they might not have in the past.

You point out a couple of policies that the religious right obviously championed, but the vast majority of the religious right-styled bills go down in flames. The religious right has little control over policies, though they do get a bone thrown to them here and there to make them think they're still relevant. They're a political dinosaur for all intensive purposes, though there are definitely some far left organizations that would love to scare voters into thinking otherwise.

Not sure if this is a typo or a misunderstanding of the phrase, but if it's not a typo, the phrase is actually "for all intents and purposes". Hopefully this doesn't come across as me being a jerk, but I know when I misuse or mangle terms I like to be told what the proper usage is (often because it then also gives me the "aha! that makes sense!" epiphany).

Anyways, carry on with the partisan bickerings everyone :)

I'm a little confushed here. It seems like we have alot of conservatives int his thread who don't care much for the social conservative wing of the party and wish the traditionalist Republicans would take the party back. However, it seems many of those same people are big Sarah Palin fans. This seems to be contradictory. Her nomination is a big victory for the social conservative wing of the party.

The point isn't that there's any meaning, just that it is bad politics. Obama has an ad out where he talks about MCCain's failure to mention the middle class. Considering that, if I was prepping McCain for the debate, I would suggest that he use that term at least a couple of times.

The swearing makes it funny though (well, funnier) :)

Yeah, I rushed through that one pretty good. :)

Does "middle income" count? Because McCain used that a number of times. But why have any accuracy in the claims?

You're splitting hairs here. If you're trying to imply that some Democrats might not be smart enough to equate the two, then I agree. :D

If you consider what happened at the Justice Department to be "a bone" then I wonder what you consider to be the meat.

dola--

And the reason I am pushing this at all is that you are one of the people who can help get the GOP back on track. Much better than I can as a liberal and an outsider.

If you get the scales off your eyes, you can start taking back your party.

Also, I am responding to you personally b/c you are the one writing back. I, of course, mean my points more broadly and do not mean anything personally against any one poster.

Again, I don't care if McCain uses the term or not. I don't think it has any bearing on what he plans to do if he gets elected. Both campaigns have misleading attacks. Right now Obama has an ad out mentioning the middle class, and I think it might be a good idea for McCain to cut that off. If I was prepping him in the debate, I would tell him to specifically mention "middle class" a few times, at least as often as he says "My friends." It is a buzzword that stands out more than "middle income."

Now if you guys want to argue against someone who says McCain is obviously trying to screw the middle class because he won't mention them, then you'll have to find someone else to talk to, because that's not what I'm saying at all.

Actually some decent polling numbers for McCain today, mixed in with some really bad ones...

Gallup: Obama 52-41
Rasmussen: Obama 51-45
Reuters/Zogby: Obama 47-45
Hotline/FD: Obama 45-44
GW/Battleground: Obama 49-45
Ipsos/McClatchy: Obama 47-40
Research 2000: Obama 51-41

I don't think so. The religious right holds millions of votes. They may get taken for granted, but there's no doubt that they're important for the electoral chances of Republican candidates. It was fear of the backlash from the religious right that kept McCain from picking Lieberman as VP.

I would love a social "libertarian", fiscal conservative candidate. But those are about as likely as a pro-life liberal. Most people that ascend in politics with my views on fiscal policy are likely to be socially conservative as well. I've never been a big voter on social issues. Things like abortion rights, gay marriage, religion in school and other social policies are not things I worry about.

I would like there to be a ban on partial birth abortions, but allow normal abortions. I would like civil unions to be treated the same as man-woman unions from the law. I would like there to be less of a tizzy every time someone puts a nativity scene on public land. But, I don't see a major problem with all abortions being allowed and gay marriage not being officially recognized - or, in a different manner, I wouldn't vote for someone simply on those issues.

I would love to see a true fiscal conservative in the White House with a true vision on things like energy, taxes, education and cutting spending. As much as it will get mocked, Palin is the closest we have between these four candidates. My preferences early on were Thompson, Rudy and Romney. We got McCain and that ended my hope in having any policies I agree with in the White House. I haven't changed a ton since then, but I do think Palin atleast gave a sliver of hope on energy policy and taxes.

The best thing I can do to show where I am is to setup the following situation for all you on the left: Let's say the only two choices you had were Mitt Romney and Joe Liebermann. How "excited" would you be about this election?

It seems like my choices are a fairly outspoken left-leaning leader and a person who wants to sound conservative, but isn't that much different from his opponent. If that's the choice, I think I'm leaning to letting Obama and the democrats have a crack at things for two years and see where we are in 2010. The last thing I want is for McCain to go in, do a ton of things I don't agree with, not get his tax cut through and then have republicans blamed for the economic slowdown. I'm beginning to think this is how conservatives felt in the Carter-Ford election and my hope is that an Obama-Reid-Pelosi two year term would reinvigorate the true fiscal conservatives to take back the republican party. Not sure if it's likely, but it's one thing to root for. Right now, there's no good option for us.

If McCain would of grabbed Libermann I would of voted for him.

My argument is that fear was quite misplaced. The religious right may have rattled their swords, but they would have gone to the poll and voted for the republican candidate out of fear that a liberal would get into the Oval Office. They like to pretend they hold power, but their only power is to vote or not to vote. The vast majority end up voting Republican no matter what.

Arguably that's a good thing. Democrats used to avoid religion like the plague, but in this election cycle and in 2006 we've had a number of quality candidates who are not afraid to talk about their religion and what it means to them. Obama's a case in point.

I agree with much of what you say, Arles, I don't think we are very far apart. And like you, there is a side of me that doesn't have a problem with Obama taking the White House now. First and foremost, the two-party system doesn't work if both parties don't get representation in the White House from time to time. So while I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain, in the best interests of the long-term ramifications of the 2-party system, I don't have a problem with Obama taking the White House. True balance is essential.

:)

:)

Is that supposed to be funny?

You are great! Your talent for posting on the internet is top notch. I am thankful you took time out of your day to even respond to my post.

Wow, that's twice today I've been told I'm great! I am on a roll. Thank you!

They're more important than that. The GOP GOTV operation is dependent on thousands of volunteers, many of whom are pulled from the religious right. There's also millions in donations and a substantial amount free PR through radio/tv/mailings that Republicans get. I'll agree they likely would have voted R, but they wouldn't have opened their wallets and they wouldn't have volunteered if Lieberman was on the ticket.

I'm genuinely curious how you see Palin as a strong fiscal conservative. She's imposed a windfall profit tax as governor and ran up a huge debt on a sports complex as mayor. McCain has a much better record as a fiscal conservative IMO.

Welcome!

Let me keep the roll going. You and your big strikes are great. Keeping the interwebs readable is a thankless job, and I am glad that you are doing your part.

And if they vote Republican as they always do and don't volunteer or give money, I think the GOP has a much better chance of winning elections over the long haul.

Maybe, but they're critical right now.

On that line, though, I was trying to figure out who might have worked better for McCain as VP. Could Boone Pickens have been a shrewd choice? I don't know if he would have accepted, but imagine a McCain ticket that had a revolutionary energy plan as the centerpiece and a much more credible energy expert pushing the plan. There would still be lines of attack, but I wonder if that choice would have ben a risky game-changer with a bigger upside.

Well, I can understand that, since I'm a pro life liberal and would love to see one have any kind of chance on the national stage, but it's unlikely.


But I guess my point was the Palin's true appeal seems to be to the social conservative base. If anything, her ascendancy within the party means that this aspect conservative policies will only get more attention than in the past, so I'm surprised that so many are pleased with her selection.


I would prefer they all be banned, but think it should be decided on a state by state basis.


I agree with you here.


Not here.



I guess I can see that and she scored major points in her debate when talking about energy, but I still think what she brings to the ticket more than anything else is her appeal to the social conservatives. She definitely woke them up and got them energized to go vote for McCain.


No, I completely understand that. I made this point earlier (and got attacked for it) by comparing this election to 2004, where I think things were reversed. I was not excited about Kerry at all. He was a true dead weight and in a way I'm glad he didn't win.


I guess I just don't see that happening. If Palin is the heir apparent for 2012, then it will be on the heels of the social conservatives. The financial conservatives will probably try to run Romney again.

Not a Palin fan. I think we should send her back to Alaska on a Greyhound bus. With all of her kids and her snow machining husband.

Also, I'm not under the illusion that there will ever be a mainstream politician who matches my political views. Ever. I'm fine with that.

What we need is someone who would dare to reduce spending AND raise taxes (or at least not cut them) to help get us out from under the crippling national debt. And spend a lot of time rebuilding infrastructure and creating jobs here in the U.S.

I said she was the closest, and not perfect. I would compare her to Obama in that her record doesn't show a ton of fiscal conservative policies (much like Obama's record doesn't indicate any kind of "change"), but they are both fairly young. I think Palin's ideas on energy, I like her ideas on tax policy and I like her willingness to go against certain (but not all, of course) interests on spending.

Controlling spending is always going to be a tough one to get representation on. Many in congress feel they have to spend to stay elected, but there are some that handle this. IMO, I would love to see a former business owner as president. What we need right now is a lot of the policies and theories successful small businesses employ on the national level. That's why I liked Romney and even Rudy to a lesser degree.

I've followed McCain for years and while he has cracked down on earmarks, he's been anti tax cut, anti strong energy policy, pro open borders, pro wasteful spending IMO (campaign finance, global warming, his education plan w/ Kennedy, ...).

I see McCain as someone trying to be a fiscal conservative for this election and taking on those policies for tax cuts (let's not forget McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts), energy, cutting programs and so forth. The problem is I don't think he believes in them. That, IMO, is why he stumbles in these debates when he's not talking about foreign policy or ear marks. Ask him to defend his tax plan, and you get a jumbled response. Ask him about energy, and it sounds confusing. That's how I would respond if I was asked to defend McCain's global warming initiatives and health care plan (because I don't agree with them).

McCain is the true "wolf in sheep's clothes" on fiscal policy and I think he will be very similar to Obama if elected. Both will massively increase the debt and both will take part in more of this wall street bailout crud. So, if that's the case, I would prefer all this happen with democrats across the board. Plus, if McCain wins, there will be even more pressure on the fiscal conservatives to "go away" and we could face a democratic congress in the mid term with veto-proof majorities in both houses. The more I think about it, the more dangerous is would be for true fiscal conservatives for McCain to win. I will still vote for McCain as I can't in good conscious vote for someone (Obama) who I think will be a worse president than McCain (I may very well be wrong, though). But an Obama win (like a Carter win in 1976) may be what the doctor ordered to get back to a fiscal conservative platform in the GOP.

All we need is someone to say "I will keep the budget at the 2008 level for 2009 and 2010. When congress asks to spend one penny over the 2008 level (something like $3 trillion), I will veto."

Independent of tax policy, that one act would significantly cut into the deficit. People focus too much on the revenue side and not enough on the spending side. If you make 60K a year, is it better to work part time to earn an extra 10K, only to buy a new car, eat out more and pay for more daycare to the tun of an extra 20K? Spending is the one thing we can control that directly reduces the debt. That's all Washington needs to do to start. This idea that if the national budget doesn't increase 7.5% it equates a "cut" (baseline budgeting) is why we are always in debt.

Plus, I don't see raising the tax rates on the rich, payroll tax limits and cap gains earning that much more money for us. The rich are pretty good at limiting their tax liability (look at Obama himself who's shifted a ton into tax free bonds). Raising marginal rates/cap gains on them just means their well-paid accountants take more money from the private sector (ie, stocks) and move them to more tax free options (bonds). Also, most of the wealthy can control when they actually "earn" the money as personal income and that will be tweaked. The increased payroll tax limits really hurts small business and higher cap gains will put even more barriers to investing in the market.

IMO, a true budget freeze combined with MORE incentives to investing (maybe reduce the cap gains rates) will be the quickest ticket out of this mess. But, it's still going to be a tough road and no tax policy will amount to anything unless someone really holds the line on spending.

Why, because the stock market is down? If you're thinking long-term, this is a decent time to buy (as long as you avoid any companies going bankrupt), and at the least you shouldn't panic and just maintain your holdings and ride it out, as the stock market ALWAYS bounces back even if it takes a couple of years. If you're thinking short-term (i.e. at retirement age), why are you in stocks and why haven't you moved on to low-risk bonds or income-generating securities?

I don't think history bears out that Democrats are the ones who have massively increased the debt. Other than maybe a few short years between the "Contract with America" and Lewinski, Republicans in power haven't really been fiscally conservative in my lifetime (I'm 30). If Democrats have been about "tax-and-spend" policies, I think its fair to say Republicans have been about "borrow-and-spend" policies. There really hasn't been a difference in the level of spending.

That's why I said "both". The only thing that holds spending is gridlock. My perfect situation is a republican house and democratic senate with either party in power (although a fiscal conservative would be best).

BTW, I forget to give my reference on Obama's investments:



How tax-boosting Obama cuts his own - MSN Money

This will be fun with states like New York and California expecting the Federal Government (i.e. all of us) to bail them out of their own fiscally irresponsible policies.

We need... THIS MAN!



(I still always wonder what would have happened if he had won)

SI

Way to get pwned you dumb fucking yokel.

Admiral Stockdale would have been VP.

O'Rly?

First off, after the crash in 1929 it took 24 YEARS for the Dow to come back to where it was the day before. So unless you meant a couple decades when you said a couple years, then it doesn't ALWAYS bounce back the way you said.

Second off, you're also stating that past performance is an indicator of future performance, which is also not true. You suggest looking long term; I suggest looking longer term. Perhaps we have just had a nice century long bull run, and now we are at the beginning of a nice century long bear.

Last off, you say that now is a good time to buy. Why? Who's to say the Dow won't fall another 5000 points? Who's to say that your good buy today won't take 15 years to come back to break even? Who's to say it ever will?

Just some food for thought.

Jindal. His boy genius image would really help the ticket right now.

Jindal would have been an excellent pick, but my understanding is he took himself out of the running.

And, just to add to the confusion, I'm even moreso a social conservative than a fiscal conservative but I'm not really impressed by Palin at all with the exception perhaps of someone who doesn't appear to be ready for the national stage actually finding herself in this position, that's sort of impressive in it's on way.

That's a bit misleading. The "day before" was the tip of a speculation fueled bubble, much like the .com bubble. It was definitely a bear market through the 1930s, but if you look at a graph of the DOW index through that time (like the one at the top of the wiki page linked below), you'll see it did recover to it's pre-speculation path within a few years.

Dow Jones Industrial Average - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More developments in the expanding FBI probe into ACORN registrations in Missouri and other states. In Jackson County alone, over 1,000 fraudulent registrations were submitted. Similar numbers are being found in other Missouri metropolitan area counties. A different news station in KC is reporting that nearly all of the fraudulent registrations were submitted for Democrat voters. In some cases, the same person was submitted up to 10 times.

Questionable Voter Registrations Reviewed - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City