Smart move for him. Why be the water carrier for a guy whose on the wrong side of history, when you can be on top of the ticket when your time comes?

LOL. Yes. I posted the wrong article last time.

I've been one of the bigger Palin supporters in this thread and I'm really excited to see where she will be in 4-5 years. That said, I would much rather see her has a chairperson in the RNC or governor (or even VP) for a few more years than the president in 2009. I think a lot of the attacks on her have been a little unfair, but attacks on her "readiness" are completely fair. And, to be honest, I don't think most fair-minded people could defend the notion of her being president in 2009. The hope is that McCain can keep kicking for atleast 2-3 years. But, if you were to tell me that McCain won't last 2009, I would vote Obama (and again, this is someone who think Palin can be a star in 3-4 years).

I think the best thing for Palin was to accept the VP nomination as she now has an enormous following. Jindal was already a rising star and his handling of the hurricane season did enough to put him in a good spot for 2012. Running for VP would have done more damage to him as he's already "Obama-esque" in the way he's viewed on the right. Palin needed the exposure to be relevant (even though not all of it was good).

It's really the only way McCain has a shot at the big job. A Republican can't come close to winning without energizing the social base. Unfortunately the moderate conservatives or libertarian conservatives know they can't win on their own. At least not currently.

Then why all of the outcry from you about Roe vs Wade?

As I've explained before, Roe being overturned would be one of the few good things to happen from a McCain victory. However, the same justice that would tip the scale on Roe would also likely vote against separation of church and state, broaden search and seizure powers, limit defendants rights in many areas, expand the availability of capital punishment, limit application of habeas corpus and general due process rights, expand government ability to spy on Americans, destory any meaningful application of the 14th Amendment (back to the days of Bowers v. Hardwick).

I almost started grabbing the kleenex to see so many from both sides thinking that budget stabilization/reduction is a good thing. I agree with the view that tax-spend is no different than borrow-spend. The key lies with Congress - the controller of the pursestrings. Not once in recent memory have Congress passed an overall budget proposal without increasing. In my view, the President should only submit a balanced budget and veto any major spending bills that do not meet that. This would be easier accomplished with a split government, not a one-party government. No one on the Obama side is talking about spending cuts or proposing a reduced budget and that should worry all of you.

Thinking about split government, as this has become my "one voting" issue, I believe it may be better to have a Rep Congress and a Dem executive than the other way around, even though either would be far more preferable than a single party Congress/Executive.

I don't get it.

:)

i know you were just having a laugh, but i never claimed to be objective. and the goddamn drilling thing pisses me off anytime either side mentions it.

You're uphauling, Subby.

if that's what motivates you to grab the kleenex then i certainly DO NOT look forward to getting old. :(

It was only 7pm ;) and considering all the shit talk in this thread, I take what small joys I can read.

I agree with the bold. Republicans seem to be more conservative when they are not in the White House. I could even live with a republican house, split senate and democrat president. My hope is that is what we will have in 2010.

I can't wait until you libertarians and your cronies get whats coming to you; you and your lot are un-American, behind the times, elitist, and stupid. Oh and libertarians are responsible for the economic crisis.

In an economic downturn the government shouldn't be slashing budgets. The problem is that our structural deficit is so damn large that there's no room for short term boosts in deficit spending.

And solely raising taxes in an economic downturn would be a better alternative? I believe I talked about submitting and passing a balanced budget so that deficit spending would not increase.

is this a joke?

you do realize the America the founding fathers envisioned and the America we have in place now are on two opposite ends of the spectrum, right?

whoosh

dont think Ive heard either candidate that they solely want to raise taxes, yet. Maybe I misheard and Ive also heard both candidates say that their ideas of taxes and budget have been altered and modified due to the current conditions.

I generally agree with a balanced budget, but at present that would mean several hundred billion less spending. Pulling that much money out of the system would likely hurt the economy. That's why the giant structural deficit is such a problem, because we don't have the room for short bursts of larger than normal deficit spending.

I'm not an economist, but my bet is that we need to get to a balanced budget over a period of five or six years. Realistically that isn't going to happen by spending cuts alone and will have to include some tax increases. How you balance the need for a closer to balanced budget, increased taxation, phased reduction in deficit spending, and an economic recovery is a challenge I can't answer.

I wasn't saying anything about either candiates, for what they say means next to nothing when dealing with the realities of Congress. It was just a response to the excuse of why they cannot slash budgets. I would think that keeping taxes the same in a downturn and cutting expenditures would be more favorable than keeping the same budgets and raising taxes in a downturn. The reality is that the budgets will increase and they will try to change some tax rates, which will result in a higher deficit. Changing tax rates will result in change in behaviors and will not necessarily lead to increased revenues. In a bad economy, it could actually mean less revenues as we are seeing many people/companies changing spending and capital habits. It is hard to predict but what they can control is federal budget expenditures and outlays.

While I think it's very likely the GOP will win back the House in 2010 (in fact, I'd say it's all but a certainty if Obama wins), I don't think a split Senate is really possible. Right now, the Democrats are looking at anywhere between 56-60 seats. In 2010, the Republicans are defending more seats (18) than the Democrats (15) and the Dem seats are in mostly safe places even if the incumbents retire. I think they make Senate gains, but not enough.

The man's right. I mean, in Revolution-era America, you could OWN a midget, not just rent.

Something to think about...

Good point. By split senate, I meant just below 60 for the democrats. If the republicans have 40-45 seats, that's enough to block things (esp if they have the house).

One thing I'm curious to hear what you guys think about is the idea of a 1-year cap gains holiday. Basically, the quickest way to improve the economy/confidence is to get as much money into the market as possible. If you raise (or even hold) cap gains rates, you will add even more disincentive to invest given the shaky confidence. I will admit I don't know the "cost" of this, but it seems like it may be worthwhile item to investigate.

Sure, try to make me feel stupid with big words like spectrum.

The founding fathers probably envisioned me sipping tea, smoking opium, and getting sexual favors from my household workforce. Come to think of it, that sounds pretty sweet, they sure knew how to party.

Wouldn't that mean a pickup of around 40-50 seats in the house in 2010 for the GOP? That seems a really, really tall order.

GRIDLOCK!

SI

Well, the first cost is another $120B to the deficit (source).

The second is that you're just delaying the inevitable. But I realize that's part of the idea- take the drastic measures at a drastic time to stabilize things. However, you'll probably have some increased traffic initially in 2009 but then things would go back to the original problem of, well, not much value and worry in people's minds.

And, ultimately, it doesn't address the actual problem. Who wants to throw around a ton of cash when you're not sure it's going to be worth anything, even if there's a discount on doing that activity? Just because they lowered the price on trading mud, doesn't mean a lot of people are going to be trading mud tomorrow ;)

SI

I'm somewhat torn on Obama's latest comments regarding McCain and the Ayres situation.....

Obama: McCain Wouldn't 'Say It to My Face' - FOXNews.com Elections

This kind of rhetoric concerns me. While I understand that he's trying to pander to his base by attacking back, the last thing we need is someone as president who thinks like this.

If Putin fires some fiery language to a Russian press agency about the U.S., but then doesn't mention it when he and Obama talk face to face, will Obama call him out for not saying it to his face? It's just not the way things should be done IMO. You want to be president? Act like it. I don't need elementary schoolyard rhetoric coming from my president.

I'm against all loopholes of this kind. They are just as bad as the fallacy of tax increases on the wealthy. The average citizen has their overall income indirectly devalued under both circumstances. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just playing politics.

Not a Bush supporter, eh?

There's a difference between elementary spelling and elementary rhetoric.

No, I am torn about it. I understand the reason he did it. He's pandering to his base, which is to be expected in an election. I'm just surprised that he said it that way. It just seems terribly juvenile IMO.

I also think that it's probably in his best interest to stay above the fray at this point. He's got the lead. He's better off just letting his advertisements do the talking and maintaining a presidential appearance in public appearances. He shouldn't let McCain drag him into a trench war.

I agree with Ronnie. You just don't like the comments. But, the McCain campaign smears aren't the same as Putin, not in the least. I think it goes to the hypocrisy that even some conservatives have pointed out: if you think he's a terrorist sympathizer, don't go on stage and make him look qualified to be president.

On a side note, I think this guilt by association thing smacks of desperation. And it has a potential backlash that extends beyond Keating Five and G. Gordon Liddy. McCain was on the Board of Directors of a group that promoted acts of violence in other countries. McCain sat next to someone who was called a "domestic terrorist" becuase she shot an abortion doctor. I have concerns about McCain that exist whether these associations existed or not.

Kansas City must be a wonderful place to live.

It's like Miami, except much less crime and poverty and a lot more affordable. Other than that, they're very similar.

The winters are a bit different too.

I've started watching The Daily Show again since the conventions mostly because it's on the Tivo when I'm feeding the baby late at night.

I have to say, Stewart's been on fire recently. His recap of the conventions was good, but starting with last Monday (the day the first bailout bill failed), he's been particularly good. In fact, on that Monday, he had an exception rant to close out his opening monologue which skewered both Congress and Bush for the bill failure.

WTF are you talking about? Take your hypocritical double standard elsewhere.

I think he was talking about Dan Quayle. :confused:

And the beach scene as well.

I love the crowds at these Republican "rallies" yelling out traitor, treason and my favortie KILL HIM!? What the fuck is wrong with people. The kid who breaks into Palin's email account gets led into his arraignment with leg shackles and these guys are yelling all sorts of threats at the first African American candidate and no one is saying anything about it? Apparently Palin and McCain are right Obama and me as well don't have the same "values" as they do. Shameful.

LOL. There's plenty of idiots looking for their 5 seconds of fame on both sides. I don't think the Republicans necessarily have that market cornered as you are suggesting.

Because it gives Fox and GOP candidates some cheap shots for the mouthbreathers in the audience: "His name is Hussein, just like Saddam! He must be evil!" A couple of posters have already feigned ignorance about this many, many pages ago so it's probably best to let it go.

SI

+1

Places like Fox News used to cover for this by saying that they also said Hilary Rodham Clinton during the primaries. But I never see them using Palin or McCain middle names. It is really stupid and impossible for McCain supporters to defend.

I beg to differ. I realize there bone heads supporters in both sides but this goes way, way past that. I haven't ever heard people shouting out things like "hang the old geezer or gangbang the alaska barbie" type of thing which is where this stuff is heading.

I suppose you're correct in this regard. The nutballs on the Democratic side don't behave like this at Democratic rallies. They tend to go to the Republican rallies and scream this kind of similar rhetoric. And then the Republicans start chanting 'USA!' like no one's going to notice.