Front Office Football Central
Page 52 of 111 « First < 242434445464748495051 52 53545556575859606162102 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

JonInMiddleGA 09-19-2008 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digamma (Post 1838051)
The Palin's are swingers? I hadn't read that.

Sheesh. Give the media time to do their thing will ya? ;)

In all seriousness though, would that particular revelation actually come as a big shock to the majority of people? It definitely wouldn't surprise me in the least, just be one more thing for her to discuss with Jerry Springer but maybe I'm just too cynical.

TazFTW 09-19-2008 04:24 PM
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Maine (9/17), Obama 50 McCain 46. Previous Rasmussen (8/12) Obama 49 McCain 36.

500 Likely Voters.

Big Fo 09-19-2008 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1838259)
I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.

Bill: "But if your grandma sends you $50 in the mail..."

Lawyer:

st.cronin 09-19-2008 05:45 PM
If Bob Barr wins this election, I'm moving to Madagascar.

SirFozzie 09-19-2008 05:54 PM
This bit of facepalm science comes from The University of Nebraska, and their conclusions were, basically.. "The more conservative you are, the easier it is to make you afraid". (rolls eyes)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2008/918/2

GrantDawg 09-19-2008 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 1838289)
This bit of facepalm science comes from The University of Nebraska, and their conclusions were, basically.. "The more conservative you are, the easier it is to make you afraid". (rolls eyes)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2008/918/2


Does this some how surprise anyone?

Big Fo 09-19-2008 06:18 PM
The sample size was only 46...

Flasch186 09-19-2008 06:37 PM
Investigator: Palin probe to end before election - Yahoo! News

Quote:
Investigator: Palin probe to end before election

By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The Alaska lawmaker directing an abuse-of-power investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin promised Friday the probe will be finished before the election, despite refusals by key witnesses to testify, including the governor's husband.

After waiting 35 minutes for Todd Palin and two state administrative employees to appear under subpoena before the state Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Hollis French condemned their refusal to testify and the attorney general's broken promise that seven other witnesses would testify who were not subpoenaed.

French said the retired prosecutor hired by the Alaska Legislature to investigate Palin, Stephen Branchflower, will conclude his investigation by Oct. 10. Still, that report will not include testimony from the Republican vice presidential nominee, her husband or most of the top aides Branchflower hoped to interview.

Sarah Palin's allies hoped the investigation would be delayed past the election to spare her any troublesome revelations — or at least the distraction — before voters have made their choice. Palin's reputation as clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests is central to her appeal as Republican John McCain's running mate, and possibly at risk in the probe.

Palin initially promised to cooperate in the investigation, telling the Legislature to "hold me accountable." Lawmakers were investigating accusations she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. She now opposes the investigation.

Palin spokesman Bill McAllister declined to comment Friday. The McCain campaign said there are concerns about the effect of political influence on the Legislature's inquiry and Palin will provide any information needed to a separate investigation by the Alaska State Personnel Board.

The committee subpoenaed six people to appear Friday to testify or meet for private interviews with Branchflower. French said three of those six had complied. Todd Palin, special assistant Ivy Frye and Randy Ruaro, who is the governor's deputy chief of staff, did not.

Todd Palin's attorney sent French a letter Thursday listing Palin's objections to the Legislature's investigation of his wife. Among them, the attorney said, were jurisdiction questions, separation of power issues and an inconvenient travel schedule.

Subpoenas were approved on seven other government employees, but not served because the state attorney general's office had agreed to cooperate, French said. But Attorney General Talis Colberg earlier this week reversed himself, saying the governor declined to participate and that Palin administration employees would not appear.

French said subpoenas will be issued for those seven people, ordering them to testify on Sept. 26.

Witnesses who refuse to testify can be found in contempt under Alaska law. But the full Legislature must be in session, which won't happen until January. That means witnesses can stonewall without penalty beyond the Nov. 4 election, lawmakers said.

One of them, Sen. Gene Therriault, opposed the subpoenas. He said Friday the investigation was intended to uncover whether the governor was justified in firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, and he believes she was.

Palin fired Monegan in July. It later emerged that Palin, her husband and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten.Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements.

Wooten had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. Monegan has said no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, but he said their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

SirFozzie 09-19-2008 06:51 PM
Sorry, I should have made it clear that yes, with the limited subsection, and.. um.. rather sensational conclusions (especially given the time frame), I considered it junk science

Vegas Vic 09-19-2008 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 1837791)
fivethirtyeight.com had had McCain as the favorite for at least a week, with a low to mid 50s percent chance of winning. Now they've got him with a 38.8% chance of winning. Crazy.

Not really, considering the way this guy is revising the way that he weights the polls. It's his untested, unproven opinion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there's only one site that nailed the 2004 election, RealClearPolitics.com. Right now, they've got Obama up by 2 in the popular vote, and winning the Electoral College 273-265.

Pay close attention to where this thing stands in mid-October, after the first couple of debates. Whoever is leading the electoral college projection at that point is extremely likely to be the next president.

Swaggs 09-19-2008 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1838332)
Not really, considering the way this guy is revising the way that he weights the polls. It's his untested, unproven opinion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there's only one site that nailed the 2004 election, RealClearPolitics.com. Right now, they've got Obama up by 2 in the popular vote, and winning the Electoral College 273-265.

Pay close attention to where this thing stands in mid-October, after the first couple of debates. Whoever is leading the electoral college projection at that point is extremely likely to be the next president.

I think that Electoral College count has a pretty good chance of being correct if Obama does win. I think it is pretty likely that Obama carries the Kerry states (with New Hampshire a possible exception) and Iowa + New Mexico. I see Colorado as the Florida '00 or Ohio '04 in this election.

JPhillips 09-19-2008 09:10 PM
Bet you'll be seeing this a lot. McCain wrote this for a current issue of an actuarial trade magazine.

Quote:
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Arles 09-19-2008 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1838259)
I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.
Megyn Kelly is great. O'Reilly.... not so great ;)

Flasch186 09-19-2008 10:48 PM
He was just stuck in his stupidity and wouldnt listen to anything other than what would solidify his stupid position.

Vegas Vic 09-19-2008 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1838539)
He was just stuck in his stupidity and wouldnt listen to anything other than what would solidify his stupid position.

Say what you will about O’Reilly, but he did something tonight that you’ll probably never see again. He got Kelly Anne Conway (Republican hack) and Tanya Acker (Democrat hack) to both admit that their candidate’s recent ads targeting Hispanic voters were misleading and inappropriate.

I think it’s safe to assume that you’ll never see anything like that from Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews or Larry King.

Schmidty 09-20-2008 12:00 AM
I think this is the first election that I didn't give even tiny bit of a fuck about.

Wake me up in December.

Big Fo 09-20-2008 12:01 AM
John McCain has played in important role in burying information about Vietnam POWs that never made it home.

The article is rather long so I'll just paste in the opening three paragraphs and here is a link to the rest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney H. Schanberg

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain's role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain's military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn't talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that "men were left behind." This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the US prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

...

SirFozzie 09-20-2008 12:11 AM
Please forgive me if I take this "story" with a grain of salt the size of Albany. At the least, its politically unbalanced to cast McCain in the worst possible light, and at the worst, it's about the same level of "journalism" as the Swift Boating of Kerry in 2004.

Big Fo 09-20-2008 01:07 AM
Well it wasn't written by some random hack, Schanberg is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. While he may or may not have overstated the degree of McCain's involvement in the cover-up he presents a lot of compelling evidence backed up with sources, it is a very disturbing article.

JonInMiddleGA 09-20-2008 04:42 AM
I thought the name was familiar. Schanberg is probably most easily recognizable as the guy Sam Waterson plays in The Killing Fields.

Mac Howard 09-20-2008 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1838259)
I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.

Megyn's softened her image :)

Bill's had a bad week this week - Neil Cavuto gave him a going over on Monday about the naivete of his view on gas prices. At one point O'Reilly was getting over-heated and Cavuto started to repeat what he had to say. It went something like:

O'Reilly: "I know, I know, I heard that already"

Cavuto (ever so calmly) "You were shouting, Bill, you were shouting. So I'll say it again".

He tied O'Relly up in knots :)

He also had an argument with Newt Gingrich - though I must admit I was with O'Reilly on this.

Hell, I can't believe I said that :eek:

stevew 09-20-2008 07:07 AM
Loofah

Flasch186 09-20-2008 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1838655)
Say what you will about O’Reilly, but he did something tonight that you’ll probably never see again. He got Kelly Anne Conway (Republican hack) and Tanya Acker (Democrat hack) to both admit that their candidate’s recent ads targeting Hispanic voters were misleading and inappropriate.

I think it’s safe to assume that you’ll never see anything like that from Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews or Larry King.

I would LOVE to see that. Can you post a link?

BrianD 09-20-2008 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1838259)
I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.

Does Bill post here? A stubborn refusal to believe someone with actual knowledge on a subject and reliance on crazy analogies that have nothing to do with the current topic...we see that a lot around here.

GrantDawg 09-20-2008 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1838810)
Does Bill post here? A stubborn refusal to believe someone with actual knowledge on a subject and reliance on crazy analogies that have nothing to do with the current topic...we see that a lot around here.


Did he say that she was wrong on the law, or was he saying the law is wrong? I got the latter out of that. I didn't hear him refusing to believe her on the law. I heard him restating that it shouldn't be so.

BrianD 09-20-2008 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrantDawg (Post 1838842)
Did he say that she was wrong on the law, or was he saying the law is wrong? I got the latter out of that. I didn't hear him refusing to believe her on the law. I heard him restating that it shouldn't be so.

I had a hard time distinguishing between the two. On one had it sounded like he was stating that the law shouldn't be so because it made no sense, but on the other had it also sounded like the law couldn't be so because it made no sense. She was clearly stating that she doesn't necessarily like the law as written, so him arguing with her made it sound like he didn't agree with the reading of the law.

Vegas Vic 09-20-2008 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1838798)
I would LOVE to see that. Can you post a link?

Here you go.

Arles 09-20-2008 11:08 AM
well, that was a pretty decent job by O'Reilly. Maybe he does serve a purpose ;)

Flasch186 09-20-2008 12:25 PM
good for Bill and a monkey is running around my office and my butt hurts.

DaddyTorgo 09-20-2008 02:30 PM
idk why i didn't post this days ago when i got it -- funny (to both parties) video

http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

Dutch 09-20-2008 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1838868)
well, that was a pretty decent job by O'Reilly. Maybe he does serve a purpose ;)

Good for Bill O'Reilly. I've see O'Reilly do this quite a bit, along with bringing a lot of left-wing guests on to his show that hold their own. You hardly ever see this from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC's counterparts. Because "conservative opinion (or 50/50 opinion in this case) doesn't sell on TV" is their usual rationale.

Flasch186 09-20-2008 03:41 PM
welp that covered 'em all, Dutch. O'Reilly gets a 'quite a bit' though. mmmmk at least you gave a sleight nod to the idea that other media outlets dont have a liberal bias but a ratings bias. You just slathered it in 'liberal bias' mantra. still tastes good though.

JPhillips 09-20-2008 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1838999)
Good for Bill O'Reilly. I've see O'Reilly do this quite a bit, along with bringing a lot of left-wing guests on to his show that hold their own. You hardly ever see this from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC's counterparts. Because "conservative opinion (or 50/50 opinion in this case) doesn't sell on TV" is their usual rationale.

Let's see,

on Face the Nation, David Brooks is a regular
on This Week George Will is a regular
on Meet the Press Mike Murphy is a regular
on CNN Alex Castellanos and Amy Holmes are regulars
on Headline News Glenn Beck has his own show
on MSNBC Joe Scarborough has his own show

Arles 09-20-2008 05:31 PM
And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

fantom1979 09-20-2008 06:17 PM
I really like Keith Olbermann, but I can only watch him in small doses at a time. It would be nice if he would get someone with a different opinion every once in a while. Its pretty boring watching him talk about an issue for 10 minutes and then interview someone who just confirms his opinion for another five.

Arles 09-20-2008 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantom1979 (Post 1839064)
I really like Keith Olbermann, but I can only watch him in small doses at a time. It would be nice if he would get someone with a different opinion every once in a while. Its pretty boring watching him talk about an issue for 10 minutes and then interview someone who just confirms his opinion for another five.
I agree 100%. I find him witty, funny and even enjoy his NBC/NFL rants. Still, he gets way too loony too quick. I much prefer to watch Matthews on MSNBC.

JPhillips 09-20-2008 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1839052)
And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

It isn't about bias. Dutch said these sort of left/right debates hardly ever happen, but somehow every Sunday show and every cable news network show left/right debate all the time. It's part of the problem. Balance is more important than accuracy.

flere-imsaho 09-20-2008 06:54 PM
These kind of left/right debates happen every day, several times a day, in a far less heated format, on NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered and PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

Vegas Vic 09-20-2008 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1839073)
These kind of left/right debates happen every day, several times a day, in a far less heated format, on NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered and PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

Yes, these debates happen, but getting back to my original point -- this is the first time that I've ever seen a host get both parties to admit that their campaigns were disingenuous and misleading in their political ad. You won't see that on any of the other talk shows.

Flasch186 09-20-2008 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1839052)
And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

its the list and the word 'hardly' arles.

Vegas Vic 09-22-2008 12:19 AM
Sarah Palin drew a crowd of 60,000 at a campaign rally in central Florida today. It is the largest crowd in Florida history for either a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.

Jas_lov 09-22-2008 12:27 AM
That's a pretty impressive crowd. Better send her to North Carolina. I saw a link on 538 that said McCain is moving more resources there so he must be somewhat worried about it. The same goes for Obama and Minnesota. He is moving resources out of North Dakota and into Minnesota.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2008 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1839882)
Sarah Palin drew a crowd of 60,000 at a campaign rally in central Florida today. It is the largest crowd in Florida history for either a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by from the article

The fire chief estimated the crowd at 60,000.

we've already been over in this thread how reliable those estimates are. i don't doubt it was a sizeable crowd, but i highly doubt it was 60k

Young Drachma 09-22-2008 12:40 AM
Sarah Palin's Florida speech draws tens of thousands - 09/21/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

Quote:
Palin made her Florida debut in The Villages, one of the fastest-growing retirement communities in the country and a treasure trove of Republican voters. President Bush put it on the map when he campaigned here in the homestretch of the 2004 campaign.

But Palin drew thousands more than the estimated 20,000 people that turned out for Bush. A fire rescue official estimated the crowd at 25,000 to 30,000, while the Republican Party of Florida pegged the audience at twice that size.

Big Fo 09-22-2008 06:07 AM
Maybe the Republicans' inability to count has something to do with their inability to balance a budget.

Flasch186 09-22-2008 09:31 AM
Well I guess he either got it then, or he gets it now.

McCain says economy in crisis - Yahoo! News

Quote:
McCain says economy in crisis

2 hours, 48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who only a week ago said the economy was fundamentally sound, now says the U.S. financial system is facing a major crisis.


Speaking Monday on NBC's "Today" show McCain said, "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II."

He also said that despite the ballooning national debt he would not raise taxes if elected president.

McCain said "history shows us that if you raise people's taxes in tough economic times that makes problems worse."

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2008 09:36 AM
so how's he plan on paying down the debt or at least holding it steady without raising taxes? slashing everything else in the budget? geee that sounds great.

Kodos 09-22-2008 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Fo (Post 1839917)
Maybe the Republicans' inability to count has something to do with their inability to balance a budget.

Maybe the Supreme Court stepped in and decided it was 60,000.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2008 10:50 AM
this just in -- okay maybe not just in, but first i'd heard of it.

Palin's town charged women for rape exams - CNN.com

Quote:

Palin's town charged women for rape exams
Story Highlights
  • While Sarah Palin was mayor, Wasilla charged victims for their rape exams
  • Interviews, review of records show no evidence Palin knew victims were charged
  • Former state representative says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of issue
From Jessica Yellin
CNN

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's hometown required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor, a practice her police chief fought to keep as late as 2000.
Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.
"It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla," Croft told CNN. "We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them."
Alaska's Legislature in 2000 banned the practice of charging women for rape exam kits -- which experts said could cost up to $1,000.
Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, often talks about her experience running Wasilla, population approximately 7,000, and that has prompted close scrutiny of her record there. Wasilla's practice of charging victims for their rape exams while she was mayor has gotten wide circulation on the Internet and in the mainstream media. Watch CNN's Jessica Yellin check the facts in Wasilla »
Some supporters of Palin say they believe she had no knowledge of the practice.But critics call it "outrageous" and question Palin's commitment to helping women who are the victims of violence.
For years, Alaska has had the worst record of any state in rape and in murder of women by men. The rape rate in Alaska is 2.5 times the national average.
Interviews and a review of records turned up no evidence that Palin knew that rape victims were being charged in her town. But Croft, the former state representative who sponsored the law changing the practice, says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of the issue.
"I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," Croft said.
During the time Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her city was not the only one in Alaska charging rape victims. Experts testified before the Legislature that in a handful of small cities across Alaska, law enforcement agencies were charging victims or their insurance "more than sporadically."
One woman who wrote in support of the legislation says she was charged for her rape exam by a police department in the city of Juneau, which is hundreds of miles from Wasilla.
But Wasilla stood out. Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable.
"Several municipal law enforcement agencies in the state did have trouble budgeting and paying for the evidence collection for sexual assault victims," Henry said. "What I recall is that the chief of police in the Wasilla police department seemed to be the most vocal about how it was going to affect their budget."
Croft has a similar memory. He said victims' advocates suggested he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.
"I remember they had continued opposition," Croft said. "It was eight years ago now, but they were sort of unrepentant that they thought the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that."
He does not recall discussing the issue with then-Mayor Palin.
The bill, HB270, was before the legislature for six months. In testimony, one expert called the practice of billing the victim "incomprehensible." Others compared it to "dust[ing] for fingerprints" after a burglary, only "the victim's body is the crime scene."
During a rape exam, the victim removes her clothing and a medical professional gathers DNA evidence from her body. There is also a medical component to assess her injuries. That component has led some law enforcement agencies to balk at paying.
Henry, the forensic nurse, said charging victims "retraumatizes them."
"Asking them to pay for something law enforcement needs in order to investigate their case, it's almost like blaming them for getting sexually assaulted," she said.
The Alaska Legislature agreed. The bill passed unanimously with the support of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, the Alaska Peace Officers Association and more than two dozen co-sponsors.
After it became law, Wasilla's police chief told the local paper, The Frontiersman, that it would cost the city $5,000 to $14,000 a year -- money that he'd have to find.
"In the past, we've charged the cost of the exams to the victim's insurance company when possible," Fannon was quoted as saying. "I just don't want to see any more burden on the taxpayer."
He suggested the criminals should pay as restitution if and when they're convicted. Repeated attempts to reach Fannon for comment were unsuccessful.
Judy Patrick, who was Palin's deputy mayor and friend, blames the state.
"The bigger picture of what was going on at the time was that the state was trying to cut their own budget, and one of the things that they were doing was passing on costs to cities, and that was one of the many things that they were passing on, the cost to the city," said Patrick, who recalls enormous pressure to keep the city's budget down.
But the state was never responsible for paying the costs of local investigations. Patrick was also a member of Wasilla City Council, and she doesn't recall the issue coming before council members, nor does she remember discussing the issue with Palin.
She does recall Palin going through the budget in detail. She said Palin would review each department's budget line by line and send it back to department heads with her changes.
"Sarah is a fiscal conservative, and so she had seen that the city was heading in a direction of bigger projects, costing taxpayers more money, and she was determined to change that," Patrick said.
Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure, but it did not specifically mention rape exams.
In a statement, Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that "to imply that Gov. Palin is or has ever been an advocate of charging victims for evidence gathering kits is an utter distortion of reality."
"As her record shows, Gov. Palin is committed to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice," Hazelbaker said. "She does not, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence gathering test."
Those who fought the policy are unconvinced.
"It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile," Croft said.
The rape kit charges have become an issue among Palin critics who say as governor she has not done enough to combat Alaska's epidemic problem of violence against women. They point to a small funding increase for domestic violence shelters at a time when Alaska has a multibillion-dollar budget surplus. Victims' advocates say that services are lacking and that Palin cut funding for a number of programs that treat female victims of violence.
In the past week, Alaska's challenges with sexual assault have been in the spotlight again -- in connection with an ongoing inquiry into whether Palin abused her power by firing the head of Alaska's Department of Public Safety. Palin's office released e-mails showing that one area of disagreement between her and Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was his lobbying in Washington for $30 million to fund a new program of sexual assault response teams.
The McCain-Palin campaign insists that fighting domestic violence and sexual assault are priorities for Palin. And they say she has been looking at other programs to support. As governor, Palin approved a funding increase for domestic violence shelters -- $266,200 over two years. And she reauthorized a Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 10:50 AM
Looks like the McCain campaign has decided to go on the attack. New ad linking Obama with Chicago corruption.

YouTube - Chicago Machine

McCain campaign has also privately stated that more ads about Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright are part of the plan.

ace1914 09-22-2008 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1840066)
Looks like the McCain campaign has decided to go on the attack. New ad linking Obama with Chicago corruption.

YouTube - Chicago Machine

McCain campaign has also privately stated that more ads about Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright are part of the plan.

McCain looks like he's grasping for straws. Law of diminishing returns will kick in if he tries to uses Ayers and Wright.

Flasch186 09-22-2008 12:05 PM
I dont know about that. He has allowed the Rev. Wright thing to die down long enough that he may be able to roll it out with a different sweater on and get people on it again.

Flasch186 09-22-2008 12:22 PM
Obama: McCain wants to 'gamble' with Social Security

Obama: McCain wants to 'gamble' with Social Security - CNN.com

Quote:
THE VILLAGES, Florida (CNN) -- As the stock market goes through stomach-turning ups and downs, Sen. Barack Obama is accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting to "gamble with Social Security," a charge the Republican presidential nominee rejects as fear mongering.
Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Sunday.

McCain is promoting a plan that would divert a portion of payroll taxes taken from workers' paychecks into personal savings accounts that would be invested in the stock market. McCain says the accounts are necessary because if no changes are made to the traditional Social Security system, it won't be able to pay all of the benefits promised to baby boomers.

Obama made the accusation Saturday during a speech in Daytona, Florida.

"If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would have had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week ... millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes," the Democratic presidential nominee said.

The charge, however, is misleading, and the McCain camp said that Obama is only trying to scare seniors in Florida, a critical battleground state.

The Arizona senator is advocating personal savings accounts only for those born after 1950, meaning that the benefits seniors are now receiving from the Social Security system would not be affected, and that even if personal savings accounts were currently in place for individuals, it is unlikely that their nest eggs would disappear.

McCain also points out that his plan would supplement, not replace, the traditional Social Security program, which is expected to pay benefits to nearly 80 million Americans over the next two decades.

"You have to go to the American people and say we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we've got to fix this system," McCain said.

But Democrats argue that diverting any portion of payroll taxes that support Social Security into the stock market would undermine a system that, they say, is the sole support retirees can count on as companies cut back or eliminate pensions and the stock market experiences turbulence.

According to his Web site, Obama would help Social Security stay solvent by increasing the payroll tax by 2 to 4 percent for those making over $250,000.

"President Bush and John McCain have been pushing privatization for eight years -- not a joke. John still pushes it," Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, said Saturday during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia. "Here's what I want to ask you to think about when you're deciding who to vote for: Imagine if your mother or father's Social Security were invested in the stock market.

With the race so tight -- particularly in Florida -- and economic worries weighing heavily on voters, one McCain supporter suggested that the Republican nominee not push his contentious plan to supplement Social Security with private savings accounts.

"I don't think he's going to go through with it, cause he knows a lot of us are against it. I believe that, anyhow," said Toni Maggiore, the supporter.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1840105)
Obama: McCain wants to 'gamble' with Social Security

Obama: McCain wants to 'gamble' with Social Security - CNN.com

Lord, these color-coded articles from Flasch are going to throw my eyesight to hell in a handbasket.

Flasch186 09-22-2008 12:26 PM
luckily Im sure you have health insurance with a vision supplement so you can get that checked out and lets keep religion out of it ;)

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 12:35 PM
Hadn't seen this mentioned yet. More Hollywood actors deciding to voice their biased opinions in a public forum not intended for politics. I don't think these people have any idea how much their comments are hurting the liberal cause. This year's Emmy show was the lowest rated ever............

Political digs slipped into Emmys - Entertainment News, Los Angeles, Media - Variety

It's obviously a shame that SNL chose to bring in Al Franken to write the skit for this week's SNL opening. Last week's Palin/Clinton skit was hilarious. This week's attempt at Palin humor by Franken fell flat on its face.........

NBC jokes: Todd Palin has sex with daughters

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2008 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1840120)
Hadn't seen this mentioned yet. More Hollywood actors deciding to voice their biased opinions in a public forum not intended for politics. I don't think these people have any idea how much their comments are hurting the liberal cause. This year's Emmy show was the lowest rated ever............

Political digs slipped into Emmys - Entertainment News, Los Angeles, Media - Variety

It's obviously a shame that SNL chose to bring in Al Franken to write the skit for this week's SNL opening. Last week's Palin/Clinton skit was hilarious. This week's attempt at Palin humor by Franken fell flat on its face.........

NBC jokes: Todd Palin has sex with daughters

FWIW Mizzou (reaching across the aisle if i'm not mistaken) I agree with you on both these points.

For actors to think that their political inclination is going to get anyone to change their vote is the height of egotism. I wish they'd all collectively (D+R) STFU. They can fundraise all they want - hell they can even attend private parties and act out plays or whatever for the people there...I don't give a shit. But for them to babble on and on is insulting -- because I'm fairly certain the vast majority of them have less time to think about and research politics than the average american, so frankly the opinion of the guy next to me on the train who's been paying more attention is likely to be more informed.

and as for the humor -- there's a line there to be sure. i didn't see SNL this week, but if the title of that clip is any indication, that's over the line.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1840126)
Incidentally, this is the second board I've seen a conservative fail to realize that the NYT/Palin skit was a poke at the liberal media. Both linked to the same article as well.

I understand that claim, but using a 'Palin molests his children' tact for the skit to make that point was WAY out of line. There are plenty of other topics that could have been used to make that point.

Would it have been just as funny a skit if it was FOXNews that was insinuating that Obama molests his daughters? It certainly would not have been for me.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1840131)
SNL has long been a bastion of good taste, and this most recent change from that is SHOCKING.

So your original 'conservatives don't get the humor' argument fell flat on its face, so you switch to sarcasm? Pretty weak.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1840137)
Well, you hadn't indicated that you got the humor in your original post whatsoever - if you are truly bemoaning the downfall of quality humor in SNL recently, then consider your point made. I find that difficult to swallow, however.

There's this groundswell of false outrage (on both sides behalf, by the way) that everyone is just so damn eager to let loose. It's moronic.

It's only false outrage if you can't put yourself in the position of the Palin family. I'd want to F somebody up if they even made that kind of statement in a joking manner about myself and my daughter, even if my wife were running for office. It's ridiculously over the line.

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 12:57 PM
Today's Polls...

National

Gallup (RV): Obama 48-44
Rasmussen (LV): Obama 48-47
Battleground (LV): McCain 48-47
Research 2000/DKos (LV): Obama 49-43

State

VA: Obama 51-45 (Survey USA LV)
NC: McCain 50-47 (Rasmussen LV)
MN: Obama 52-44 (Rasmussen LV)
NV: McCain 46-45 (Suffolk University LV)
PA: Obama 46-44 (NBC-Mason Dixon LV)

JPhillips 09-22-2008 01:01 PM
I didn't see the skit as I generally find SNL over the past few years to be a gigantic waste of my time, but it's troubling to see a general consensus that SNL should self censor. If they're going to be pushing the line on political humor it's inevitable that they'll offend people. There's way too many people comfortable with limiting speech that offends them on both sides of the aisle.

It's a sketch show that few people watch doing something over the top, big fucking deal.

cartman 09-22-2008 01:04 PM
Yeah, who could forget the groundswell of disgust when SNL intoned that Sean Connery buggered Alex Trebek's mom. Or Alec Baldwin's Scoutmaster character molested Adam Sandler's Canteen Boy.

:rolleyes:

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1840152)
I didn't see the skit as I generally find SNL over the past few years to be a gigantic waste of my time, but it's troubling to see a general consensus that SNL should self censor. If they're going to be pushing the line on political humor it's inevitable that they'll offend people. There's way too many people comfortable with limiting speech that offends them on both sides of the aisle.

It's a sketch show that few people watch doing something over the top, big fucking deal.

Yes, defense of Palin in this situation is 'self-censorship'. I'm sure you'd claim the same if it was Obama knocking up his daughters.

JPhillips 09-22-2008 01:09 PM
I actually prefer if less deference was shown to our political class. I'm fine with a comedy show having a Obama as crack dealer skit or a McCain POW skit if they wish. Comedy shows like SNL should more frequently push the boundaries of outrage IMO.

Now a campaign commercial or news show is completely different, but satire shouldn't worry about offending people.

Fidatelo 09-22-2008 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1840127)
For actors to think that their political inclination is going to get anyone to change their vote is the height of egotism. I wish they'd all collectively (D+R) STFU. They can fundraise all they want - hell they can even attend private parties and act out plays or whatever for the people there...I don't give a shit. But for them to babble on and on is insulting -- because I'm fairly certain the vast majority of them have less time to think about and research politics than the average american, so frankly the opinion of the guy next to me on the train who's been paying more attention is likely to be more informed.

I'm not sure I agree that actors have less time to think about and research politics than the average american. Why would they have less time? I would think your average big shot actor would have tonnes of time to follow current events. They are constantly traveling, which is a great time to read or watch news, they spend inordinate amounts of time schmoozing with people, which likely leads to political discussions that can only serve to increase interest if not potentially inform the participant, and otherwise they don't have any of the other day-to-day 'life nonsense' to deal with that you average american does (nanny raises the kids, housekeeper cleans, chef cooks, etc).

Now sure, a vast majority of actors are likely total morons or too coked up to make rational decisions, but that's a different argument. :D

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidatelo (Post 1840164)
I'm not sure I agree that actors have less time to think about and research politics than the average american. Why would they have less time? I would think your average big shot actor would have tonnes of time to follow current events. They are constantly traveling, which is a great time to read or watch news, they spend inordinate amounts of time schmoozing with people, which likely leads to political discussions that can only serve to increase interest if not potentially inform the participant, and otherwise they don't have any of the other day-to-day 'life nonsense' to deal with that you average american does (nanny raises the kids, housekeeper cleans, chef cooks, etc).

Now sure, a vast majority of actors are likely total morons or too coked up to make rational decisions, but that's a different argument. :D

This is a much more accurate assessment of the situation. :)

cartman 09-22-2008 01:21 PM
Hmm, not sure how the Republican base is going to respond about McCain working towards amnesty for those the country illegally. This is from a speech this morning.

flounder 09-22-2008 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 1840155)
Yeah, who could forget the groundswell of disgust when SNL intoned that Sean Connery buggered Alex Trebek's mom. Or Alec Baldwin's Scoutmaster character molested Adam Sandler's Canteen Boy.

:rolleyes:

Actually I think there was a big uproar over the Canteen Boy sketch. So much so that the next time Baldwin hosted, they did a politically correct version of the skit for his opening monologue.

No real point here. Continue fighting amongst yourselves.

ISiddiqui 09-22-2008 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 1840178)
Hmm, not sure how the Republican base is going to respond about McCain working towards amnesty for those the country illegally. This is from a speech this morning.



&nbsp

Hasn't that always been his position? Hence part of the reason the right wing wasn't all that enamored with him?

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1840183)
Hasn't that always been his position? Hence part of the reason the right wing wasn't all that enamored with him?

He definitely backed away from it to get the nomination. He's probably getting back on the train because he sees the polling in New Mexico.

cartman 09-22-2008 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1840183)
Hasn't that always been his position? Hence part of the reason the right wing wasn't all that enamored with him?

He disavowed amnesty back during the primaries, saying during one the debates that he wouldn't have voted for his own bill anymore, because it had amnesty.

edit: found it

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 01:29 PM
And there was a memorable debate exchange between McCain and Romney where Romney denied calling McCain's plan amnesty, despite running ads where he does just that.

ISiddiqui 09-22-2008 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1840186)
He definitely backed away from it to get the nomination. He's probably getting back on the train because he sees the polling in New Mexico.

Not entirely. He said he'd push for border security first because that's what the people wanted. If you recall, McCain-Kennedy died a horrible death and McCain realized people wanted the border secure... but the "amnesty" (as some call it) was always there in the background.

Arles 09-22-2008 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 1840189)
He disavowed amnesty back during the primaries, saying during one the debates that he wouldn't have voted for his own bill anymore, because it had amnesty.

edit: found it
McCain said he wouldn't vote for it because he knows it has no chance of passing and he'd rather have the border security pass then revisit his "pseudo amnesty" plan. That's been his MO on nearly every bill he's passed. Come out with what he wants, it fails, then he works with democrats/republicans on a compromise. He did that with Kennedy on immigration and education, he did that with Feingold on campaign finance, he's done it on taxes and he's made adjustments to his energy plan. The only thing he hasn't compromised on is national security.

It's one of the reasons the right has been extremely frustrated with him. But, if "working with the other side" is as attractive as it seems, it may just get him elected president. So, McCain has always been in favor of this plan for citizenship, he just tabled it to try and get the border security issue passed.

cartman 09-22-2008 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1840260)
McCain said he wouldn't vote for it because he knows it has no chance of passing and he'd rather have the border security pass then revisit his "pseudo amnesty" plan. That's been his MO on nearly every bill he's passed. Come out with what he wants, it fails, then he works with democrats/republicans on a compromise. He did that with Kennedy on immigration and education, he did that with Feingold on campaign finance, he's done it on taxes and he's made adjustments to his energy plan. The only thing he hasn't compromised on is national security.

It's one of the reasons the right has been extremely frustrated with him. But, if "working with the other side" is as attractive as it seems, it may just get him elected president. So, McCain has always been in favor of this plan for citizenship, he just tabled it to try and get the border security issue passed.

It is just interesting that he's decided to bring it to the forefront when it is such a poison pill to a large part of his base. I guess he is banking on getting more votes from independents than he'd lose from the anti-amnesty crowd.

Flasch186 09-22-2008 02:54 PM
he was for it before he was against it. It's like we've seen this before....Deja Vu.

Arles 09-22-2008 03:29 PM
The more accurate statement would be "he was for it before he realized it wouldn't pass and changed it". ;)

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1840315)
The more accurate statement would be "he was for it before he realized it would sink his chances at the nomination and changed it". ;)

Fixed.

SirFozzie 09-22-2008 03:39 PM
Ouch. Seems Bill O'Reilly got a bit of a backlash. he went nuts on the hacking of Sarah Palin's yahoo mail account.. (which as I said, was completely counterproductive)..

and in turn, a seperate bunch of hackers hacked O'Reilly's website and posted details for 200+ premium members (not including CC#, but names, address, the whole 9 yards).

(sighs)

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 04:07 PM
A couple more polls released...

CNN/Opinion Research (LV): Obama 51-47
Hotline/FD (RV): Obama 47-42

Plus, a Democratic Poll (PPP) has Obama up 53-42 in New Mexico.

Big Fo 09-22-2008 04:10 PM
How many people out there really give a fuck what Matt Damon or whoever the hell else thinks about this year's election? Maybe his family, his agent, and Mizzou B-Ball fan? I don't think any of them live in swing states.

ISiddiqui 09-22-2008 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1840320)
Fixed.

Is that also why he was for more comprehensive campaign finance reform (starting in 1994) and then changed it to the McCain-Feingold bill that passed in 2002?

I mean if you listen to the quote, that can't be something the right wingers like to hear. He wouldn't vote against McCain-Kennedy because he's a true believer, but because it wouldn't pass as it was and he'd rather change it to get what he wanted. The elephant in the background is, of course, that after the border was secured... well, here comes the "amnesty" again that he's never disavowed.

JPhillips 09-22-2008 05:07 PM
The somewhat unfair immigration ads from Obama have put McCain in a box. He needs to respond or fall further behind with Latinos, but responding can effect his base. Given the way the map looks, I guess McCain figured he needs every Latino vote he can in FL, NV, NM and CO.

JonInMiddleGA 09-22-2008 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1840260)
But, if "working with the other side" is as attractive as it seems, it may just get him elected president.

Unless, of course, it's a break even or losing proposition when he demotivates voters from the core.

At the risk of repeating myself, if the Dems had run anybody but Obama this thing would already be over. And if McCain wants to start touting amnesty again then it might be over anyway. (No idea whether he is or isn't, that's just the gist of what I'm gathering from a quick check of this thread at the moment)

I'm starting to wonder if he's borderline schizophrenic ... let's move to the right, no wait, I mean move to the left, no back to the ... At some point, I think he runs a risk of simply making everyone unhappy & leaving himself with a constituency of none.

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1840357)
Is that also why he was for more comprehensive campaign finance reform (starting in 1994) and then changed it to the McCain-Feingold bill that passed in 2002?

I mean if you listen to the quote, that can't be something the right wingers like to hear. He wouldn't vote against McCain-Kennedy because he's a true believer, but because it wouldn't pass as it was and he'd rather change it to get what he wanted. The elephant in the background is, of course, that after the border was secured... well, here comes the "amnesty" again that he's never disavowed.

I'm just saying he seems to have come a long way from the debate when he was clearly upset with Romney calling his plan amnesty. I'll have to do more research on it, though.

Speaking of Romney, does anyone think that now it might have been a mistake to pass him over as VP? Sure, Palin energized the base and for a short time seemed to steal independent females. However, it seems Romney would have given the ticket alot of credibility in dealing with the financial crisis.

Arles 09-22-2008 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1840382)
Speaking of Romney, does anyone think that now it might have been a mistake to pass him over as VP? Sure, Palin energized the base and for a short time seemed to steal independent females. However, it seems Romney would have given the ticket alot of credibility in dealing with the financial crisis.
Given the craziness with the market and the fact that democrats (esp when a rep is in the white house) usually benefit when bad news on the economy comes out, this election would be over now if Palin had not been named. McCain needed every bit of the 10-15 point swing he got from Palin and it still may not be enough. If he named Romney, he *maybe* picks up 5 points and is down around 10-15 right now.

As Jon said above, it is amazing that McCain is still in the race. No one cares about foreign policy or Iraq, it's all about the economy and banks/mortgage issue. The democrat nominee should be winning by 15-20 points given McCain's weakness on the economy and the uncertainty. I expect the democrats understand this and will do everything possible to delay the "bailout bill" to ensure we get at least another 1-2 weeks of a bad stock market. That should pretty much ensure Obama wins (unless he makes a massive error). Palin is the only chance McCain has and it's looking less and less likely to carry him.

ISiddiqui 09-22-2008 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1840382)
I'm just saying he seems to have come a long way from the debate when he was clearly upset with Romney calling his plan amnesty. I'll have to do more research on it, though.

Well, because it isn't exactly amnesty. I mean, he requires a fine and the immigrants to learn English (and maybe go back and come back in, I'm not sure). It isn't just a blank check, which is what "amnesty" implies.

ISiddiqui 09-22-2008 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1840376)
At some point, I think he runs a risk of simply making everyone unhappy & leaving himself with a constituency of none.

To be quite honest, that was McCain's position from about 2002-2006. Dems liked to work with him, and he was very popular for bucking his own party, and because of that, he was a power player in consensus building. But it wasn't like he had a constituency or leader of any distinct movement or side. He basically won the Republican nomination because of the rest of the choices were so God awful.

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 06:40 PM
You really have to reach a bit to say Palin gave McCain a 10-15 pt. bump. The only way to do that is to take, for example, Gallup's +8 for Obama at the end of the Dem convention and compare it to Gallup's +5 for McCain after the GOP convention. By doing that, you're completely disregarding the effect of the Dem convention bump and completely disregarding the natural GOP convention bump. To say that +13 is solely due to Palin is ludicrous.

A more reasonable way to look at it is to compare the polls from before both conventions and after both conventions. In Gallup, McCain gained 3 points. In Rasmussen, McCain actually lost a point. In CNN, the race stayed the same. In Hotline/FD, he gained 4 points. With FOX News, he gained 6 points.

ISiddiqui 09-22-2008 06:47 PM
One must also take into consideration Palin's speech though, and how much impact that had on the bump. After all, plenty of commentators took to calling it "Palin's Convention" after it was all done.

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 06:51 PM
I don't deny that she caused a bump for the campaign. I just don't think it was 10-15 points. And I think picking Romney might have put him in a better situation over the next 6 weeks.

Fighter of Foo 09-22-2008 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1840387)
As Jon said above, it is amazing that McCain is still in the race. No one cares about foreign policy or Iraq, it's all about the economy and banks/mortgage issue.

Really? Perhaps if we didn't spend a couple of trillion on Iraq and our foreign adventures we wouldn't be quite as screwed.

Flasch186 09-22-2008 06:58 PM
Who knows. Palin may turn out to be the better short term play for McCain, but not the better long term choice, say Romney. Unfortunately for McCain or whomever was advising him on his VP selection they couldnt have both. So it was a gamble and seemed to pay big dividends in the short run and it's perks (fundraising, stifling the response from a possible Dem convention success, etc.)

Buccaneer 09-22-2008 07:01 PM
From Rollins on cnn.com

Quote:
In the midst of the financial crisis last week, it was John McCain's turn to pick up the ball and run with it. He didn't do it very well. He used the Bush administration talking points on Monday: The "all the fundamentals are fine" speech! It was perceived as a disaster.

Barack Obama's response wasn't much better. He took no position but jumped on McCain for saying things were OK. On Tuesday, McCain switched positions from "no bailouts" to "bailouts are needed." Obama still took no position.

His running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said rich Americans should be patriotic and pay more taxes. A more idiotic statement has never been uttered! But then he also said last week that people in financial trouble should be able to renegotiate their interest and the principal on their housing loans. The idea of renegotiating how much you borrowed is a novel approach that should thrill the banks.

By Friday, McCain was back against bailouts. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wanted to bail out everybody with taxpayers' money. (How about all the guys who lost on the first two weeks of the football season?)

Obama's position was: I think I am going to support Paulson's bailout, but I am going to wait and see what Bush and the Congress propose before I offer my solutions.

Look, I know Rollins is biased but if we have a candidate that doesn't have a clue what to think and the other candidate that doesn't have a clue period, I vote we start over with two new candidates and just have a 6 weeks campaign season.

larrymcg421 09-22-2008 07:03 PM
Fox News/Rasmussen (LV) state polls...

OH: McCain 50-46
PA: Obama 48-45
FL: McCain 51-46
VA: McCain 50-48
MI: Obama 51-44


Plus, some interesting state polls from Rasmussen...

MN: Coleman 48, Franken 47, Barkley 3
NC: Hagan 51, Dole 45
SC: Graham 50, Conley 41

Vegas Vic 09-22-2008 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1840387)
I expect the democrats understand this and will do everything possible to delay the "bailout bill" to ensure we get at least another 1-2 weeks of a bad stock market. That should pretty much ensure Obama wins (unless he makes a massive error). Palin is the only chance McCain has and it's looking less and less likely to carry him.

This thing is far from being over for McCain. I would play close attention to the polls that come out early next week, after the first debate on Friday night. If McCain is within 2 or 3 points of Obama, he's got a decent shot at winning the election. I'm also standing by my prediction that Obama's actual vote will be 2-3 points lower than his final polling numbers on November 3 (and maybe 3-4 points lower in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan). I know a lot of you guys disagree with me on that, but we'll see what happens. Juan Williams has gone on record stating that if Obama isn't up by at least 6 in the final polls, he's not going to win the election.

Arles 09-22-2008 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1840430)
I don't deny that she caused a bump for the campaign. I just don't think it was 10-15 points. And I think picking Romney might have put him in a better situation over the next 6 weeks.
Obama was up around 7-8 points after his speech and gaining. The Palin nomination ended that (IMO, it could have gotten to 11-12 if Romney/Liebermann/Pawlenty had been named). Right after the republican convention, McCain was up between 4-7 points. McCain needed every bit of that to handle the bad economic news.

I don't know if it's 10-15 points, but it is pretty close, IMO. If McCain names Romney, Obama is up 8-10 points going into a very lackluster republican convention. Maybe they cut it by half and get it to a 4-5 point Obama lead. But then there's no Palin to take bullets for 3-4 weeks and Obama completely focuses on McCain and I'm guessing Obama would be up 10-15 points now with the bad economic news. Even if Romney cut a little more into the bleeding, McCain would still be down 7-10 points.

Like I said, about every card is stacked against McCain now, but it would be even worse without Palin. I also find it real interesting how everyone on the left continues to state what a bad choice Palin was, yet she's the only thing keeping the McCain camp afloat.

miked 09-22-2008 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1840387)
I expect the democrats understand this and will do everything possible to delay the "bailout bill" to ensure we get at least another 1-2 weeks of a bad stock market. That should pretty much ensure Obama wins (unless he makes a massive error). Palin is the only chance McCain has and it's looking less and less likely to carry him.

Maybe they are actually listening to their constituents, who I think recent polling has shown are vastly against a "bailout bill" in a blank check form. Nobody wants the market to tank, but whether or not a 700B check will affect that is largely controversial.

JonInMiddleGA 09-22-2008 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1840451)
I'm also standing by my prediction that Obama's actual vote will be 2-3 points lower than his final polling numbers on November 3.

Just FTR (not that it makes a damn to anybody other than me I imagine), I'd say that's a good prediction. I'd probably qualify my own expectations with a little more variance in states where it's reallyreallyclose and a little less in states where it's a foregone conclusion (as lukewarms will be more likely to stay home if they know for sure that their vote isn't going to matter)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 PM.
Page 52 of 111 « First < 242434445464748495051 52 53545556575859606162102 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.