Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im allowed to get mad at more than one thing and banning books is/was pretty high up there. Subverting an investigation that at one time was supported by the person being investigated is pretty high up there too.

arguing for the either side would be easy:

Palin is a Maverick and will fight for Change. McCain is a war hero and is so strong and patriotic in his love for this country that it can never be doubted that he will always stand up strong for America. These 2 are for securing our country against the evil that is islamic terrorism. They will make permanent the tax cuts that W put in place thus spurring the economy on. They will slash earmarks and spending. They will make for smaller government and fight to make health care affordable for everyone. They will defend the unborn's right to life and work with Congress to enact legislation for the betterment of our country. They want to drill more and then try to expand into alternative energy sources.

how am i doing?

You have to talk about your opponent too.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ace1914

You have to talk about your opponent too.

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

[ace1914]

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

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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

[Flasch186]

save us Y2J

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

save us Y2J

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Doesnt everyone want honesty? Perhaps if the answer is "no" that might be enlightening for me because that is an issue for me. I feel like Im standing in a circle that everyone would agree should be there, uphold honesty, but no one wants to be in the circle and instead wants to tout their own side to the diminishment of said honesty.

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

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

That enough honesty for you?

[ISiddiqui]

Doing the other side is not all that hard:


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

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

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

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

How was that?

---

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

That enough honesty for you?

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

[Buccaneer]

Your turn.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Your turn.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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

[Flasch186]

scroll up.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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

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

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

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

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

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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

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

[Schmidty]

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

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

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

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

[Schmidty]

Dola.

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

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

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

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

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

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

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

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

+1

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Doing the other side is not all that hard:


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

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

While Senator McCain speaks of 'change' and was a maverick back in 2000, he has become a party hack. Someone who votes over 90% of the time with President Bush, a man who slandered him in the 2000 primaries, is not someone who is going to bring change.

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

Senator McCain has sold out most of his values to the far right in order to get elected. He is not the maverick he once said he is. And his argument that he has the experience to lead has been completely undermined by his selection of an inexperienced Governor of Alaska, who is on the extreme right that Senator McCain once derided as "agents of intolerance".

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

How can Senator McCain place in the Vice Presidency a woman who believes all abortion is wrong, even when the woman has been raped or her life is in danger? That is out of step with Americans. How can Senator McCain place in the 2nd slot a woman who says she's a reformer and is against earmarks, but asked for millions of earmarks while Governor of Alaska?

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

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

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

No, the change this country needs is Senator Barack Obama. Senator Obama will reverse the Bush tax cuts and in its place will put forth a middle class tax cut that will benefit 95% of the American populace instead of the top 1%.

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

Senator Obama will get American troops out of the quagmire that is Iraq. Senator Obama will put forth REAL health care reform to cover all Americans and not just more tax breaks. Senator Obama will increase regulations on financial institutions that have caused such a mess, as they've been allowed to run wild, in this economy. Senator Obama will make sure the economy works for the people rather than the other way around.

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

[Flasch186]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

[Buccaneer]

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

[ace1914]

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

[SFL Cat]

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

OBAMA BOOM ECONOMY: RECORD BANK IN BEV HILLS, $28,500 A PLATE!
Tue Sep 16 2008 06:25:55 ET

The nation's financials may be in a spiral, but cash is flowing into the Obama campaign faster than Marvin Hamlisch can play "Niagara"!

Yesterday, Obama declared how we are in "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

Today he will host a dinner in Beverly Hills --- costing attendees $28,500 dollars each!

Hundreds of high rollers, including some of the biggest executives in film, television and music, will munch gourmet chow and hang out with the candidate.

Streisand will then sing at the five-star Beverly Wilshire, no doubt reviving the Depression-era standard "Happy Days Are Here Again" with new urgency.

Obama is set to break a single-day fundraising record of $9 million.

Tuesday's events in Tinseltown come after Obama racked up a record-breaking $66 million dollars in fundraising last month, beating his previous high mark of $55 million last winter.

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are still very, very difficult times," rival McCain said, sunny-side up.

"Sen. McCain, what economy are you talking about?" smiled Obama.

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

[Buccaneer]

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

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

[larrymcg421]

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

[SFL Cat]

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

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

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

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday privately pushed Rep. Charlie Rangel to give up his chairmanship of the influential House tax-rules committee amid explosive revelations that his personal tax filings were riddled with errors and omissions, a wellplaced source said.

Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has been resisting growing calls to step down from the high-profile leadership role since The Post reported the Harlem congressman failed to disclose rental income from his Dominican Republic beach home.

Rangel subsequently admitted owing at least $10,000 in back taxes and became a target of Republican political attacks.

One member of the New York congressional delegation who supported Pelosi's decision said, "You have to have one standard - you can't have one for [Republicans] and one for us."

Rangel himself remained mum on his sitdown with Pelosi after exiting a later, separate meeting with fellow Democratic committee members.

"I am unable to say anything," he said before bizarrely rattling off his name, rank and serial number from his Korean War days. "Do to me what you want, I'm not talking."

The 76-year-old politician smiled when asked if he was still chairman of the powerful tax panel.

Pelosi later denied through spokesperson Nadeam Elshami that she has asked Rangel to step aside.

And a committee member, Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), asked if Rangel was still in charge, replied, "You're damn right he's the chairman."

But in an indication that Rangel may have to fight to keep his position, he scheduled an emergency meeting with the New York delegation today, a source said.

Meanwhile, Rangel was still using his leadership position as an inspirational tale for kids at Harlem's Democracy Prep Charter School yesterday.

"It was that education that took a 23-year-old high-school dropout to the Ways and Means Committee," he said.

Rangel's lawyer said the congressman would hire a forensic accountant to review his tax filings over the past 20 years.

He also may have to account for why he didn't properly disclose the sale of a Washington, DC, home in 2000, the various values he placed on his former Sunny Isles, Fla., condo, and the wild fluctuations he recorded for his personal investments.

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

[SFL Cat]

Supporters paid 50,000 dollars a ticket to attend the buffet dinner in Miami's InterContinental hotel, taking McCain's total fundraising in Florida to date to 26.2 million dollars.

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

[SirFozzie]

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

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

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

In the name of a prominent politician..

"It's the Economy, Stupid."

[Arles]

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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

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

and then later

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

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

[Arles]

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

Originally Posted by McCain in 2005

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

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

and then later

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

yeahhhh....how's that going to work? you going to privatize the regulatory system? i'd love to see that - that's a fucking disaster waiting to happen. idk wtf she was trying to say, but that makes no sense.

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Intrade tightened up a little today, McCain 51.4, Obama 47.8.

McCain 50.7
Obama 48.1

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ISiddiqui]

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

---

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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

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