Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people don't have a clue about them. Seriously, we're the country with people who can't find Brazil or even Mexico on a map, you know? Freddie and Fannie are way above their heads (even if the names of those institutions are all over their mortgages ;) ).

but the point also about if the obama campaign can drive the youth vote up that may mitigate the bradley effect, because young voters are less concerned with race, racial voting bias being tied to age fairly strongly one would believe

Frankly, both of these guys are out of touch. I realize you don't win an election with sweeping spending cuts and the raising of taxes, but that's what is really needed here. Oh, and Obama wants health care for everyone?! LOL - how are we supposed to pay for that?! McCain wants tax breaks for wealthy Americans?! What a joke! Fiscal responsibility thrown out the window just because everyone wants to pass the buck. Yay, America!

The Bradley effect is done. Harold Ford's race in Tennessee effectively ushered in a new methodology in racial American politics. The "I don't want him to marry my daughter, but he's the only one in this thing who gets my situation" factor.

I think it'll play a huge part, coupled with the historical precedent and the highest youth vote since the 18-20 were given the vote, to tip the scales in the end.

I don't think it'll be close, no matter how much the media has a vested interest in making it look that way.

That said, I'm with some of the earlier posters who've effectively said that there are no winners in this system and in this election year, that we're not getting real answers, real solutions or real change with either of these yahoos or their parties.

I wonder if George Bush even watches these debates anymore.

He gets thrown under the bus so much, by both candidates... It would be fun to have him do a running commentary on one of these pointless debates.

I've found it fascinating that the RNC is running ads attacking Bush. Has a party ever attacked it's sitting President before?

haha - to Swaggs' point - Begala just pointed out that Bush's approval rating if you subtract out republicans, so his approval rating among democrats and more importantly independents, is 10%.

I like John McCain, I really do and tonight was a decent outing for him. That being said, I think we are seeing the polls reflect a very wise campaign decision from the Obama camp.

Time and time again tonight we heard Obama hammer home the point that John McCain supported the policies of the Bush administration and that a vote for him would be a vote to continue those policies. He hardly ever failed to find an opportunity to make this point very clear. His strategy was very clear. Tie McCain to Bush and the very troubled economy. I think that is one of the biggest reasons why Obama is ahead in the polls. Of course a bad economy doesn't hurt either.

McCain to be fair did try several times to distance himself from the Bush administration, but should have done it more. Right now McCain is running against two people. Obama and Bush. If I were on McCain's staff and seeing that he is trailing, I would start spending some resources denouncing Bush as much as possible without losing the right wing base. I think he has to take some risks at this point in the campaign by saying that the Bush administration is a failure and that he does not support it. The problem with this is that he can't go back to 2004 and undo his decision to support Bush. I also think that trying to tear down Obama is not the way to go as it appears that it is not working very well.

McCain looked "angry" at times and would be wise to try and project a calmer more "presidential" image. I honestly believes that McCain dearly loves the US and deeply cares about it's future. I just don't know if he has what it takes to be a president. I fear his best chance to become president vanished back in 2000 when he was a maverick.

Obama probably won the debate tonight, but needs to watch the debate and learn to stop meandering at times. I was frustrated at times by watching him side step several questions and launch back into his canned "stump speech' material. It's good material, but better served for reving up the masses out on the trail. To be fair, McCain was also guilty of this as well at times.

I thought McCains best moment was during the last question where he really seemed to connect with the retired Navy man. He seemed to relate on a personal level and looked very genuine while answering the question.

I thought Obama's best moment was when he rebuted McCains assertion that he "doesn't understand". That was a great comeback and I am surprised why the Obama camp has not used it before now. I think Obama could have also twisted the "experience" factor around by posing the following question to Mccain. "If having experience means that all one can do is to support the failed policies of the Bush administration that have caused the financial mess that we are in now, then what good is experience?"

Overall I found the debate very interesting and was glued to the set until it was over. I shall very much look forward to the final debate next week. I still wonder how much race will ultimately factor into the final election reults.

-Cork

For a million different reasons I hope that is true... But I think Bush and Clinton were helped big time because they were guys that the "middle" felt they could understand. "One of us." Obama is hardly that.

In general McCain seemed old, angry, and condescending to me. Obama came off less decisive on foreign policy issues (outside of Iraq/Afghanistan), but McCain seemed out of touch on the economy and health care. I thought it was a knock out punch win for Obama half way through, but McCain did make a come back in the last half. I'd still call it a clear win for Obama though given that the economy dwarfs the other issues right now.

"cares about safety or something"
"that one"
"fixing social security is easy"
"you probably never heard of FREDDIE or FANNIE before this crisis"
"a country americans can't even identify on a map right now"

WTF?

Are there any details on McCain's plan to renegotiate mortgage principles down to the current value of the home?

Obama and McCain aren't terribly different, Obama just has better rhetoric (and at times, lacks substance) while McCain lacks rhetoric (and at times, has more substance).

McCain attempts to be personal but ends up coming off condescending and demanding, while Obama plays an even keel pretty well never seeming too emotional or too distant but it makes him seem empty at times.


These debates have been a huge waste of time, arguing who won or lost has come down to who articulated themselves best more than who has the best policies, ideas ect which is completely subjective.

that's your opinion, but i disagree

i was gonna chime in, but this sums it up. i turned it off after the 124th "my friends..." answer that wasn't filled with any substance.

the answers they give are akin to the answer you give a kid when they ask how can they be successful: "just work real hard and your dreams will come true." really? that's all? there's no substance, no concrete answer in "work real hard".

those are the answers to the questions we heard in this debate. no one speaks in particulars, only generalities. for once i really would like to see a debate where the moderator interrupts the candidate to say "you are verring off-track and are now starting to not answer the question. please stay on course instead of trying to answer the question with campaign rhetoric". or if the candidate steps around the answer with a political non-answer, i'd love the moderator to chime in at the end and say "you still haven't adequately answered the question with specifics, we're not going to continue until you come up with something better than 'we all have to change' or "we, the american people, can bring about change if we all work together'".

until then, i am now refusing to watch any more debates. tonite was my last one.

Do you mean to say McCain is "one of us"? Obama I identify a hell of alot more than with McCain and I am white and ex-miltiary.

its very obvious, these debates have basically boiled down to "who can stand up here the longest and say the most without saying something that will get blown up by the talking heads immediately after the debate". no one wants to make any gaffes or youtubeable clips. no one wants to say too much that could possibly used to hang themselves with at a future date. how does this help the country to watch two people speak so that someone can try to be the first to yell "a ha! you messed up! say good bye to your presidential hopes!!". what a sad country we live in.

A human being tonight said this:

"But the fact is, America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world."

THE GREATEST. FORCE. FOR GOOD. IN WORLD HISTORY.

I suppose the racist imperialist Teddy Roosevelt is also his hero, so I shouldn't be surprised at such an outlandish statement. But I sort of am.

This is nearly word-for-word what I said to my brother (who is interested in, not to mention also directly involved in, politics) back when we had our elections in Australia, too.

Basically you just try not to make a dick of yourself and say something stupid, while attacking the other candidate as often as you are able, with any ammo you can get your grubby little paws on.

Maybe it's always been like this, but it seems to have gotten a hell of a lot worse the past decade or so.

Might as well have some fun with it - 5 Presidential Elections Even Dumber Than This One (Somehow) | Cracked.com

Yeah, He just doddered like a every old man. I don't think this format that was supposed to help him so much, helped him so much.

I can't help but feel McCain was sort of doomed canindate from the start. From the time he sold his soul to Bush, he hasn't been able to make anyone happy. He lost the middle to have a chance to win the nomination, and he'll never be truly liked by the far right. Add to the fact that any republican would be behind the 8-ball with this economy, it is amazing that the election is even this close right now.

"That one" FTL.

for the VP debate, my wife and i mocked all the evasive answers and laughed at how much was not being said, and i did say "not for nothing, imagine having to stand up for 2 hours or so and have enough info to answer 2 hours worth of questions - all the while not stuttering or stammering and being able to speak eloquently, be engaging, most importantly *not mess up* with bad answers or ammunition for the other party to use against you". it's really hard, i know i couldn't do it. say what you want about how poor these debates are, but i don't think these candidates are looking to hit grand slams at these things. too risky. much easier to just hit bloop singles and get on base.

its an impressive quality to be able to speak at length at a debate, it's just unfortunate this is what most people are gonna base their opinions off of - "how much less did their guy mess up than the other guy".

and for the part about McCain being too stiff, i would think being a POW for 5 years would prevent anyone from auditioning for the lead role in Lord Of The Dance. give him a pass on that.

I agree with both of your past two posts, HA -- let's play it safe and make it seem like we're just about to answer the question any second now, but spin it off into a topic you want to cover, but also make it sound very thoughtful and compelling. The viewer is left wondering, "Wait, did he just answer the question or not?"

The debates are increasingly frustrating for me. This supposed "town hall" debate was about as far from what I imagine a town hall meeting to be as possible.

I laugh out loud when I hear people say, "I'm still not sure. I'm going to watch the last debate to get more information." That's hilarious.

It's the same old answers, and throwing out the same old fuzzy facts and figures, half-truths and manipulations.

The notion of either of these guys as "agents of change" verges on the absurd.

I think that one of the best things that came out of last night was DaddyTorgo bipartisan reporting on the debate. Who knew he was so neutral? :D

But in all seriousness, I actually stopped watching the debate last night after 40-45 minutes. Two things were blatently obvious to me after hearing the candidates speak and watching their mannerisms and the audience for non-verbal tells of truthfulness (or lack thereof):

1. Neither of those candidates is sincere in any way about their 'concern' for the average American. It was obvious from the reactions of the people in the audience that they did everything in their power not to strangle both candidates after some of those non-answers. I think a much better measure of which one should be president would have been to let those 80 people loose with whiffle bats for 90 minutes and see if either candidate would survive.

2. The policies suggested by both candidates were insane at best. The thought that either candidate will be able to put even 10% of their campaign promises into law is foolhardy. From a party perspective, I think it's becoming painfully obvious that whoever wins this race will be a 'one and done' president. They face an economic mess that neither candidate has the tools to fix in a four year period.

As far as who won, I didn't watch it all so I couldn't tell you. I was bored to tears with the weak promises from each candidate and the same old attacks repeated again that we've heard in previous forums. The fact that neither of these candidates is equipped to deal with the issues facing the country will only further compromise the public confidence in the government and the weakening economy.

DOLA



:D Yeah, I thought that was a helluva line, too.

Don't forget that we have the greatest workforce in the world, too.

The New York Times

October 8, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Mud Pies for ‘That One’
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

Some of John McCain’s friends, from the good old days when he talked straight, feared that his Greek tragedy would be that he would be defeated by George Bush twice: once in 2000, because of W.’s no-conscience campaigning, and again in 2008, because of W.’s no-brains governing.

But if McCain loses, he will have contributed to his own downfall by failing to live up to his personal standard of honor.

John McCain has long been torn between wanting to succeed and serving a higher cause. Right now, the drive to succeed is trumping any loftier aspirations. He cynically picked a running mate with less care than theater directors give to picking a leading actor’s understudy. And he has been running a seamy campaign originally designed by the bad seed of conservative politics, Lee Atwater.

It was adapted in 2000 in Atwater’s home state of South Carolina by Atwater acolytes in W.’s camp to harpoon McCain with rumors that he had fathered out of wedlock a black baby (as opposed to adopting a Bangladeshi infant girl in wedlock). Sulfurous Atwater-style rumor-mongering by Bush supporters — that McCain had come home from a Hanoi tiger cage with snakes in his head — aimed to stop him during that primary after he had zoomed in New Hampshire.

Atwater relished teaching rich, white Republicans to feign a connection to the common man so they could get in office and economically undermine the common man. In the 1988 campaign, the Machiavellian ran to help George Bush Sr. defeat Michael Dukakis with this unholy quintet of charges:

The Democrat was a ’60s-style liberal who would raise taxes and take away guns. He was weak and would not protect the country militarily. He was a member of the elite “Harvard Yard’s boutique.” He had a foreign-sounding name and was not on “the American side.” He was on the side of the Scary Black Man.

Sound familiar?

Certainly, at some level, John McCain must be disgusted with himself for using the tactics perfected by the same crowd that used these tactics to derail him in 2000. He’s now curmudgeonly, even hostile, toward the press — the group he used to spend hours with every day and jokingly describe as his base.

He unleashed Sarah Palin to slime their opponent and suggested that the Democrat with the foreign-sounding name who came from the Harvard Yard boutique is not on the American side.

Campaigning last weekend, Palin cast their Democratic rival as “someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

The woman is sounding more Cheney than Cheney. Palin said that Obama’s relationship with the former Weatherman William Ayers proved that he did not have the “truthfulness and judgment” to be president. Asked by William Kristol if the Rev. Jeremiah Wright should be an issue, she said, “I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more.”

Atwater gleefully tried to paint Willie Horton as Dukakis’s running mate. With a black man running, it’s even easier for Atwater’s disciple running McCain’s campaign to warn that white Americans should not open the door to the dangerous Other, or “That One,” as McCain referred to Obama in Tuesday night’s debate. (A cross between “The One” and “That Woman.”)

On Monday, McCain made Obama, who has been campaigning for almost two years now, sound like an ominous intruder, questioning his character and motives, telling a New Mexico crowd that “even at this late hour in the campaign, there are essential things we don’t know about Senator Obama ...

“All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama?”

The new McCain TV ad, “Dangerous,” calls Obama “dishonorable,” “dangerous” and “too risky for America.”

McCain aides have been blunt in their need to change the subject from the economy. But, as with Bush Senior’s re-election campaign, slithery character attacks don’t scare as well when Americans are already scared about keeping their jobs and retirement savings. Maybe that’s why McCain didn’t bring up Ayers or Wright during the debate, instead leaving it to Sarah Barracuda.

Palin finally took questions on Tuesday from her traveling press corps on her campaign plane. Asked if she thought Senator Obama was dishonest, McCain’s Mean Girl meandered:

“I’m not saying he’s dishonest, but in terms of judgment, in terms of being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts to this. The judgment and the truthfulness and just being able to answer very candidly a simple question about when did you know him, how did you know him, is there still — has there been an association continued since ’02 or ’05, I know I’ve read a couple different stories. I think it’s relevant.”

Of course she does.

Anybody catch all this hub-bub? SNL did a skit basically pointing out the Dems role in the current Sub-Prime mortgage crisis. It was funny, and hit some pretty big players in the Democratic party right between the eyes. On Monday, the skit disappeared from online without explaination, raising an uproar among some conservative bloggers. Now it is back up, but edited because of "legal reasons."

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily » Mystery Of That Missing SNL Bailout Skit Solved: NBC.com Took It Down For Legal Reasons; Has Put Up Edited Version Today

More developments surrounding ACORN as the Nevada office is raided following complaints about fradulent registrations being submitted........

ACORN Vegas Office Raided in Voter Fraud Investigation - FOXNews.com Elections

Tennessee man is indicted on charges he broke into Palin's e-mail account. Faces up to 5 years in jail and a large fine........

Palin E-Mail Hacker Indicted - FOXNews.com Elections

Really stupid move by the SNL writers. The editing of the skit will do little to stop the likely lawsuit that will be filed by the family it portrayed.

I saw that skit on Saturday and really enjoyed it. SNL is thriving in all of this political/economic madness.

Yeah. I didn't even realize those were real people (and also heavy dem contributors). I don't know if they even would have a lawsuit, but the "People who should be shot" caption, while funny, probably wasn't the smartest thing.

There was info on a few political blogs that the family had already retained legal council and was looking at their options for a lawsuit. It's not a question of 'if', but 'when'.

Since when is SNL anything but parody and satire? When have they ever banned a skit that makes fun of someone?

The only thing that compares is Norm McDaonald being fired for making too many OJ jokes, against the orders of the NBC exec. who was an OJ buddy. I'm sure this is a similar deal.

I guess "if" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was I'm not sure lawsuit would have "legs." Satire gets a lot of lee-way in this sort of thing.

Might be, though these people certainly weren't considered public figures for the most part before Saturday.

I thought the skit was hilarious. Seems everyone is being so careful not to give any blame to the individuals who actually took out the bad mortgages, when they do actually share in it. Obviously some were victims of predatory lending and the Bush "culture of ownership", but they must have known on some level they were getting into situations they could never afford.

Some interesting polls on the national level today. Reuters has +4 Obama, Hotline has +1 Obama, and Battleground has +2 Obama. Those are down from previous levels. Rasmussen is the only one showing Obama with a higher 9 point lead. Wonder if the negative campaigning is causing Obama to take a hit. Will the debate aftermath boost Obama or will it remain steady?

That was a fun read. Tho I'd have preferred a little cleaner verbage. "Look, I can swear every other word because I'm on the interweb!"

SI

The annoying thing about it is that of all of our entitlements, Social Security is the easiest to fix. You raise the payout age by about 5 years and it's not only solvent but profitable in the long term. However, you do immediately cause AARP to put you on your crap list and vote out every single one of you.

If you're really sneaky about it, you say that you won't touch it in the next 5 years, then phase it in with some yearly increments, say, increasing the age 1 year every other year the next 10 years after that, moving the age to 70.

Oh, and once again, the idea that most horrified me about Bush in 2000- privatizing social security- yeah, I think we're all glad that didn't come to pass at this moment.

SI

I disagree. If Obama wins (still a big IF), then I think that he has the potential to win another election. If he runs the country like he has run the campaign, we might be seeing a re-election along the lines of Regan in 84 or Clinton in 92.

I also think that, if Obama wins, the GOP might need an election cycle or two to hash out its internal civil war. A lot of Republicans (like most of the GOP-leaning posters in this thread) are what I call "good" Republicans--you guys are focused on small government, and individual liberty, and personal responsibility--the traditional ideals of conservatism, in other words. Government should provide a hand-up and not a hand-out and all that.

But a lot of Republicans are in the party because they beleive that if the government obtains credible information that a man has touched another man's penis in a sexual manner, then the police should have the right to swear out a warrant against that man, break into his house, drag him out of his bedroom, throw him into the back of a police car and, upon proving to a jury that he did engage in sodomy, lock him in a cage. These people also want the federal government, to the extent permissible, to mandate the teaching of Biblical creationism instead of evolution in local schools. Or, as the GOP platform was recently amended to hold, they don't want to stop at simply barring federal funds for stem cell research--they want to make private industry engaging in such research a crime.

If my tone does not make it clear, I really hope that you guys win whatever civil war the GOP does end up having. But, more immediately, I think that this civil war, if it does happen, will make it very hard for the GOP to win national elections until it is resolved.

This is going to sound quite naive, but what stops someone from creating a third party? Does the US constitution mandate that only 2 parties are allowed to exist?

Couldn't disagree more. The more conventional portion of the GOP controls the party and lets the far right 'believe' that it somehow has a say in it. The only thing that the far right can do in protest is to not vote, and that rarely happens because the alternative is to allow a left-leaning candidate into the Oval Office, which is much worse in their eyes. They just like to grandstand to pretend they have some sort of pull.

To put a third party candidate on the ballot, you just have to get a certain number of signatures in most states. You can create your own party and put yourself on the ballot if you want to depending on the state.

A lot of state legislatures would disagree with you MBBF.

(that was in response to the republican infighting.)

I agree that for Obama it could definitely be a two term election here but not for McCain.

Funding makes it really difficult. The parties are giant money making apparatuses. Even if you got a giant party of independently wealthy people to create a third party, things would eventually settle back into a 2 party system as it would wipe one of the other two out since we vote on plurality and not proportional elections.

SI

No one is stopped from creating a third party. There are a ton of them out there. Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Natural Law, numerous Socialist Communist Worker style parties. The problem is getting access. One of the few things the two major parties have been able to work together on is creating rules to prevent these parties from participating in debates and making it difficult for them to even appear on the ballot in most states.

In two full debates...

Number of times McCain mentions the middle class: 0

Again I ask is he is trying to lose the election?

Biden with some good lines in Florida today.

-"Last week I had a debate with Gov. Palin, at least I think it was a debate."


-"You can't call yourself a maverick, when you've always been a sidekick."


-"At 9 AM John McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong"

"At 11 AM he said we were facing a crisis"

"We Catholics call that an epiphany"

I disagree with you. Lincoln, Teddy, and Regan would have trouble recognizing the GOP in 2008. It is naive or willfully ignorant to think that the far right/religous right does not have a lot of control over the GOP right now or that supporting the current GOP is supporting the party of Lincoln or Teddy.

Just off the top of my head, I can think that under Bush, the federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on abstinence-only education programs that have been proven not to work. The Department of Justice illegally hired people--not based on merit or who would be the most qualified lawyers--but on who had the right positions on "God, guns, and gays." And the GOP platform was just amendend to call for making private industry research into stem-cells a crime.

I think that the religious right might say the same thing about you that you say about them. They control the party and let you beleive that you have some say in it. The only thing that you can do in protest is to not vote, but because you hate the alternative more, they know that they have your vote.

I am not paying attention to what the party says, but what it does. And what it does is driven by the religious right. And what I would like is for the "good" Republicans to see that and take the party back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyways, carry on with the partisan bickerings everyone :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dola--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:)

:)

Is that supposed to be funny?

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

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

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

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

Welcome!

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

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

Maybe, but they're critical right now.

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

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


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


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


I agree with you here.


Not here.



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



How tax-boosting Obama cuts his own - MSN Money

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

We need... THIS MAN!



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

SI

Way to get pwned you dumb fucking yokel.

Admiral Stockdale would have been VP.

O'Rly?

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

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

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

Just some food for thought.

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

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

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

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

Dow Jones Industrial Average - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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