You have to talk about your opponent too.

I didnt know that that was part of it. Perhaps you need to set some rules or guidelines.

I had to turn off email notification for this site. This thread is killing my email.

Hell I don't know. I just wanted to be entertained. :cool:

save us Y2J

Let's hope we have better luck with that than Vince ;)

re: the honesty question -- With regard to this particular topic, I'm happy with only as much honesty as won't increase the chance of Obama getting a win in November. If it increases that chance, then lie motherfuckers lie.

As (I think it was) GrantDawg said elsewhere in the thread, they're all going to lie at some point anyway so it might as well be in a good cause AFAIC.

That enough honesty for you?

Doing the other side is not all that hard:


After 8 years of the failed policies of President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress: a ballooning deficit caused by tax cuts for the rich and a failing war on Iraq; alienating our allies due to our go it alone ideals from the ABM Treaty to Iraq (which also squandered the goodwill the US had after 9/11); to gutting the 4th Amendment through USA PATRIOT; doing nothing on global climate change and pushing through an energy policy that benefits big oil - a change is needed.

While Senator McCain speaks of 'change' and was a maverick back in 2000, he has become a party hack. Someone who votes over 90% of the time with President Bush, a man who slandered him in the 2000 primaries, is not someone who is going to bring change. Senator McCain has sold out most of his values to the far right in order to get elected. He is not the maverick he once said he is. And his argument that he has the experience to lead has been completely undermined by his selection of an inexperienced Governor of Alaska, who is on the extreme right that Senator McCain once derided as "agents of intolerance". How can Senator McCain place in the Vice Presidency a woman who believes all abortion is wrong, even when the woman has been raped or her life is in danger? That is out of step with Americans. How can Senator McCain place in the 2nd slot a woman who says she's a reformer and is against earmarks, but asked for millions of earmarks while Governor of Alaska?

Senator McCain wants to continue the Bush tax cuts, benefiting the Top 1% and wants to give even MORE money to the corporations than President Bush did. He wants to stay in Iraq, and spend American lives in a failed endeavor. He has no real plan for health care and has even said he doesn't understand the economy! He will simply continue the Bush policies that have dragged us to the ground. How can we allow this man to become President of the United States?

No, the change this country needs is Senator Barack Obama. Senator Obama will reverse the Bush tax cuts and in its place will put forth a middle class tax cut that will benefit 95% of the American populace instead of the top 1%. Senator Obama will get American troops out of the quagmire that is Iraq. Senator Obama will put forth REAL health care reform to cover all Americans and not just more tax breaks. Senator Obama will increase regulations on financial institutions that have caused such a mess, as they've been allowed to run wild, in this economy. Senator Obama will make sure the economy works for the people rather than the other way around.

How was that?

---

Oh, btw, I agree that race has played some part in this campaign. What I can't stand (and AFAIK, no one here has said it) is people saying the only reason McCain is close in the polls is because of racism. If people actually think Romney or Huckabee would be in sniffing distance at this stage in the polls, they are smoking something. Also the shifting in the polls (especially after the Palin pick) would seem to disabuse some of that notion... unless the argument is that the Palin pick made more people, including Obama supporters, racists?

much appreciated.... I agree with Sid on the fact that racism will play an noneffective role in this election.

Your turn.

I started but boy his is good, Im afraid Ill let myself down. I'll let someone smarter than me take a swing.

Hmmm... At least you are consistent. Not that anyone should ever bother trying to debate anything with you since your position is not based on anything more than selfishness. I say that because your position on just about anything is set entirely by what is good for you (and perhaps your family, but not beyond that). I don't mean that as a personal slam, Jon, so tell me if you think I am wrong.

Chicken. I don't think you could even try. :)

scroll up.

On the other hand, I do believe that a lot of people come to their positions first and then work backward and tend to take a different, shall I say, view of the truth, as long as it gets them to their party being #1.

Eh, I'd say you're oversimplifying it to some extent on certain cases and definitely reaching too broadly with the "just about anything".

In this case, for example, it's not only what's better for me (personally/my circle) but also what's best for the nation in my estimation. The two things happen to coincide.

With regard to the "just about anything", that part I'd have to take pretty strong exception to. I'll give you a completely hypothetical scenario just to illustrate why that really doesn't work with such a broad brush. Let's suppose that some governmental entity required all advertising to be placed through a licensed advertising agency (don't laugh, I live in a state where only funeral directors can sell caskets). Definitely good for me, but I'd oppose that on the fundamental grounds that the government has no business dictating that sort of thing.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely to look out for my own interests when the opportunity presents itself. Hell, I question the sanity and/or cognitive ability of anyone who doesn't. But it's not the 99.9% ratio that I feel like you were presenting.

Ok. Perhaps the bigger point to be made is that you don't care about rules, ethics, integrity, etc, if it gets in the way of a victory for "the good guys." The end justifies the means for you and cheating is in the playbook if it works.

caveat: If the stakes are high enough. And these definitely are.

To be fair, that's kind of politics as usual dating back to, oh 1796 or so.

Maybe. I have put a lot of effort into my personal philosophy and at this point put as much emphasis on how things are done as what the end result turns out to be. I don't want the "bad guys" to win, but I'm not prepared to accept a "by any means necessary" philosophy to keep it from happening either.

Actually, I think the year you are looking for is 1532.

I wish there was a spreadsheet with each candidate's stances, in top 10 form from 1st - 10th.

That would make it easier for people to actually be informed, instead of relying on the biased media (both ways), so that they can study and keep tabs on those issues.

Of course, everything changes from day to day, since truth is as sincere as long as it's convenient and can change like a chameleon in an instant.

I'm really bummed about this country at the moment. :(

Dola.

In fact, I would like to challenge a Dem and a Rep to come up with said spreadsheet.

I know the kind of response this admission will generate here, but I'm currently trying to get the paperwork processed to move my family to Canada. We're just tired of dealing with the way things appear to be going here and, since I already have Canadian citizenship, that seemed like the next country to try.

+1

I know I shouldn't expect Obama supporters to care about little details like facts, but the Democrats have been in control of Congress the past two years. And their record over that time is hardly something to be proud of. They've accomplished very few of their promises, which probably accounts for the historically low approval rating of that has hovered in the high teens and low twenties. This is even lower than President Bush's approval rating, so before throwing stones at an incumbent who isn't even running, maybe the Obama camp should look at the do-nothing Democratic Congress in their own backyard.


Senator McCain pays attention to the issues that face the American people, which are more important to him than whether or not he was slandered by someone 8 years ago. This isn't Kindergarten. Give me a break. McCain has been attacked from both the left and the right in his political career, and he won't let that distract him from serving the best interests of the American people.


I think it's funny that the Obama supporters keep bringing up the Vice Presidency and experience, considering their own VP candidate doesn't think Obama is qualified to be President. Not to mention the fact that their candidates message of change was certainly seriously undermined by picking someone firmly entrenched in the Washington political system that he is supposedly fighting against.


Sarah Palin's record as a reformer is clear. She took on the Alaska GOP political machine, demanded accountability, fought against corruption, and won. I'm surprised that we're still getting more and more attacks on Governor Palin. You'd think the Democrats would have got the hint by now that the public is sick and tired of the negativity thrown at her. I certainly welcome them to keep trying, because each attack seems to help the McCain-Palin ticket.


I wouldn't bring up Iraq if I were an Obama supporter, because his position has changed so many times that most of his supporters don't even seem to know what it is. Maybe he should take another trip and then he can come back with yet another contradictory statement. If you look at McCain's record, he's the one who supported the surge that Obama resisted. I'm glad that both of them now agree on the surge's effectiveness, but it's too bad that Obama couldn't support it when the troops really could've used some goodwill stateside.


More liberal tax and spend nonsense. Senator McCain has seen this time and again and it has been a disaster. It's understandable Obama doesn't know, since he has so little experience. Playing class warfare isn't going to help the economy. Hitting the nation's biggest employers with tax increases will only increase unemployment amongst the middle class that Obama is supposedly fighting for.


Oh, Iraq is a quagmire now? I thought the surge was succeeding? Perhaps you want to ask your own candidate about that one. As for the rest of the paragraph, it'd be nice to hear some specific proposals about how Obama plans to accomplish any of this. It's not a surprise that Obama's own supporters don't know what he stands for or how he plans to accomplish it, since his whole campaign has been based on generic themes that sound good in big speeches, but are ultimately devoid of any specific plans or proposals. Maybe when Obama realizes this is more than open mic night, we can actually see a real campaign.

I believe we just hit the golden age of this thread and perhaps the entire FOFC.

To be fair, Machiavelli was more articulating what a good Prince does rather than articulating a new policy.

Oh snap... give me a bit on larry's post. This is fun :D.

Wow. "...open mic night...". That's classic.

Amazing what a little light-heartedness does for a thread like this.

Sometimes you have to wonder if stuff like this will come back to bite the "man of the people..."


Anyone who can afford nearly $30,000 for a place at the table is definitely making way too much money.

There is the little fact that the Democrats don't have a veto proof majority. The reason they haven't been able to get things passed and have a low approval rating is that they don't have the numbers to get passed a lame duck, hostile President. The Republicans don't like them in the first place, and the left leaning folks are mad because the Democratic Congress hasn't been able to force things through Bush. With a Democratic President, they wouldn't have to worry about potential vetos derailing their projects.

What is telling that even those the approval rating of the Congress is so low, it seems the Democrats will PICK UP seats in the House and Senate. So while the approval of the Democrats may be low, it seems the Republicans in Congress are seen even lower!!


You mean the issues he has reversed face on? He was against the Bush tax cuts until he was for it? He was for a cap and trade system (the bill was to be called Libermann-McCain) until he jettisoned it (it is now Libermann-Warner). He was against torture until he voted to allow the CIA to ignore the rules. And he violated his own namesake bill, McCain-Feingold during the primaries. Fortunately for him the FCC didn't have enough commissioners to smack him down for it. His view on the issues seems to have changed in order to get the support he needs to win the election. He seems less interested in the best interests of the American people (a vast majority saying the country is headed in the wrong direction under Bush-Cheney) and more with the best interests of his own party! Country First indeed!


Senator Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, where he was instrumental in ethics reform, before he moved into the United States Senate, where he has been working on national and international issues for the last 4 years. That's 2 years more than Governor Palin has been Governor of Alaska.

As Senator McCain has been trying to say experience matters, it is highly hypocritical of him to select someone whose resume is paper thin, and that is just the opinion of conservatives like David Brooks!

As for saying Senator Biden undermines the argument for change because he has been in the Senate. Senator Edward Kennedy has been in office for longer than Senator Biden and yet anyone being honest would admit that he has been in the forefront of change since he took office and when Senator Obama is elected President finally we'll be able to give Senator Kennedy the comprehensive health care that he has been urging forth for over 35 years.


Governor Palin is the so-called reformer who was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it... and guess what, she kept the money! She is the ethical crusader who fired the state's police chief because he wouldn't fire her ex brother in law. She's the reformer who fired a librarian when she was Mayor of Wasillia because the librarian wouldn't agree to ban books if asked. Governor Palin is the reformist who will fire people simply because she feels they are not loyal to her. She will charge the state a per diem for staying at home. And, surprise, surprise, she's kept asking for obscene amount of earmarks, for which Senator McCain once actually called her out for... obviously he didn't think she was a reformer back them.


The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi government some time to work out a political solution, but no progress has been made on that at all. It benefited from Sadr calling a temporary cease-fire during the actions. What happens if Sadr begins violence again? The Pentagon has said we are stretched too thin and can't keep up the surge. What happens if Sadr contests the elections and becomes a power in the parliament? The ethnic groups in Iraq are still miles apart. What the surge was supposed to give breathing room for never materialized. While it curtailed the violence for a little while, the primary reason for its existance never happened.



And when President Clinton raised tax rates on the top 1%, they squealed, saying it would destroy the recovery. We all know that President Clinton presided over the longest post WW2 expansion in the economy AND balanced the budget. Why? Because he raised taxes on the top 1% and gave a tax cut to the middle class! It isn't class warfare, it's smart economic policies with a history of providing results. Just look at the 1990s. But if you'd rather continue the failures of the economy during the 2000s, under President George W. Bush, then go with McCain's plan to do nothng.


I've addressed Iraq above. Once we have to end the surge because our military can't take being overextended, there is still no political solution on the ground.

As for specific proposals, one can easily go to Welcome to Obama for America to see in depth, highly detailed policies. If one was paying attention, they'd realize Senator Obama has a very detailed plan to get America back on track. It isn't his fault if the Republicans were too much like their candidate and weren't able to figure out how to use the internet.

man you guys are so good, this is more fun than Ive had in this thread since like page 54.

Holy crap... Page 54 was started and done (less than 2 hours, btw) less than 2 weeks ago and 44 pages ago!!! :eek:

I vote to keep things that way, thank you very much. :)

That's great stuff, IS. I'm going to have to address it later. Maybe I should watch some FOX News to get in the mood.

I was surprised that in Congressional races, nationally the Democrats are leading by only the margin of error in most polls.

But then after stories like this, I guess it makes sense. Clean 'em all out.

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI PUSHES REP. CHARLES RANGEL TO STEP DOWN FROM COMMITTEE CHAIR - New York Post


It says something about our tax code when the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has to hire a "forensic accountant?!" to review his tax filings...*heh*

Stuff like this is insane to me...I suppose I just can't see myself in-sync with any political party to the tune of $50K

If I was Obama, the next few weeks would be one big loop of a commercial. "John McCain says the economy is fundamentally strong"

(insert loop of Lehman Brothers failing, AIG Bailout (use terms like "unprecedented federal bailout")..

drop all the personal crap. Skip the "O NOES, McCain CANNOT HAS AN INTERNETS".

In the name of a prominent politician..

"It's the Economy, Stupid."

I agree. Hitting McCain on the economy is the best play for Obama right now. Also, earlier today, my ears were burning and I couldn't figure out why ;)

Schmidty: I actually don't think there's much difference policy-wise between the candidates. The differences are in the style of leadership they represent, and some trivial details in the policies in question: For example, both are in favor of progressive taxation; both are in favor of allowing people not born on US soil to become US citizens; both would like to see Iraq an independent, free ally of ours.

I think its safe to say that both candidates have essentially the same value system. Ralph Nader is right when he says there is little difference between the two major parties, but I think he's wrong to lament this as a serious problem. Our country has it pretty good, there's not much reason to deviate radically from our course.

sure this already was touched on, but daily show was the first i saw of it. apparently earlier (today?) palin in the same speech said the following:

1. "guys and gals, our regulatory system is outdated and needs to be completely overhauled."

and then later

2. "we will get government out of the way of private business."

yeahhhh....how's that going to work? you going to privatize the regulatory system? i'd love to see that - that's a fucking disaster waiting to happen. idk wtf she was trying to say, but that makes no sense. and i'm frankly insulted as a voter that she'd address a crowd as "guys and gals." i don't find it homey or down-to-earth, i find it hokey and stupid-sounding.

Wow, McCain was dead on this issue back in 2005. To bad this reform bill he co-sponsored (with Chuck Hagel) was killed by Harry Reid and the democrats in the senate:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/reco...9-s20060525-16

I don't know what she was trying to say either, but at a guess #1 means: We need less regulation in general. If you read it that way, there's no contradiction at all - #2 is simply a bullet point explaining #1.

But, I admit I don't have any idea what the context was.

lol - less regulation is what got us into the current problem though cronin. and saying it's outdated and needs to be overhauled seems to indicate that you want to replace the existing regulations with new ones, doesn't it?

Yes, of course - but the standard Republican rhetoric would be "replace the existing regulations with new ones that keep government out of the private sector." To my ears, those lines are pretty generic for a GOP candidate.

McCain 50.7
Obama 48.1

Maybe it's because the Democratic leadership is too concerned with sniping at Bush at every opportunity instead of trying to figure out a way to come to bipartisan agreements, like McCain did as a member of the Gang of 14. What's interesting is that Obama supporter's defense is to point the finger at the Republicans. Haven't we had enough of that? I thought Obama wanted to bring change, but it seems like the change he wants to bring is simply from R to D, whereas McCain wants to change the nature of how Washington works.


McCain doesn't back cap and trade anymore? I'd like to see a statement on that. Furthermore, he hasn't reversed his position on torture. He voted against one bill that he felt went too far in limiting CIA tactics (after they already stopped using Waterboarding), and has stated that he will monitor the situation and submit or sponsor legislation in addition to the Military Commission Act and Detainee Treatment Act that he already championed in the past. It's easy for an Obama supporter to snipe at McCain's positions since Obama himself rarely takes a public stand on any issue. If he did, then maybe they'd understand that not everything is so cut and dry. The world is alot more interesting than that.


Seems like Obama's best accomplishment in the State Senate was voting abstain as many times as possible. And it's a bit silly to say Obama has been working on national and international issues for 4 years, when he has spent half that time campaigning to be President. McCain is far more experienced on national and international issues, and with the selection of Palin, he adds the type of executive experience that is completely missing from the Obama-Biden ticket. Also, it's lovely to see the elitist liberals continue to belittle small states and small towns. Maybe there's a reason rural voters completely reject their policies. I think some of them might be happy that McCain selected someone with a real understanding of their issues.


I think the McCain campaign will gladly have a debate on whether the Democratic Presidential nominee is as experienced as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. That would be pretty funny. Obama wants to campaign against Bush and now he wants to campaign against Palin. He seems to want to campaign against anyone except his actual opponent!


Kennedy is an old school tax and spend liberal, so I'm not sure that's who you want to compared with Biden. Both he and Biden are firmly entrenched in the Washington political machine and have been for a very long time. I noticed that you couldn't point to anything that Biden has done during his long tenure that advocated any kind of meaningful change. I think that speaks volumes.


Again, the liberals just keep smearing Palin without real proof. The investigation into the firing of the chief is being handled by someone so partisan that he predicted the result of the investigation would be an "October Surprise". Even Kenneth Starr never said something as extreme as that. Where are the liberals who were so up in arms over him? Also, you know that Palin didn't actually fire the librarian, so I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest otherwise. Keep smearing all you want, but it's a fact that she fought against her own party in Alaska, something Obama and Biden wouldn't have the courage to do, since they are supposed agents of change that are in lock step with the typical liberal Democratic establishment.



Lots of what-ifs there. Sounds like there's even more reason to have a commander in chief with some credibility in this arena. A fiery speech plays well on CNN, but I doubt it will matter much in international affairs. If Obama is meeting with Sadr, he won't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say. The Pentagon saying we're stretched too thin is just all the more reason the troops need our support and we can't afford to have a commander in chief that isn't completely behind their mission.


Just look at the 1990s? How about look at the 1980s where Reagan cut taxes across the board and actually increased tax revenue? Why? Because people had more money to spend! Reagan's policies helped us recover from the nightmare that was Jimmy Carter, which is why he was re-elected with one of the biggest margins in history. And he didn't have the luxury of a fake dot com boom to get it done.



The surge that Obama didn't support, didn't think would work, and now says is successful? That one? Again, you're creating a what-if scenario that won't necessarily happen, especially if we have a commander in chief with the experience and authority to get the job done. It is important to finish the job in Iraq and Senator McCain will make sure the military is prepared to see it through.


Why doesn't he mention them on the campaign trail? Perhaps he's afraid they won't go over too well, or he hasn't memorized them, or his staffers haven't told him which issues they've updated on the website that day. I hope the guy that handles the Iraq section is paid well, because it must be tough to keep up with Obama's constantly shifting positions there.

Also, it's not just Republicans that don't know about Obama's proposals. The Obama supporters cry when he gives one of his "inspirational" speeches, but they also cry when you ask them about his specific proposals, because they don't have a clue what any of them are.

I'll have to get to that tonight... after work (I can post here at work, but usually not writing in depth posts) :D.

---


Of course the problem with that is that after a few times people may just focus on what the word "fundamentally" means and realize the statement isn't as crazy as it first sounded to them.

That's not the problem. That gives too much credit to the people, I think, to assume that they can/will care to actually parse a quote and think about what a politician actually said instead of what the pundits all tell us he said.

But I see another problem. If Obama does not soon propose a sound-bite ready solution* to the problem, then the contrast simply becomes "John McCain actually thinks that you will have a job and a house four years from now, while Obama acknowledges that you and your children will be living in a box under the bridge and that it is all Bush's fault."

The out-of-touch meme is a good one for Obama because it touches on McCain's age indirectly. But if he thinks that he can stop there, he is mistaken. John McCain tends to be "out of touch" in ways that are optimistic about America and its power. And, at the end of the day, we are optimistic people. If Obama's message becomes "John Mcain is out of touch because he is too sanguine about the present and the future," then Obama will lose.


*Yes, I know that any "solution" to this problem is far beyond what the chief executive can do. But you can say that about most of the things we expect the President to be able to do. Indeed, one of the ironies about the whole thing is that which the President actually does we tend to ingore but the things over which he has very little control, we place at his doorstep. But that is a post for another day.

so what - you're going to let these firms self-regulate? that's a recipe for disaster - they'll all sit around circle-jerking and paying lip-service to regulations in order to make more $$

Which regulation exactly would have prevented this crisis? The Fed has been very lax here, but that's not exactly something that regulation would have fixed. I guess you could have outlawed subprime and ABM loans as well as required more down payment, but, aside from being hindsight is 20/20, I'd think that the investment banks would have found a way around that as well.

There are some regulations that were done away with over the past decade or so, as well. It's not all about the lack of new regulation, but the removal of past regulations under the guise of the industry regulating itself so well that oversight was no longer needed. Enron blew up because deregulation let them play a new game. Financial industry melting down can be traced back to the deregulation push as well. Time and again, mega corporations demonstrate an inability to regulate themselves.

Absent of any outside controls, many of these corporations will go for money, money, money and just hope for the best. If they fail, so be it. Few of the people involved in management probably had much money invested in the company anyway. It's all-win for them if it works out with little to lose if it doesn't. It would be nice if we could get shareholders and boards that were truly interested in doing their ownership and oversight thing out of this, but it seems most of those folks don't feel like paying attention to the big picture either.

All credit to Flasch, ISiddiqui, and larrymcg for their exchanges over the past couple of pages :)

SI

Im still kind of in shock over the efforts to stymie the investigation though, ive just been trying to be a little more level headed...For the last few hours anyways.

I keep hearing about removal of past regulation that caused the credit crunch, but which ones? It seems to me that the blame doesn't really fit. Some people talk about repealing Glass-Stegall, but that dealt with commerical banks and these are investment banks which are really going under.

So the question becomes which regulations were repealed that led to this? It seems more like new regulations should have been written in the late 90s, early 2000s, but there was no political will on both sides for it. This crisis was ultimately caused by investment banks thinking they had a great idea to make money on real estate and were horribly wrong. The only regulation that really could have prevented that is stuff that we now know in hindsight (banning ABM loans and subprime is a start).

It isnt so we dont.

Boldface choice of words duly noted. Interesting that a equitable purveyor of truth would choose the pronoun 'we' when discussing how the Obama campaign would react in this situation. :)

Regarding the economy, you cannot paint things in a simplistic, broad brush. A lot of it depends on where you look and at what sector you look. Comparatively, Colorado is doing very well, while Michigan sucks. Energy and environmental industries are doing very well, while auto and certain manufacturers are not, generally speaking. Beneath that to the financial and banking sectors, I don't know, it depends how many stupid short-term decisions they made during the selective housing bubble.

the we meant all of us, human beings, you, me, Ronnie dobbs, Arles, Glengoyne, my mom, SD, 3R, SO, RS and your momma too. That's what you get when you try to say 'what s/he meant was' instead of taking it as is.

Bucc, you do realize that Democrats are nothing more than mini-Republicans and as such, simply act as buffers and enablers to their behavior? We haven't had an actual opposition party in a while. I used to subscribe to exactly your viewpoint, but when both parties are essentially the same, what's the point?

oh no, ive watched closely all of them since the Clinton campaigns. Bush 1 only stood out due to the 'read my lips' stuff. However that doesnt mean I think the behavior is ok nor good for our country, on both sides. I understand JonIMGA's POV but that doesnt mean I agree with it but at least I understand it and perhaps that's been the issue is that I do not subscribe to that line of thought and hold out hope that not only can a campaign not subscribe to it, but also win. W proved that not to be the case (not saying the other side subscribed to my line of thought either) in winning with a dirty playbook. Im hoping someday we wont have to have these sort of campaigns and get disgusted today with the way theyre run.

It's odd. After the "Palin honeymoon" wore off, we've kindof gotten back to business as usual. The "minefield" we were talking about a couple of weeks ago has significantly lessened in strength. So, we're onto whatever the next few flavors of the news cycle are.

There are three things that have stuck out in my mind over the last week or so with regards to quotes and campaigning. Again, I'm trying to look at them from a purely academic and campaigning standpoint- how they affect politics, not the validity of the statements or attacks on either side's beliefs.

(1)
There hasn't really been much comment on the military service of the candidates. Don't get me wrong- we all know McCain and his military credentials and trials. However, I remember in 1992, there were a lot of attacks on Clinton for being a draft dodger. Heck, in 2000, Bush used his time in the national guard to go after Gore and his time as a journalist. And then in 2004, it was again Bush and Kerry got hamstrung with the "swift boat" attack. I'm pretty sure Obama hasn't had any military service but we haven't heard anything about that.


(2)


I know Obama already has an ad out about this. But what was McCain thinking?

[quote = President Hoover, in a press conference on October 30, the day following the Stock Market crash]
The fundamental business of the country, that is production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis. [/quote]

I'm paraphrasing, but Olbermann mentioned a couple of nights ago that there should be a book handed out to all political candidates about what not to say and quoting Hoover in bad economic times would be near the front.


(3)

This one draws from previous (recent) history as well as now. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, yes this Douglas Holtz-Eakin who is McCain's chief economics advisor, stupidly holds up his Blackberry and basically pulls an Al Gore invented the internet moment. I mean, it's almost identical. They're both horribly misinterpreted in what was saying

Really? Who is stupid enough to make this quote? Who even thought this was a good idea, to make this point? I know everyone remembers "Al Gore invents the internet".

Gore's exact quote: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." And it referred to his sponsoring of legislation to help fund and open up the internet, which he did do.

The quote by Holtz-Eakin was: ""He did this" (holding up his Blackberry). "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years -- comes right through the Commerce Committee -- so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create, and that's what he did." (In a more snarky post, I'd go into how he didn't have nearly the influence Gore did on the internet or about how the credit he was being given was for deregulation of said industry on a day when he was calling for more regulation of another, but another day and another time...)

Both refer to a prominent technology that neither meant to take credit for.
Both refer to legislation aimed at funding and/or promoting said technology.
And, most of all, both will be (or were) misquoted in the following days of the quote and campaign.

And this isn't even a far flung surrogate but someone fairly close to him doing this. How can this even happen?

SI

Well, let's just say McCain was a bit pissed off at Holtz-Eakin for doing that, from what I've read.

While we're at it, I think we need to revoke the credit that Dwight Eisenhower gets for the Interstate highway system. I've never seen any photos of him pouring the concrete or laying down the ashphalt, so his involvement was minimal at best.

But that's my point- obviously neither Gore nor McCain (by proxy) were trynig to take credit for literally inventing or, in the case of Eisenhower, building something- just for funding the infrastructure.

SI

He was much more pissed off at Fiorina for saying Palin and later McCain, Obama and Biden didn't have the experience necessary to run a major corporation. I would have loved it if the follow up to that was, "Well exactly what experience do you need to run HP into the ground?"

Or Lucent?

(p.s. I *hate* Carly)

SI

Must see TV.

Palin to field voters' questions for first time - CNN.com

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain « - Blogs from CNN.com


Bolded to show that I find it funny for her to call basically anyone an elitist. Maybe she means Obama's a uber-elitist.

Rasmussen: Mccain 48-47
Research 2000: Obama 47-45
PPP (D): Obama 48-46

Good question. If I had the resources to conduct the research, I would do it right now. I don't know what it was called, but I understood (and easily could be wrong) that there used to be more restrictions on the kind of transactions that investment banks could engage in.

Though I'm not surprised that you tried to evoke class warfare with your comment, I really don't think this carries a hill of beans of worth. Political endorsements, outside of the rare exception, usually don't sway the electorate all that much. As polarized as this election is, I'm be shocked if anyone was swayed by this announcement.

whatever, i wasnt trying to evoke anything outside of humor. Are you Oliver Stone or something? Like the 'we' comment above that you spun into some treasure map instead of looking in the mirror and realizing that we both have 2 eyes. Do yourself and me a favor and read my posts, initially, as vanilla and then ask me questions if you aren't sure my intent so we dont get into the 's/he meant it to mean' stuff you love.

What States are Really in Play?

The McCain convention bump seems to be subsiding, and the tracking polls suggest the national race is back almost dead even. Part of the recent movement may well be attributable to the financial crisis gripping Wall Street, and the fact that for not the first time, a sensible McCain statement on the economy is being distorted by Obama and his many media flacks as evidence that the Arizona Senator is out of touch.

The fundamentals of the US economy are strong, as McCain argued: 94% of workers are employed, inflation last month was 0.1% (the big drop in oil prices of over $55 a barrel helps, saving consumers between $20 and $30 billion each month), and GDP grew by over 3% last quarter. When Franklin Roosevelt took office and said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, he was applauded for his statesmanship and leadership.

A leader in a time of crisis tries to settle the ship and restore confidence. That is what John McCain is doing, but he gets no points for it. You are supposed to walk among the unemployed, and show that you share their pain, and charge that their problems are caused by George Bush, or this year, Bush-McCain. That is what Barack Obama does, and for this, he gets the attention and approval of the punditry hacks or giants (pick one) like Joe Klein and Frank Rich.

In terms of political momentum, when the topic being debated is national security or social issues and values, McCain benefits. When the topic is a souring economy or financial crisis, Obama wins. So this week, it is Obama's week to ride with the tide.

One of the reasons the Obama campaign has been so flummoxed by Sarah Palin is that every day Palin is the story, which she has been for close to two weeks, is a day when the Obama campaign is off message. The New York Times, boiling with rage at the new interloper who offers a different version of feminism than the only one allowed to be respected in its pages, has provided a huge boost to the McCain-Palin campaign with its army of "investigative reporters" digging for trash in Alaska.

The Times' pursuit of Palin resembles their feeble and failed four month attempt to tar John McCain earlier this year as having been an adulterer with a lobbyist. The John Edwards adultery story, which was real, was never of interest to the New York Times. Sinners can only be registered Republicans, and after all, Edwards only began his affair when his wife's cancer was in remission, demonstrating what a prince of a man he really is.

The state polls, which tend to lag the national tracking polls by a few days, have been more favorable for John McCain the last few days, reflecting his slightly stronger position since the convention and the Palin pick. But even if the latest state polls overstate McCain's numbers a bit due to the lag, they do reflect the new shape of the race.

The best news for McCain is that he has opened a solid lead in Florida (27 Electoral College votes) of 5 points or more in every recent survey, and has built a modest lead in Ohio (20 Electoral College votes) of 3-4 points in every recent survey but one (Quinnipiac). Obama ran poorly in Ohio in its March primary, carrying only 5 of 88 counties and losing the state to Hillary Clinton by 10%, despite coming in with all the momentum and a huge financial advantage. Many registered Democrats in Ohio are not political liberals and share more cultural values with Sarah Palin than Barack Obama. The condescension the Obama campaign has demonstrated toward blue collar voters will not help it in Ohio come Election Day. It is telling that in one recent survey, 31% of Ohio voters said they best relate to Palin, about 20% each to McCain and Obama, and barely over 10% with Biden. If Ohio and Florida are McCain states (and Ohio is certainly not yet "done" for McCain, as Florida may be), there are few ways for Obama to reach 270 Electoral College votes.

Assuming Obama holds all the Kerry states, not nearly so certain anymore, Obama begins with a likely pickup of Iowa and its 7 Electoral College votes. He would then need 11 more. In the latest Rasmusssen surveys, Obama trails in Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), and is even in Virginia (13). These are the four tossup states where his chances to turn a red state blue are the best. Admittedly, McCain's lead in the Western states is small -- 2 to 3 points in each case. For Obama to win, he will need to pick up Virginia, which has not gone Democratic since 1964, or Colorado and one of the smaller Western states to win. Colorado has been a reliable GOP state in recent years and Nevada has been in the McCain column pretty much all year.

The Obama campaign has bragged of its superior ground game and how that will deliver victory, and in a very close state race, it could help. However discussions with campaign professionals in Virginia and Ohio suggest that the Obama ground team, mostly passionate young out of state workers, are not connecting very well with local voters, even registered Democrats, many of whom are for more culturally conservative than the propagandists for Obama. There is the possibility of a backlash against the harassment, as occurred with Howard Dean's yellow jacketed throng in Iowa in 2004. The McCain team, thanks to the Sarah Palin selection, now has its own energized army of field workers -- but they tend to be in-state people talking to their neighbors, arguably a more effective approach than the one Obama's campaign has chosen. In Ohio in 2004, the Bush ground game won the state and the election for him.

At one time, the Obama team talked of 22 targeted states, then 18 (14 of them Bush won states), but now the real number is smaller than that. And the good news for the McCain side is that they have a real shot in many more Kerry states than they did a few months back. The latest Rasmussen survey has Pennsylvania (21 Electoral College votes) even for the first time all year. It is hard to see how Obama wins the presidency if he does not win the Keystone state. Pennsylvania is another state in which Obama was buried in the primary, despite a huge spending advantage over Hillary Clinton. Like Ohio and Michigan (17), the state has many registered Democrats who hunt and who are regular church goers, neither of which demographic segments provide fertile ground for Obama, who does best among African Americans and very highly educated secular whites who do not own or use guns. If McCain wins Pennsylvania, he will almost certainly also win Ohio, which is historically about 4-5 points friendlier to the GOP than Pennsylvania.

Other blue states now clearly in play include Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), and Michigan (17). I am very skeptical that McCain can win New Jersey (15) despite two recent polls showing him only 3% behind (others show him further behind) or Washington State (11), where two recent polls give Obama a 2-4% lead. Oregon (7) may be a slightly better prospect, given its recent voting history, but is still a long shot for McCain.

Many of Obama's once-targeted red states are now safely in McCain's corner. These include Montana (3), North Dakota (3) Alaska (3), and Georgia (15). North Carolina (15), Indiana (11) and Missouri (11) do not look too promising for Obama either. Of course, if the race breaks hard for either candidate in the last month, such that the current near-deadlock in the national popular vote becomes a 5% or greater margin of victory, then some of the second tier targets may come into play. But they won't matter. If Obama opens up a 5% national lead, he will win Ohio, and Virginia and Colorado. If McCain opens up a similar sized national lead, he probably wins Michigan and Pennsylvania. Neither candidate would need any other states from the other party's column -- these would amount to gravy, allowing the winner to claim a mandate.

The race is close to a national tie in the popular vote, in the number of safe electoral college votes for each side, and in the number of tossup electoral college votes that are blue or red. We have in other words, a 50-50 race.

That situation is markedly better for John McCain than his prospects have been for most of the year. He has not won, but he is very much in the game. The debates, the fallout from the politically motivated investigation in Alaska, and the luck of the draw -- what makes news in the weeks before Election Day -- will determine the outcome of the race.

What States are Really in Play?

Gee, Vic, bias much?

Not to get off the main topic here of partisan fighting but....this is a real question and one that seriously with the economy really worries me. Is it really true that McCain is planning to have our healthcare benefit taxable income? If so I dont understand why more people aren't mentioning it or bitching about that? I guess it wouldn't have much hope of being passed by a Democrat controlled Hill but it looks like the republicans at least have a shot if you believe the polls of taking back the legislative majority from the Dems. I am honestly asking this question in aconstructive and with no partisan intent here. If the Dems were going to pull this I wouldn't vote for them for this one reason.

McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax - New York Times

Yes. There will be a corresponding tax credit, but for some families it won't cover the cost of the tax. Worse, there is no mention of scaling for the actual inflation of insurance costs, so as costs go up the tax credit will cover less.

I don't understand why this hasn't been the feature of an a national ad. It would be a little bit of a distortion, but I have to think, "McCain wants to tax your health benefits," would be an effective attack.

The difference is that Barack Obama was born in the 60s and was only 14 years old when the Vietnam war ended. He has never been eligible for conscription.

Well I see that would fuck me. Since my employer pays about 9000 dollars of my health coverage. So a 5000 dollars tax credit won't cut it. I mean from the numbers given for a avergae family plan at $14000 dollars annually even a $10000 dollar tax credit won't do it. It is a cleverly worded explanation but that is just wrong.

Even GOP says McCain must accept earmarks - Yahoo! News


Did McCain say "every"? I dont know if paid enough attention to remember him saying "every". Anyone?

More polls...

Gallup: Obama 47-45
Hotline/FD: Obama 45-42
Ipsos: Tie 45-45

The whole earmarks crusade is a sham. First, there just isn't that much money tied up in earmarks when compared to the deficit. Second, there's no way any President would veto all earmarks as things like aid to Israel are earmarks. Third, eliminating earmarks won't necessarily reduce spending by a penny. Fourth, all eliminating earmarks will accomplish is shifting spending decisions from the legislative to executive branch.

There's a lot of waste in the government and reducing that waste is worthwhile, but earmarks in and of themselves just aren't a big issue.

Everything that was bad is good again.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fiorina’s comment called ‘Biden-like’ « - Blogs from CNN.com

For the life of me, I can't figure out why NR went with that particular phrase as the cover. It's not sarcastic, it's not poking fun at Obama. It truly does seem to say "Hey, look! We've got OUR Obama now!"

I would have gone with "Not 'The One'. One of Us." or something along those lines.

She's probably right about all 4 candidates for office, Romney mightve been the most qualified to run a corp the size of HP. I can see how strategically it is 'fodder' for the pages but Im fairly certain that she isn't wrong in her estimation.

It certainly does kind of take some steam out of the 'one' argument although Im not sure NR is read by the masses either, so it may not hold the same weight.

Well, what's really funny about her comment is that the person who ran HP into the ground is going to tell us who's qualified to run a corporation.

wasn't she the same lady who was taping people or something like that? Very true but I think she's right that none of them could run a HP size company....along with her :)

Some disappointing news if true. It appears that the Iraqi oil service contracts that went to the Chinese were originally going to the U.S. until Democratic senators Schumer, Kerry and McCaskill decided to request that hydrocarbon laws be put into place in Iraq. The Iraqis were scared off by the ensuing fuss and handed the multi-million dollar contracts to Chinese firms.

No Oil for Blood

I wanted to bump this one more time to see if I can get anymore opinions on this especially from McCain backers to explain if thye are ok with this.

So?

Hah. If they can't prevent the question, they should try to make sure it is one of the first so they have more time to get beyond it.

You left out a key point. They didn't request hydrocarbon laws (which infers an environmental angle), they requested a hydrocarbon revenue sharing law, which was something that was brought up before the invasion as a way to pay for it by the administration, and even post invasion as a way to keep Sunnis/Shias/Kurds all happy with their fair share of the proceeds.

I'm a moderate who will likely vote McCain at this point. I don't agree with the taxation of the health benefit, but I also am pretty sure that there's not a chance in hell that the Republicans would ever be able to pass a law that's structured exactly as McCain has suggested. There would be a lot of negotiations to adjust that credit according to need rather than a flat credit. The end result would likely be more rules without any substantial additional revenue for the government.

Isn't it still awfully early in the game to be playing this card?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Cafferty: Obama: Race a factor? « - Blogs from CNN.com

Missed this earlier. I still think that the investigator should step down. That was the easiest thing for me to argue from the other side, because I guarantee you liberals would be livid if Biden was being investigated by someone who said the result of the investigation could be an "October surprise." French should step down, and then it would be much harder for Palin to argue the investigation is partisan, and would look much worse for dodging it.