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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get it.

:)

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

You're uphauling, Subby.

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

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

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

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

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

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

is this a joke?

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

whoosh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something to think about...

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

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

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

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

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

GRIDLOCK!

SI

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

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

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

SI

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

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

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

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

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

Not a Bush supporter, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

Kansas City must be a wonderful place to live.

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

The winters are a bit different too.

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

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

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

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

And the beach scene as well.

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

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

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

SI

+1

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

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

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

If the goal is to get through the slowdown with the least amount of damage as possible, why not do it for a year? It's like being between jobs, drawing on a line of credit for 3-4 months and then paying it down once you get your next job 6 months later. I fail to see why it's bad to pull down the LOC and get a little more debt as opposed to not having enough to make payments and have your mortgage foreclose on you. When you are in the midst of a very bad economic time (which is what I think we will be in for the next 12-16 months), why not do everything you can to encourage investment during that time while also keeping spending under control?

We want as much money as possible available to both the private sector and stock market over the next 16 months. Raising taxes or not making investment more attractive will just make this dip even deeper. Is it worth that just to avoid adding $100-$200 billion in debt to a $10 trillion deficit?

I know 4-5 business that we directly work with who are projecting layoffs between 7 and 50 people because of stock price issues. If we can avoiding reaching that low point through "tricks" in the tax code for the next 16 months, I bet a ton of jobs will be saved. The frustrating piece for a lot of these guys is that they fully realize they will need to hire 75% of the people back in 2010 as the economy recovers. So, if we can just soften the stock price fall, a lot of these business might not do massive layoffs if they think they can survive the next 16 months.

If we instead raise taxes on "the rich" (ie, cap gains, payroll, rates), we will be encouraging even more people to pull out of the market and the layoffs could be worse. It's ironic that everyone wants to pay down the deficit as we enter a slowdown - that's a terrible idea. I think we should reign in spending a bit, but we should also encourage investment. Again, for another analogy, imagine you are a worker with a 60K a year job. Now, you have 10K saved in the bank and your job security is iffy. Does it make sense to take that 10K and pay off your car (but leave no savings)? That seems like what we want to do. Having some debt in a time of crisis with a lower payment seems like the right thing to do (as opposed to paying it down and having no money available if you lose your job).

bad apple = Steve Schmidt

More information about the FBI ACORN investigation and some numbers concerning the level of the fraud, which now extends to 10 key battleground states. It should be noted that this fraud could have a substantial impact on polling if it is found that the registered number of Democrats was inflated in these states, which would mean that polling weighting was incorrect. Obama needs to tread lightly and try to dance around this if possible. His $800K donation to ACORN could loom large if this investigation continues to expand. Worse yet, former associates of Michele Obama are reportedly defending the ACORN execs in an embezzlement scandal which could bring ACORN down.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...08358130652174

I hate to interject after months of dispassionate lurking, but Sandra Bernhard did say almost exactly this (actually it was quite a bit worse).

It's amusing that even the wife of a candidate is playing the negativity. It's not enough to have the VP go around calling a candidate a terrorist sympathizer, but the wife now has to go around talking about 1 troop funding bill and***this one makes me laugh***Obama running the dirtiest campaign in the history of the country. I guess she forgot that her husband was attacked as having illegitimate, interracial children just 8 years ago.

As to the say it to my face thing, let's get real. You aren't torn, you aren't surprised, and you are beyond silly for trying to extend it to foreign policy (especially for seemingly denying the current president doesn't do the same...bring it on anyone?). McCain is obviously scared as to how it will play out as he didn't say a peep about it in the debate, but has no problems sending out his surrogates to do the attacking. That's what Obama was saying. But feel free to continue your silliness.

McCain is clearly using the smears to get his base even more fired up, while being sketchy about bringing it up to a more wide-scale audience because it doesn't play well to independence.

With any luck, the moderator will ask a direct question to McCain about it in the final debate, and they can both have a nice discussion about it.

More information about McCain's buy the bad mortgages plan...


McCain changes homeowner plan - Yahoo! News

I TRULY hope that if Obama has anything to do with this he cooperates fully with the investigation and we get to a truth filled conclusion in a timely manner....Im sure you feel the same way about the Troopergate investigation in Alaska. Let me go find the posts where you want the truth to come out in Troopergate and hope that Palin and whomever is subpoened cooperates...

yup nothing

ACORN should be fully investigated no matter what. Still, the only thing I can see is that fraudulent applications were submitted by volunteers. That doesn't necessarily suggest ACORN is encouraging that. If they are, then they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

As for Nevada, ACORN officials stated they already identified faulty applications and notified Nevada officials about it. We'll see if the searches turn up anything else.

As for the "old law firm" link, you guys will need a better link than that for this story to hurt Obama. I mean, Scalia had two sons that both worked for law firms that represented Bush in the Bush v. Gore case.

Speaking of Bush v. Gore, I thought this sounded pretty interesting. Georgetown University is hosting an event that create sa potential McCain-Obama SCOTUS case...

The law firm link is with Michele Obama. Barack is most certainly connected to the story. The campaign donated $800K to ACORN. Not only that, but they failed to accurately report it before it was brought to their attention. That's a very direct connection.

I was shocked that you missed the Troopergate info out today, considering that it confirms Sarah Palin's story. In the questioning from a few months ago, they've found that Todd Palin was actually the one trying to get his brother fired and that Sarah Palin didn't know much about his efforts. He was irritated by the threats and harassment from a law enforcement officer of his family and wanted him fired. I certainly would have done the same thing in his position.

The documents also note that once Sarah Palin found out about his efforts, she basically told him to knock it off.

Palin's Husband Pushed to Get Trooper Fired, Documents Show - FOXNews.com Elections

I just meant that trying to connect it to Obama through Michelle's old law firm is probably not going to stick. As for the donation, my understanding is that it was reported, but reported as a different name. Either way, I don't think it will really hurt Obama unless the campaign knew ACORN was committing voter fraud, and that's even if it's proven that ACORN committed fraud in the first place.

ACORN is heavily tied to the Democrat Party. Any assumption that fraud in that organization will not hurt their presidential candidate amounts to whistling past the graveyard. The embezzlement charges only bring further light to the situation.

You didnt answer my question in regards to your desire to have had those subpoenaed cooperate. My question to you stands? Did you want them to cooperate fully with the first investigation? Do you want them to cooperate with it?

hmm, strange you say that but I find this:


and


Palin's husband testifies he never pressured official - CNN.com

and from your own link on Fox News:

1. Certainly. They should cooperate with the officials as fully as possible as long as their rights are respected in this matter.

2. I certainly think the questions that are in the documents are open to interpretation. They will likely be interpreted differently depending on whether the liberal or conservative media is writing the article. What both make perfectly clear is that Sarah Palin didn't have a whole lot of involvement and that it was Todd who was raising a fuss.

So, at worst, we have a 'first spouse' who dabbles in his more powerful spouse's affairs. Most Americans shouldn't have an issue with that. We had the same thing for 8 years when Clinton was President and no one minded.

HA!

Much as I hate to, I'll have to disagree.

I don't believe it would matter even a tenth of a percentage point anywhere since the fraud in organizations like this isn't exactly a big secret to anyone with brainwaves. They are who we thought they were if you will.

If you're going to vote for Obama today (or any (D) nominee for Pres) I honestly can't imagine this would affect that decision one bit.

thats not 'at worst'. Hmmm, If I recall correctly Hillary was crucified for being too active in politics back then with the Health care issue and such.

and their rights have been respected as they were subpoenaed by the group assigned to investigate and the subpoenas have been upheld so Im glad to find youre as disgusted as I am that they haven't cooperated and others have also been told that they shouldnt cooperate too. Man, perhaps if you'd just say that when I do we wouldnt disagree on as much.

Wow. Some were wondering if Virginia being in play was going to have a knock on effect in West Virginia.

the latest ARG poll in West Virginia has Obama up 50-42. I'm going to take that with a couple big grains of salt. I can't find the internals for it yet.. and the sheer numbers are just insane. West Virginia, up 8 for Obama?

That's not too crazy. West Virginia was a big Democratic state for a long time, and only recently switched to the GOP for mostly cultural reasons, which become less important in tough economic times. The poll is certainly surprising and ARG isn't the most accurate pollster, so we'll have to see if any other polls confirm it. There's been very little polling of West Virginia recently.

I know I am partisan but quite a different tone from Mrs. Obama as opposed to Cindy.

Michelle Obama Pt. 1 | The Daily Show | Comedy Central
Michelle Obama Pt. 2 | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Why do leading Democrat congressman continue to make comments like this? Senator Reid implied in this interview that any association between Obama and Raines amounts to a form of racism.....

Breitbart.tv » Harry Reid Implies Radio Host is Racist for Tying Fannie Mae Exec to Obama

Honestly, I don't think there's any way in hell that Obama can be happy with any of these comments about perceived racism. Just shut up already and let Obama do his thing. He's been doing relatively well of late.

Interesting take on the election by George Will:

ARG has a pretty poor track record.

That's why I'm taking it with HUGE grains of salt, but it could be interesting if WV is in play.

I always thought WV basically went red because Al Gore was perceived as so anti-coal. The cultural reasons would make sense as well. WV was so democratic that it was 1 of 10 states that went for Dukakis in 1988 and 1 of 7 to go for Carter in 1980.

Cue dueling banjos music.

It is amusing to see how desperately some folks are grasping at straws, looking for a "guilt by association" Obama scandal to help McCain.

When the markets are losing 500 points a day and unemployment is at 6%+, tying candidates to fellow board members or organizations isn't going to get the job done (particularly since America already thinks/knows that all politicians are dirty). If there is a scandal that severely chips into Obama's numbers, it isn't going to be by playing guilt by association.

I had been cautiously optimistic that WV might be closer than anticipated, as I had heard that a poll done around the end of the Republican Convention had McCain only up by ~5%. I think war fatigure and, of course, the economy are trumping guns and bibles. I'd like to see another few polls before believing this ARG one, but I'm guessing WV is pretty close right now.

The "Troopergate" report will come out tommorrow as planned after another attempt to shut it down was blocked (appeal to the Alaskan Supreme Court of the initial request by six Alaskan Republicans).

Supreme Court won't block Troopergate inquiry: Gov. Sarah Palin | adn.com

The sky is falling, the sky is falling....whoops, wrong thread.

Those Supreme Court justices, I am sure, are left leaning liberals hell bent on taking her down!!

Interesting: obama's bought (at $2 million each) a half hour in primetime on 10/29 on both CBS and NBC so far (and is trying to reserve the same half hour on ABC and Fox, apparently).

Obama Buys Primetime Slots on CBS and NBC | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

This is a problem for McCain. He can't afford to spend 8 million dollars on countering the half hour politimercial (he only has $84 million for both September and October, by limiting himself to public financing)
. Six days before the election.. probably can't get anything closer, but I THINK it's close enough to the election for any message to stick..

wow, that's huge no matter what simply based on marketing alone. Perhaps Jon and I can put on an Elitexc card somewhere in there.

Welp there you go, case closed.

Palin pre-empts state report, clears self in probe - Yahoo! News

Wow. What a horrible way to handle it. First, there's a Supreme Court appeal to try to prevent the report from coming out. Then she pre-empts the report with her own internal report that remarkably clears her. It really sounds like she's scared of what's about to be released.

How does this play with the rules on neutrality/equal time? I remember there being a case where Cali channels showing Arnold movies "unfairly" gave him more time than his opponents. Is there anything along those lines in presidential elections?

Well, that's more along the lines of free press for Arnold. This would be more like a political advertisment, just a much longer one than usual.

What happens if Obama can not produce a birth certificate and/or if he really was born overseas? I assume it's a formality right now that he will win.

Is that grounds for impeachment or something?

This was probably covered 3 pages ago or something, but I was just curious.

eh, nevermind, should have checked snopes.

lol if it had been true he never would have gotten this far. he's already had to produce his birth certificate

I'm going to take this moment to say that while I often don't agree with his position I don't think there's one guy I respect and enjoy reading more than George Will. I'll guarantee every time he's going to make me think. I'm going to miss him when he retires.

WV can only afford one banjo so they'll have to share.

Well, now we know why McCain pulled out of Michigan:

A memo from ACORN itself taken from the Atlantic http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...its_troops.php

Emphasis my own

Awesome.

It smacks too much of Perot though.

That's a lot of chutzpah, right there.

I got to the 2nd paragraph and stopped. They're obviously being intellectually dishonest with the "don't pay taxes" argument. The person writing that certainly knows it's not true, but admitting that wouldn't be convenient for his argument.

Quite ironic too.