So does a flat tax.

That is an angry, bitter man who I would not want to cross

SI

To make that statement, you have to assume that the current tax system is not flawed. Does it help the wealthy or just adjust previous flawed tax law? The overwhelming amount of taxes will still fall on the higher income taxpayers. The flawed assumption is that the higher tax bracket individuals pay more taxes because they are taxed at a higher rate. I can tell you without question that is not even remotely the case. The amount of tax avoidance in the 28%+ tax brackets is ridiculous. People would be shocked how much more the wealthy would have to pay if they just tossed out the loopholes and put in a flat percentage with no exceptions.

Instead, our legislators toss in a new credit here and a new deduction there and call it reform of the tax code. What usually results is a net increase in income for the wealthier classes while the lower tax classes get excited about the $300 bone that they got tossed to keep them happy.

Eliminating credits and deductions and creating a flat federal income tax don't have to go together. If the issue is credits and deductions, get rid of those.

I agree with that. Removing all credits/deductions/etc. would be a great first step. At least we could then see how taxpayers in the various brackets would react when they're taxed at their true rate.

My only point related to KWhit's post was that the assumption that the wealthiest taxpayers actually pay 28% or 35% of their income to taxes is highly flawed. Their actual rate is several points less than that due to the loopholes in the code.

While I will not argue the point that Stewart is not exactly "news media", I would argue that it is hard to find any "news media" on TV these days. I watch quite a bit of cable and broadcast news, but I don't think they are as willing to light up a political figure as Stewart is. I found Couric's interview of Palin to be refreshing, I just wish she would have gone after Biden the same way.

Mizzou, I am guessing you were a Ron Paul fan? I really think it would have been interesting to see him get the nomination. Honestly, I think Obama and McCain are somewhat close on a lot of issues. A Ron Paul/Hilliary Clinton debate would have been very interesting to watch. :)

Im not sure I agree with ALL Liberal Policy so that's just not true....again. Im actually more moderate than you'd think (the test I took on here someone posted confirmed that thought) however I am hung up on hypocrisy and lying, perhaps to a fault, but that doesnt mean I have to lower my standards to be 'ok' with it.

Some liberal policies I do agree with, no involvement in State and abortion rights, rights for gay marriage (if they want them), less taxes on the middle class. However I am also pro-death penalty (although I cringe every time someone on death row is found to be innocent later via DNA), not for raising capital gains taxes above where they were under Clinton, pro fair free trade, anti-illegal immigration, and I was for the war in Iraq and for a smart withdrawal from there only to go clean up the remaining mess in Afghanistan. So painting one in Blue or Red is BS, however accepting hypocrisy or dishonesty is not in the cards. This should not have to be defended in any way.

Oh and about the Kouric interview? Perhaps not having Huckabee come out and cream the press at the RNC convention wouldve not got their ears up. that being said, an interviewer like you said should absolutely chase the question so when Palin didnt answer it, it's the interviewer's duty IMO to go after it.

oh, the horror, how dare the press treat him so bad.

/sarcasm

That's where I'm at. I'm voting for some state initiatives, local candidates and that's it. The rest will be left blank.

I'm struggling to think of a single thing the federal government has done in my lifetime to make my life better.

And once again, that has nothing to do with the argument. I stated that there was nothing inherently wrong with the interview. I just have a big problem with the fact that Couric put away the flamethrower and brought out a Super Soaker for the Biden interview. Grill 'em both.

As far as the media grilling, they had that coming for some time. It must have raised a few eyebrows, because after 'NBC' was chanted by the crowd, Matthews and Olbermann were removed from the anchor seats. That's not a coincidence by any stretch of the imagination.

but IMO it's also not left/right bias. Its a ratings bias. the issue du jour is whether or not Palin's 'ready' so as a reporter if the interviewee leaves a door open that would be in line to touch on that issue you need to go after it.

If youre talking to Obama about his experience and he says something that opens the door you bet your ass theyre going to go into that.

Why didnt they go after biden with the FDR TV stuff? Cuz it doesnt play well on TV or in the paper's since it's not his issue du jour. Now if he flies off the handle and says something patently aggressively stupid in a way that could possibly offend a bunch of people, I guarantee it'll be on news at 11.

Well, it's certainly not a ratings bias. That's spin on a large scale.

Perfect example is the question about the payments to the McCain advisor from the mortgage companies. That's a perfectly legit question to ask. So why wasn't Biden asked about the connections of two of Obama's advisors to the same companies? Or the $3.9M that Obama personally received from those companies?

How about the question about naming one thing that McCain has done/reformed in 26 years? While I don't agree with asking the question 4 times, it's a legit question. Why wasn't Biden asked to name one thing that Obama has truly reformed in his short time in office? Couric was willing to attack with Palin with those topics......why not Biden so we could compare their answers?

In the grand scheme of things, I think the media is almost doing the Democrats a disservice by giving them these cupcake interviews. If the Dems actually felt attacked during an interview, maybe they'd come out swinging more often and we'd actually get a better idea where they stand on a lot of the issues. I like Biden and I think he'd do extremely well if they put him in that kind of arena.

I'm biased, sure, but the Couric interview mostly reads as a softball interview gone wrong when Palin couldn't even hit the fluffy pitches out of the park. When you listen to Couric (and Gibson last week, for that matter), she's almost pleading with Palin to give her a reasonable-sounding answer so she can go on to the next question and not look dumb herself.

President Clinton weighs in on McCain's idea to delay the debate:

YouTube - Bill Clinton: McCain Acted On "Good Faith" In Debate Delay

My response to that, regardless of the strength or lack thereof of the questions, would be that she can look dumb all on her own. When Couric or Gibson ask the question over and over again, it puts the focus on them as being in attack mode rather than interviewers. A good interviewer doesn't need to do that. There's plenty of pundits out there who rehash the interview and will note that she looked dumb or smart.

BTW.....if you want another comparison, look at the Hannity interview of Palin and just how toothless that interview was. It was just as embarrassing as the Biden interview.

Exactly. And Obama says that he will bring about change if he's elected. So a perfectly legit question much like the Palin question would be to ask Biden what major legislation he has passed in his brief career as a senator and press Biden if he couldn't come up with anything specific. I'll even grant you that Biden may come up with a better answer than Palin did, but by not asking those questions and allowing Biden to shine on his own, Couric is robbing Biden of an opportunity and is taking the focus off Biden and putting it on Couric.

It's not difficult to see why the Palin interview seemed so much tougher than the Biden interview. To begin with one was more of a biopic interview and the other one about a subject any Republican would have found difficult. But it was also the way the questions were answered.

Couric began with a searching question in both interviews. With Biden she went for his Achilles heel with a question about his "foot-in-mouth" disease. Biden answered confidently, honestly and was even a little self-depricating. He disarmed the question and prevented any follow up.

The same happened with the question about misleading advertising. Again Biden took charge by accepting the criticism and even volunteered that the Democrat ad on McCain and computers was a disgrace. Again he disarmed the question by accepting that there was some justification in the interviewer's criticism and sympathising with it. Again, it defuses the follow up.

He did what every good interviewee should do - take charge of the interview and turn it into a conversation, preventing the interviewer from getting any negative traction. He even flirted with her and put her off guard.

Palin, by contrast, showed her inexperience and lack of preparation. She struggled, waffled, didn't answer the question directly and at times seemed to be repeating some previously rehearsed answer. That allowed Couric to come back with follow up questions and that's where the 'toughness" came in. Palin tended to repeat herself, still didn't offer definitive answers and let Couric take the interview where she wanted. Couric was able to dictate the interview.

Palin showed her inexperience and allowed the interviewer to take charge. Biden, used his experience, disarmed the interviewer with his (apparent) honesty and controlled the interview himself.

For an excellent example of how to take charge of an interview see the Iranian president wrap Larry King around his little finger the night before while talking the utmost garbage :)

I'd agree with the first point, but I would also note that it shows just how poor of an interview it was by Couric that she'd be that easily 'disarmed' by that kind of an answer rather than following up on the response. Especially the humor pointed at himself. A good interviewer would have dismissed that humor as trying to get around the issue and then provided other instances that further showed his tendancy to slip up and say different things on an issue depending on which day he was talking. At least that's the pressing tactic that was used in the Palin interviews.

Larry King is a shell of his former self. It's difficult to find any interviews where he doesn't get man-handled by the person he's interviewing when it comes to political figures.

I bolded the weird part for me which is that I find it weird that the McCain camp hasnt seen everything prior to her selection. I wouldve thought that really deep looks at her/their financials wouldve been part of the vetting process but, oh well. Hopefully for them, and all of us, it's all on the up n up and nothing to see here.

Palin won't reveal her finances until after debate - Yahoo! News

I don't disagree with that at all, Mizzou B-ball fan. Biden simply took over. There was no way she was going to embarrass him. He has too much experience for that. I was very impressed in a cynical way :)

Palin clearly struggled and showed her lack of experience. Presumably the hacks at The Frontiersman in Wasilla have some way to go yet to get even to Couric's level :)

And therein lies my problem with Biden. As far as a person outside of politics, I find him to be a likeable guy and very approachable. As a politician, I find him to be very manipulative much the same as a car salesman. Have I ever said how much I loathe going to a car lot?

I find Palin to be similarly likeable and approachable outside of politics. I don't disagree that she's inexperienced, but that has never inherently bothered me. It's much like Obama. As much as I think it fair to ask about experience regarding Obama and Palin, I don't even use that as a reason to not vote for Obama. I have more policy-driven reasons for my vote.

The Couric interview shows the strategic flaw in the campaigns game plan to hide Palin from the media. It was only the second legitimate interview she’s given since being announced, and no press conferences. Couric has to ask hard follow ups, and follow ups to the follow ups if need be, because if she doesn’t who will?

For the 4th time in this thread, there was nothing inherently wrong with the Palin interview. The problem was the total lack of balance between the Palin interview and the Biden interview.

She's a morning show anchor out of her element. If you want to argue that she's not a good reporter I'm with you.

And as much as that's a fair point, the skill differences between Biden and Palin in handling such questioning were obvious. The interviews started the same. Think that had anything to do with the person being interviewed?

Let me rephrase then; The McCain campaign invited this double standard. And they were forced to do so because they picked an unqualified running mate.

How was it obvious? Biden was not asked those kinds of questions. It had a lot more to do with the total lack of interview skills displayed by Couric as JPhillips correctly pointed out.

Don't you think that the imbalance that you're talking about is at least partly attributed to the experience difference between Palin and Biden? I mean, Biden could've slipped up on the questions asked as easily as Palin did.

In the post listing the questions last page or so, I think the last two questions for Biden are much, much tougher than anything Palin was asked. The Palin questions appear to get tougher because she flubbed the answers to softballs. McCain as a mavrick (sic) is a central talking point of their entire campaign. Citing examples of that is an absolute lay-up.

On the other hand, asking a question about who approved an ad is designed to either cause a rift in the campaign or make Biden look like he has no input. In my mind, that's a question with much harsher consequences than asking for examples of why your running mate is a reformer.

That was funny, but as a point of reference: Barreta does make shotguns, and Rifles as well.

I absolutely agree. My only point is that they both get similar treatment. I agree that Palin didn't perform terribly well. You say he could have slipped up as well. All I'm saying is that they should have that equal opportunity. As I said, I think he would have done substantially better with similar questions, but was never afforded that opportunity.

Received this in my e-mail. I will Flaschetize it:

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight...

If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your Kansan grandparents, you're "exotic,
different, not like us."

Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, shoot wolves from planes, ban books, lie about a bridge, you're a quintessential All American story.

If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Name your kids Willow , Trig and Track, you're a maverick.


Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.


If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience--you are woefully inexperienced.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people and can see Russia from your house, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.


If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.


If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.


If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people you are an "arrogant celebrity" "uppity".

If you are a popular Republican female candidate you are "energizing the base".


If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "token hire."

If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "game changer."


Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America.

White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."


If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you're "reckless."

A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a "maverick."


OK, much clearer now.

To be fair, that question never would have been asked had Biden not had a 'Biden' moment all on his own. He created the perceived rift through his own comments.

I'd also mention another thing about political interviews. The public penalty for making the slightest comment out of line with policy or their running mate is far too severe. I think far too many politicians go into these kinds of interviews hoping to NOT screw up rather than just being honest and forthright. I think McCain and Biden do especially well in this regard whereas Obama and Palin tend to dance and duck a bit more.

Looks like the political game continues in Washington. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd had a brief appearance stating that they have reached an agreement on final verbiage of a bailout bill and that they'll be heading to the White House with a finalized agreement with nothing to discuss.

Only one problem.......Republican leaders say that if there's a final agreement, they sure haven't signed off on it.

So in translation, the Democrat leadership, hoping to avoid any perception that McCain had some effect on the negotiations, announce that an agreement is in place that had nothing to do with McCain. On the other side, the Republicans, regardless of whether they've agreed to a final bill, say that no agreement has been reached so that they can enter the meeting, come to a 'final' agreement in the Oval Office, and give credit to McCain for his involvement.

Sound about right? :)

What about Obama gives him a rock star aura ? I really don't understand that statement.

Anyway, Bidens slip up to me was not all that aggregious. I bone-headed statement, yes, but not all that earth shattering. It's not like he lied about something HE had said or done or drastically destorted the truth regarding the sentiment. I can't quite say his screw up falls in the same category with "I told them thanks, but no thanks" which has been repeated some many times its not even funny, despite it having a completely different implication as compared to what really happened. If he had distorted something attributed directly to himself then have at him, but this is not the case.

I admit, the media tends to be much harder on Palin/McCain but honestly, when they dropped Palin into the mix the way they did it just sparked more attention. I don't think she is treat the same as Romney would have been treated by the McCain camp which only generates more and more questions.

To me, when she is allowed to speak she comes across like she is unconfident, nervious and not prepared. She more she talks, the more questions people come up with all because she was dropped into the situation and does not appear to be ready.

If I'm Obama, I do not want Clinton campaigning for me. First, he was praising Palin and now defending McCain. I think it is pretty clear who Clinton would like to see in office. Hillary in 2012.

Well, it appears to me that when McCain was saying that Hillary and him were friends (or was it Hillary that was saying it, I can't remember), they were telling the truth.

When I saw that this morning, thats exactly what I thought. Bill's had a chance to help Obama out but pretty much thumbed his nose at him. So much for him helping. Obama should tell Bill "thanks, but no thanks"

hmmm, the Right's comments about Obama being the 'god' of the Libs.



The perception that having hundreds of thousands of Germans at a pseudo-concert for him.

Katie Couric - Sarah Palin


Not a softball question, and I can't fault Palin here as much as I can the McCain campaign for not preparing her with a better denial answer. Since she sounds so unsure, she gets this follow-up:


A flat-out denial of a conflict of interest would have been better here. Just be clear and move on. Instead, she makes her answer worse by sounding like she's spewing a memorized quote. And the 2nd sentence makes no sense (and sounds even worse on tape than it does on paper).


Softball question, in the sense that it's so general and open-ended that it just invites a "say something that means nothing" answer. Instead we get some pretty confused thoughts up front and then a wide-eyed appraisal of her running mate's involvement in the solution. The first half sounds like she doesn't know what she's really talking about, and the 2nd half sounds, frankly, naive. Not even partisan, just naive.

Worse, it digs her into this hole:


Gets back on track here, and for the first time actually seems to be saying something she's actually thought about and in which she believes. Note that since she's clear, understandable and straightforward, it finally closes off this line of Couric's questioning.


Softball. The obvious answer is "Depression is too serious a word at this time, I think. I'd rather look to Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke to make that kind of assessment and work with them to avoid that possibility, which is what Senator McCain is doing right now."

Instead, her response is essentially incoherent.


Softball. An A+ opportunity to show they're thinking about the average American. And she does so well until....


Say what? First of all, the meme of the week is that it's Wall Street that's made the bad decisions and shouldn't be rewarded. Emphasize that and Couric moves on. Secondly, a "pros and cons" question is a total setup for a quick laundry list that then ends the conversation. Every politician should be able to do this in his/her sleep.

And then the piece du resistance:


A softball ("one or two examples") that descends into a farce because a) she's been caught in a lie of her own making (John McCain has never been a fan of regulation) and b) she has no idea what she's talking about.


Honestly, if Palin was ever interviewed by Tim Russert (RIP) or Jeremy Paxman, I think there's a good chance she'd end up crying.


Then there's Biden:


Softball.


Not too tough a question, but there are a couple of traps in there. First of all Biden could have said something about females that would have alienated Clinton supporters. Likewise, he could have said something equally problematic about the "less educated". Instead Biden defuses the question in a way that doesn't really invite a follow-up.


Softball.


Not a softball, but again Biden defuses it by using a non-committal answer, which is all this question really deserves. He gives away nothing, which doesn't really leave Couric a lot of room for a follow-up.


Not the hardest series of questions in a row, but not total softballs, but here again Biden quickly pulls the conversation onto his turf with his answers and also manages to insert an attack in there.



The key difference I can see is that Palin's answers by-and-large give you the impression that she's either a) not sure of her subject matter, b) not sure what she really thinks about something, c) is regurgitating a talking point from her campaign or d) trying to get a point across and failing badly due to a lack of elocution (to be charitable) or lack of thought (to not be charitable).

Biden, on the other hand, gives the impression that he knows exactly where he stands on each question, and is able to get his opinion across with a minimum of confusion.

That difference, more than anything, is why one interview looks "harder" than the other.

Yup, I have lost what little respect I had for either of the Clintons back stabbers.

jeezus flere - thanks for posting that. i hadn't really realized just how incoherent most of her answers to every question are!

And it's frightening to me that someone who can't even put a coherent answer together (let alone one that actually has substance, but even just one that's coherent) is someone that is being pushed to be the 2nd most powerful executive in this country.

Honestly, the whole Sarah Palin thing to me says a great deal about the ignorance of most Americans, or the dumbing-down of genuine intellectual discourse.

Really...we're going to take somone who says "Guys and gals," in a prepared speech and say they should be V.P.?? We don't have any more qualified candidates than that?

And on a non-partisan note: how come we can vote in primaries for a presidential candidate but not for their VP? Wouldn't it make much more sense if we could vote for both? Say 1a and 1b?

that's my favorite part right there. she doesn't even try to close off the question couric asked (if i was couric i'd be pissed). Instead she starts babbling some mumbo-jumbo jingoistic crap about leadership and pragmatism instead of ANSWERING THE DAMN QUESTION.

not to mention: "...things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight..." UMMM...come again?? LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!! GODDAMN!!!!

On September 9th, 2003, the following document was issued by the Republican Policy Committee.......

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/erik.h...ig_to_fail.pdf

On September 10th, 2003, the following comments came from John Snow during a committee hearing on the mortgage industry......

The committee had two members who responded to those comments, Barney Frank and Melvin Watt............

In 2005, John McCain issued the following statement concerning possible legislation in the mortgage banking industry.........

http://tinyurl.com/5t3jts


I found this stuff online after doing some digging. I'm REALLY surprised that we haven't heard more about these comments. I think it's ridiculous that Barney Frank thinks he can lay complete blame at the Republican party's feet with these kinds of comments on public record. Lou Dobbs called out Barney Frank last night about assigning blame and Frank got pretty fired up about it (Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com.

Republicans at this point take the fall for the Iraq War as it was obviously a misstep in hindsight. I think time will show that the Democrats will be the ones that missed the bus when it comes to this financial snafu. It'll be interesting to see if McCain focuses on this point during the economy debate. Obama is free and clear of it for the most part since he wasn't in the U.S. Senate until the point after the damage was already done.

devil's advocate: it's pretty easy for McCain to say "for years I have been concerned" -- but his record doesn't show he ever acted on that concern.

Any discussion yet on the fact that Biden and Obama both voted to maintain funding for the Bridge to Nowhere?

600 more posts and we surpass the Maximum FB thread boys and girls

Previews of Part II of Couric's interview with Palin (on foreign policy!) are now up on CBS' website.

Clip One:


Clip Two:



From Clip One I gather that she has foreign policy because if Putin decides to attack the U.S., he'll do so through Alaskan airspace. Oh, and trade missions. I learned something here, too, and that is that the Bering Strait is apparently a hotbed of international trade.

Clip Two is great, actually. It's pretty much a compilation of every one-sentence or one-phrase justification uttered in defense of the War on Terror by the GOP for the past 7 years.

Those flash cards are really paying off.

i don't put a lot of stock in this - this seems likely to have been one of those "the earmark for the bridge money was buried in a totally unrelated bill" type of situations. one of those "well i could vote against that bill to try to get that earmark removed, but that'd mean i'd be voting against a bill funding XYZ and then I'd politically be toast for that."

to be fair - I don't put a lot of stock into those "this person voted against this type of thing" attacks from either side though, and neither should any intelligent voter, because a high % of the time that's what actually is going on. The thing they're accused of voting against is buried as an earmark in a bill funding VA hospitals or something completely unrelated. that being said, i recognize that not everyone in this country is smart enough to realize that.

IMHO for that to have significant traction though you have to go back and find the bills that the funding for the bridge was in and see what else was included on those bills. because it's quite likely they were actually voting FOR something else and the bridge was just an earmark that they did not feel was a battle worth fighting at that time.

Neither Obama nor Biden, being realist politicians, have made the elimination of earmarks the central issue of their campaigns or, indeed, the experience of doing so their chief qualification for the job.

On Day One Palin came out and not only said she was anti-earmarks (which was not true), but that she was anti-bridge (which was also not true). That's why this is a story.

Obama & Biden likely voted for the Bridge in a deal to let some of their own earmarks go through. That's just the way it works, and most everyone knows this, even if we'd prefer it not to be the case. That's why no one cares about their votes.

wow - that is one ugly, pathetic answer to clip one.

really - Russia's right next door? I didn't realize. And there's so many Russians in Siberia. Uh huh. Trade missions? AKA you invite the Russian fisherman over for dinner.

Canada? Really? You want to cite your experience talking with the governor of the Canadian north (isn't Canada's border-area with Alaska largely deserted of people?) as foreign policy experience? As friendly as we are with Canada i'd say that is at-best like talking to another American governor. That's a joke.

Hmmm, I tried to post the amendment that was voted on, but it was too long, and came back blank.

In any event, here is a link to the amendment that was voted on. Note, this wasn't a funding bill, but rather an amendment to an existing bill that was being debated. The "Bridge to Nowhere" was buried down in it. The amendment failed 82-15.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~r109nK73qV

Now that I think about it, I wonder if I, at age 35, have spent more time living and travelling in foreign countries than Sarah Palin has spent living and travelling in the lower 48 states....

He didn't bother to vote.

Senate Vote On Passage: H.R. 3058 [109th]: Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban...

He's also been missing more votes than Obama all year:

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] - Voting Record - GovTrack.us
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL] - Voting Record - GovTrack.us

I think it's more that she's been told by her handlers to not go off the script. AT ALL. FOR NO REASON. So, if a question comes up that she hasn't been prepared for, she just fumbles it away. Either that or she's horrible at ad-libbing.

SI

Taken from another board:


OK, I'll stop now.... :D

I should add, in spite of my statistics, that I really don't think a Senator's absenteeism during a campaign season is really worth examining closely. It's something all sides do, and it is accepted and expected.

I provide those figures merely to demonstrate that, really, things have been going along all year this way. Whether or not you think it's a matter of crucial importance that two Senators who've hardly been present all year rearrange their schedules at the last minute on an issue that's been brewing for weeks is likely a matter of your political viewpoint.

That said, while I'm linking to Senate records, and for completeness' sake:

Joe Biden's voting record on matters of national import
Sarah Palin's voting record on matters of national import

Ok, I admit- I LOL'd ^^

SI

My surprise with the Palin interview is her complete inability to express her policies and ideas on the questions being asked. I am pretty sure, even though I am voting for Obama, that I could answer most of those questions better just from watching fox news and listening to McCain's speeches. Its bad that I am screaming the talking point out before the candidate is. :)

I think she’s getting all of the prepared answer out for each question, but getting all the words in the proper order seems to be a challenge. It’s like she just blurts out each word individually as it comes to her.

Palin’s inner-dialogue for the Rick Davis lobbying question: “Okay, there I think I got them all. Oh dear, the question isn’t over yet! Gosh, I’ll just say recused a few more times until we’re done.”

Now I just dont see how this going to come across as good to the 'people' when the 'people' view this, mostly, as a Wall Street issue instead of Main Street issue. I just dont see how the spin will stick when Obama's comeback, "A President has to be able to handle more than one issue at a time." is soundbite material.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidate...ncial_meltdown

RCP now has North Carolina as a toss up. The 3 most recent polls (basically from 9/17 until 9/23) have been tie, tie, Obama +2.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama

There's a rumor that if McCain doesn't show for the debate, Obama will turn it into a nationally-televised town hall instead.

I'm going to guess this is a rumor being spread by the Obama campaign (or surrogates thereof) to goad McCain into showing up anyway.

I still think we've missed a quality chance to move the VP debate earlier, just in time for the weekend!

This has to be somewhat historic, to have a candidate saying they might not show up a day before hand, no?

And here is a link to the full text of the second measure where Obama and Biden voted for the "Bridge to Nowhere". Again, it was a line item in an overall spending bill for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006. This passed by a vote of 93-1.

GovTrack: H.R. 3058 [109th]: Text of Legislation, Enrolled Bill

it'd be a shame if McCain didn't show up, but that would be somewhat amusing to see -- wonder if the networks would let him get away with it as a way of expressing their anger towards McCain?

thanks cartman! you're a fountain of knowledge eh fatboy?

I'm not fat, I'm big boned.

:D

lol believe it or not i've used that line myself.

and apparently i've decided that today is the day i start treating you in a way befitting of your nickname (see wrestlers thread) - hey it gave me a laugh, which is cool

You know its bad for McCain when you have a full page without, Issi and JohninGA in here.

They've suspended their posting during this time of crisis.

I'm not exactly sure why the frequency of posts by certain people means McCain is doing badly. Talk about grasping for straws.

Well, if you want me to say something, how's about:

Obama's $100K Englewood garden grant being probed :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: The Watchdogs



May not end up with anything, but is not the best thing to come out now.

Putting aside if Palin knows McCain's record on securities bills (she likely doesn't but I doubt Obama knows Biden's record on the same specific topic either), McCain has indeed voted for more regulation on certain bills:

RedState: Stump The Veep

Maybe I'll say one more thing to make ace happy.

According to CBS's Bob Schieffer:

Video is here:


Schieffer: Paulson Pleaded for McCain to Save Bailout | NewsBusters.org


(Biased site, but the video from CBS ain't doctored)

This really didn't help, I still don't get it. And yes, I am being serious. Are you referring to the fact that he gave a speech at a FREE concert ?

The McCain campaign is paying people to ghost-write letters to the editor for local newspapers in swing states.


salon.com link

This stuff just gets better by the day.

To be fair, the ghostwriting letters thing is not something pioneered by the McCain campaign. Any campaign I've been involved with at any level has folks write letters and will ghostwrite letters for people. A lot of times it's just a practical thing, folks don't know how to write and want to support the campaign, but don't know how to do it. This makes it easier for them.

It's not a big deal nor some moral outrage.

Hell, I've worked on non-partisan campaigns for referendums or ballot initiatives where letter ghostwriting occurred.

Hell, I've gotten ghostwritten letters from the ACLU (yes, I'm a card carrying member) that I've been instructed to send (though I never have the rare times I got one).

The "liberal media" needs to stop showing those videos of Palin's visiting preacher praying over her. It just reflects their inability to understand religious folks. It's not helping their cause and the issues are totally different than the whole Jeremiah Wright situation.

Anyone whose been to a non-denominational church or has some sort of experience with churches of a more pentecostal leanings make something like this seem not all that strange.

So it's sorta frustrating because I imagine folks with more religious upbringing will see this and take it as a personal affront. Lucky for Obama, it probably won't hurt him, because the rankling over the economy should mute it.

But seeing the video isn't helping anything for anybody, except maybe getting the base warmed up

Ah, I didn't know the ghost-written letters thing was that common. I'd never heard of the practice and the article made me laugh.

Well I hope they investigate the shit out of it and they find out the truth as to whether or not there is any wrongdoing here. And I also hope he cooperates fully with the investigation!

You asked how I felt that Obama had gotten a 'Rock Star' aura and am doing my best to convey that. I really didnt think it was in doubt and that, for at least a while, through no fault of her own, Palin also had gotten the 'Rock Star' aura (even the Right's campaign had talked about how she had emboldened and reinvigorated the supporters)

BTW, I just saw a Democratic ad that focused on McCain's Melanoma and I thought it was a hideous ad done in very poor taste. They had doctors on there talking about the dangers of Melanoma with closeup pictures of McCain's surgeries and I think it is a disgusting ad that shouldnt be aired. Not because it's bad that McCain had skin cancer but that a 527 is exploiting that! I hate 527's and that is a low frickin blow and doesnt deserve to be shown on TV. So ridiculous.

Agreed. If you're going to hate on the 527's for the swiftboating, you have to hate this as well.. completely classless

+1

{shrug} If you checked the first, I dunno, 50-100 pages of this thread you'd see my appearances are pretty random & sporadic at best.

As for more recently, what can I tell you, sometimes work interferes with posting more than it does with others. Lots easier to post when I'm waiting for stuff between phone calls than on days where I'm on the phone for the bulk of 8-12 hours straight.

Saw this ad today in WV.

A pretty odd advertisement overall, but it certainly caught my eye (whereas most political ads cannot get me to look up from the computer).

:eek: :eek:

Holy shit, you are kidding me?!

Sounds as bad as the Saxby Chambless ads against Max Cleland (if not worse)

ISiddqui: YouTube - McCain is 72. He's had cancer 4 times. is the commercial in question. (just hunted it down)

Even the Kos Kiddies are pretty much against this ad

Sometimes I just don't understand the 527s... who do they think this is going to sway?!

i wish all the 527's on both sides would STFU and go away

Let's not get carried away.

The ones I read were.

Yeah, I can't imagine anyone thinking that putting this on the air will win Obama any votes. The doctor sort of looks like he is smiling for fucks sake. Totally unnecessary.

And if you're going to release such a shitty commercial, at least show a few seconds of Sarah Palin sputtering through one of her few interviews to drive home the point that "yeah McCain could die soon and look what we'd be stuck with then."

Classless intent with bad execution to boot.

Could someone tell Obama that the winner of the election doesn't take over immediately after the election is over...

Ouch for Barney Frank:

If the Republicans are seriously trying to state that they couldn't do anything they wanted from 2000-2006, then I don't know what else there is to say. It really didn't matter what a Democrat said, the Republicans pretty much got their way on anything they wanted. They were really close to getting the rules changed on debate in the Senate to almost eliminate any say from the minority party.

Interesting comments by Obama:


He then says:
So, we're facing the next depression if we don't act. But, hey congress, Obama's busy preparing for the debates so you can call him if you need him, but try to figure this out yourself. Barack really needs his beauty sleep for the debates... That's some quality leadership there.

You see, that is just Obama playing the media like a Stradivarius. I'm just shocked he's been able to get away with it for so long. You'll see.