Since Obama announced last week that he would be broadcasting his VP choice first to his supporters via text message, that is how I have been imagining it coming across. And since anonymous "inside" sources have said that he is planning his first public appearance with his VP choice on Saturday in Springfield, it looks like we're down to the last 48-72 hours before we'll all know. So I thought I'd try to play a little Nostradamus and predict it. It is "widely believed" (whatever that means) that the choice is down to 4 candidates: Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. Biden has going for him the fact that he is a friend to both the Clintons, a lot of foreign policy experience (as well as experience in general), and is a good debater who will be able to go toe to toe with anyone McCain chooses. However, as one of the eldest serving Democratic Senators he would somewhat undercut Obama's message of change and by potentially drafting him into the White House you lose a powerful force in the Senate, where he may be more valuable. He's also from Delaware, which is going to go blue anyway so he lacks the power to "deliver a state". I don't take Sebelius seriously, not because she's not a viable choice (she is) but because in this current election if he's going to pick a woman it pretty much HAS to be Hillary. Anything other than that is likely to be seen as a slap in the face by her supporters. Evan Bayh seems to be a perenially popular VP finalist (Gore and Kerry also had them on their lists) and Indiana is seen as a swing state, so that goes in his favor. But recently there are concerns that Bayh's wife, who does work for 7 corporate boards and earned over $800k from them last year, could also undercut his message about breaking from corporate ties and being in the pockets of lobbyists. That leaves Gov. Tim Kaine. Virginia has been seen as a Republican stronghold in recent Presidential elections but with a now Democratic governor and the election of Democratic Senator Jim Webb in 2006 that could be poised to change. So, in that respect he certainly passes the "can he deliver a state?" criteria. But outside of Virginia he's not very well known and Obama already has a difficult enough time getting the rest of the nation's undecided voters comfortable with him let alone trying to introduce them to his VP as well. Speculation has really heated up over Kaine considering that he is set to campaign with him today and spend the night as his guest in Virginia tonight. But is it a visit to tell Kaine personally that he's his choice, or is it a consolation prize?
So what do I think (like you asked or care)? I think that as of 10 days ago Obama was leaning towards Kaine. However, I think the Russia-Georgia incident has underscored his need to get somebody with foreign policy experience to undercut the Republican's ability to say that the world is too dangerous to leave the country's security and diplomacy in the hands of someone so inexperienced. I also can't see why he would be publicly campaigning with Kaine the day or two before the announcement. To me it seems like since he knows he's not going to pick him he wants to still use the last day of speculation to draw more attention to them together then they otherwise would have received if the decision had already been made. So, in the end, I think it's going to be Biden and I can't say that I'm unhappy with that pick.
Of course, there's always the possibility that someone comes completely out of the blue and surprises everyone. And I was surprised that 3 names in particular were not among the finalists: Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. From what I've read, Richardson was never really considered and Strickland and Rendell said they didn't want it. Of course, there's the old political axiom that "the VP is the job that nobody wants but nobody turns down."
Guess I'll just have to keep a close eye on my cell phone for the next couple days . . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
96 comments:
Evan Bayh would be a good choice, but Obama REALLY needs a good Sec. State choice to make the beginnings of a playable cabinet.
I think if he wishes to really put some distance between himself and McCain, he needs to get those cabinet choices out in the open, even though it's not common practice to do so this early in the game. VP Choice for Obama will have less impact than McCain's VP choice.
It'll be nearly impossible for McCain to pick a VP that both rallies the hard core right wing of the republican party, while simultaneously putting much needed distance from the Bush White House.
John, you forgot that Biden's son is about to head to war (Afg. I think.) Granted, it is in the JAG core, but still, it takes away the "Would you send your kid to war?" question. And while it may remove a powerful ally in Congress, his seat will be guaranteed to go to a Democrat, which is a nice consolation prize. I think the writing was on the wall when the Georgia conflict broke out and Biden was on the first plane.
Mike, you mean Liebermann won't energize the Republican base?
I wish it would be Rudy, but it (sadly imho) will probably be Romney.
I don't think Lieberman was ever really a viable choice. Good guy, but since he pissed off the Dems, and he's never going to be "right" enough for Republicans, he didn't have much to offer in the way of strategy.
That's not to say I don't like him. He'd be a better cabinet member though.
And mister spelling and grammer, it's "Corps".
:-)
Also, you know McCain has 2 sons on active duty, right?
Mike, another thing on your first post:
I don't think that Obama can start announcing cabinet members (he can put a list together, just not go public with it) because the right has already attacked him for 'acting too presidential.'
After his speech in Germany he got hit from the right with the claim that he was already acting like the President. Now, even a child can see the flawed logic in the attack, but it didn't stop people from making it.
Seriously, I think the right should be taken to task for some of the attack arguments they've been making. Accusing Obama of seeming 'too presidential' on his Iraq trip. Personally I WANT our candidates to act presidential. It shows a glimpse of what kind of president they would be. It is refreshing to see someone get out of campaigning mode. They always say that if you want a promotion (at work) that you should take on the qualities of the job you are seeking. I see this occasionally in Obama instead of seeing him always out stumping for votes.
Also, it is funny that he is getting hit for acting too presidential when in the primary he was accused of not acting presidential enough. Also, it is hilarious to see him get attacked for being too presidential and being too much of a celebrity at the same time. Unfortunately logic doesn't win out and these contradictory attacks are effective.
Another thing I find funny is that sometime this weekend I'll get the text message announcing who the VP pick is, and that I'll probably be drunk when it happens. I can see myself sitting in a crowded bar and then demanding that everyone at my table toasts to Joe Biden. Followed by blank stares all around.
Here's another article that's part of a silly debate that doesn't need to going on but I still found the title pretty humorous.
It both amuses and frustrates me when two candidates who are in the top 2% income bracket try to talk about which one is more "in touch" with the "average American". Not only is it ludicrous to think that either of them are but, um, I don't really want my President to be "in touch" with the average American, just as I don't think a good military general is "in touch" with his foot soldiers. A good leader is supposed to set out a vision for the country (or company), set out a plan for getting their, and then bring everyone else along with them.
And I know I just made a number of typos, so no need to point them out.
I actually have to agree with you on one point, Weir. It is silly to criticize the guy for not being presidential enough, then criticize him when he "acts" presidential. You're right when you say it allows us to see how he will be if he does win the election.
Personally, I didn't see anything he did as any more presidential than John McCain's comments regarding Georgia/Russia, and no one seemed to be overly critical of that.
And if you're going to be in a crowded bar in Chicago, you'll probably be ignored because everyone else in the bar will be reading their text messages from Obama.
Seriously, you used the wrong 'their?' Allright, enough.
This damn 'elitist' crap again. Jon Stewart said it better than me, but I WANT my leaders to be elite. I WANT them to be the best and the brightest. I WANT them to be thinkers.
And I'm sick of reading that freaking arugula quote. Because they're making the argument that because the guy likes vegetables you shouldn't vote for him. Christ.
And the house thing pisses me off too (just so I can maintain some semblance of impartiality.) I don't care how many houses he owns. Like it is a big secret that rich people invest in real estate. WOW. Both campaigns need to stfu about this crap.
And John, I don't think the president needs to be in TOTALLY in touch with 'regular' americans, but it helps to have some idea of what is going on. Obviously issue #1 is the economy so knowing about the rise in food costs, or knowing the percentage of total income spent on fuel for a poverty line worker is important. (Oh, and at $50/week and $17,000/year that number is 15%)
Again, the campaigns are falling into the trap of ONLY talking about their opponent instead of talking about themselves and their own ideas for the country.
This is the campaign speach I'd like to hear:
"We live in a great nation. Freedom, while it's challenged every day, is alive and well. The promise of democracy lives in each of us, and it's our duty and our privelidge to do our individual best to excel.
The nation has problems... it always has. Our strength and greatness comes from our ability and desire to overcome those challenges."
Something like that would be nice. Not "**** is a moron"; or "**** is a liar"; or "**** is out of touch".
I just wish someone would start telling us something good about ourselves for a change. I know that we can improve, but I sincerely think things aren't as incredibly awful as we're told on a minute by minute basis.
I haven't lived a charmed life, and on a personal one on one basis I'd be happy to discuss the details. But life, in general, has treated me well.
There are others who have it a lot harder. But seeing the trials life can throw at a person, and how those people can persevere and overcome to move on with life and excel, has given me hope in times of trouble. It gives me hope now, when our nation faces difficulty, and when our nation's people face hardships.
We'll get better, sooner rather than later, I think; and regardless of which candidate gets elected.
I'd just like to vote for a candidate who says so.
I just needed to say this for myself. Thanks for giving me a forum to do so.
Mike, you mean something like this:
"The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more -- and it is time for our generation to answer that call.
For that is our unyielding faith --that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.
That's what Abraham Lincoln understood. He had his doubts. He had his defeats. He had his setbacks. But through his will and his words, he moved a nation and helped free a people. It is because of the millions who rallied to his cause that we are no longer divided, North and South, slave and free. It is because men and women of every race, from every walk of life, continued to march for freedom long after Lincoln was laid to rest, that today we have the chance to face the challenges of this millennium together, as one people -- as Americans."
That's from Obama's speech announcing his candidacy last year. I'm really not trying to tout Obama here; I'm absolutely positive that I could find a speech that McCain has given which said similar things, it's just that Obama's was easier to find because I knew right where to look. In fact, if you listen to complete speeches from candidates (really any candidate for any position) you will see roughly the same pattern: 50% patriotic/unity talk, 25% touting themselves, 25% blasting their opponent. The problem is that when the speech gets covered you end up with something like 90% clips of him blasting his opponent and maybe 10% touting himself and/or his programs. No mention of anything else. This makes sense on one level because why bother reporting things that both candidates agree on? But it's still depressing.
Now, if you mean that you'd like to see a campaign AD that has a positive message, I am in complete agreement that they do not exist.
Nice Mike. Nice.
However, people would take you more seriously if you didn't make up words.
According to dictionary.com:
No results found for speach.
Seriously though, nice.
I agree that a little positive thinking can do a great deal for the masses. That is why I was pissed off when everyone jumped on Phil Gramm when he said we were in a 'mental recession.' He wasn't entirely wrong. Just about that though, otherwise he is an evil evil man. Although he is not all bad. Take a look at the second heading on his wiki. Hilarious.
John,
That is a great example of what I mean. If there were more of that that we could hear right now, that would be excellent, and I truly believe that would put a candidate over the top.
While I disagree completely on Obama's campaign platform, I will say he is an exceptional speaker. I'm not even going to say anything bad here... he's just got that thing that makes people feel good when he gives a speech (Thanks for the spelling coorekshun, Weir).
McCain has that same gift as well, but on a different level. I think most people who (with an open mind and ears) listen to McCain, get a feeling of comfort and calmness... an "at ease" type of feeling. Both candidates are charming in their own way.
I do mean current campaigning though. The message of hope and pride are sorely missing right now, and to the detriment of the American People. Far too many people are hearing that they are bad, are in bad shape (on any and every level), or live in a bad country.
The sky isn't falling, and I'd like to be a voice in a crowd of millions saying so, instead of a voice screaming against a wave of negativity.
I've got a couple speech snippets for you:
"Tonight, what began on the commons in Concord, Massachusetts, as an alliance of farmers
and workers, of cobbles man and tinsmiths, of statesmen and students, of mothers and
wives, of men and boys, lives two centuries later as America! My name is ********,
and I accept your nomination for the Presidency of the United States!"
and:
"Four years ago, we were joined by our highest ideals, by our best hopes, and tonight we're
joined by the same commitment to open new doors of oppurtunity and justice. To ensure that the promise of the country is the birthright of all the people. We've achieved
so much together always believing, always knowing that America could be made new again and so
it was, and so it will be again. God bless you all. God bless the United States of America."
Because fake politics will always have more dramatic speeches than real politics.
The West Wing? Really, could you find a more liberal example?
Just kidding. I generally do like Aaron Sorkin's work, despite the leftist propaganda.
First thing: Reed got a text this afternoon confirming Hilary Clinton as Obama's running mate. He flipped out only to find out that it was a fake message. I found that hilarious.
Second thing: I had on CNN and Wolf Blitzer said the following: "...And how has [Senator Obama] managed to keep his decision (VP pick) a secret for so long? And if he is elected in November will he run a secretive White House?"
If I had been drinking at the time I would have done a spit-take. What a bunch of crap. He is not keeping a secret, he is keeping internal information internal until the designated announcement time. What a load of crap.
Mike, Obama is not an exceptional speaker, he's an exceptional reader. If he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him it's ...ah...ah...ah, or he putting his foot in his mouth with some stupid comment.
I got my text....at 3am! Seriously, if I wasn't such an alcoholic and still been out drinking I might have been pissed off.
Anon:
I didn't want to get into a pissing match over semantics. As stated before, I have my problems with Obama as a candidate, but I do have to hand it to the guy... he can give a speech. Whether you interpret that to mean he's an excellent speaker, or an excellent reader is up to you.
I would like to say, however, that being a well spoken individual is not the mark of a good leader. Hitler sure knew how to get people going with a rousing speech, but I think we all know how that worked out.
Weir, well they interrupted Olympic coverage at about 12:45 to break the story, so it was already leaked well ahead of the text message. And obviously the real point of the text message was to get people to give the Obama camp their cell numbers so that they can send repeated messages between now and the election.
Anon - That's certainly not true. I've seen him give many speeches where he rarely if ever looks down at his notes or to a teleprompter. Of course, it is true that those are prepared speeches, but then most politicians' speeches are. It is also true that when debating or being interviewed he is less eloquent, but I don't take that as a bad thing. Anyone who is able to immediately rattle off a stutter-free answer to a tough questions is either 1)not answering the question that was asked, 2) reeling off a huge line of BS or 3) both. And in the stuttering and stammering category, are you really suggesting that McCain does it less? Maybe 2000 McCain, but certainly not 2008 McCain.
Something has stricken me as funny the last few weeks. The desire for Hillary supporters to "have their voice heard" by getting her name on the ballot through roll call.
Am I the only one who just doesn't get this need for people to have their voice heard? We've heard it. We know you love Hillary. More people want Obama. You lose. End of story, right?
What's with society today where people just cannot come to terms with the concepts of victory and defeat? Why the need to avoid disenfranchisement. Of course, it's only one side that wants UNITY. Was there a move to enfranchise (is that even a word?) the losing side when the Republicans were trounced in the last election cycle?
Last night during the CNN love fest there was a commentor (no one commentates, so I refuse to call them commentators) or talking head who stated that this ballot deal was in the interests of becoming MORE UNIFIED. How can multiple parties become MORE UNIFIED? Isn't unity the state of being one? Multiple parties are either unified, or not unified.
Or am I wrong?
Mike, I think what is boils down to is this: women are crazy.
Nothing groundbreaking here, just another example.
The problem is the same as it has been since late February: the primary is over and Hillary just can't let go. She stuck around while clutching at straws for the last 5 weeks until it was "officially official" that it was over. Since then she has paid official lip service to the idea of unity but done nothing to actually promote it. No joint appearances with Obama and no campaign ads for him. Just random whining from both her and her husband about what day they were selected to speak at the convention, wanting a roll call vote, and the fact that she apparently wasn't vetted as a VP candidate. While people may think that it's going too far, I absolutely believe that she wants McCain to win this election so that she can run against him (or another open election) in 4 years. And I don't care how rousing a speech her or Bill give at the convention; their actions over the next 60 days will mean much more and I fully expect the absolute bare minimum from both of them. As is often the case, I hope to be proven wrong.
Weir, I know that you are joking but that kind of stuff gets under my skin. It's infuriating when I hear from Clinton die-hards that Obama supporters are "sexist" and it's comments like that which give them all the fuel they need. I absolutely think a woman can be a capable president; just not THAT woman. And I don't think she's crazy, either. I think she is a cold and politically calculating person with a god complex and those are not qualities I look for in a leader.
John,
Who are you going to vote for again?
:-P
Sorry, but it was the God complex thing that made me ask... lol
I've also heard that Clinton supporters are racist, and both Obama and Clinton supporters are prejudiced against age, and that McCain supporters are stupid, and that anyone that votes for a republican is a closet racist nazi, and that Christians are morons, and that Muslims are terrorists, and that blue people who are really short are smurfs...
Where was I going with this?
Oh, yeah... don't take it personally and let it get under your skin. It comes down to people getting SO incredibly tied up in something that they truly believe:
1: They actually matter
2: Who they vote for actually matters
3: The other guy/gal is EVIL!!!
4: Their guy/gal is DIVINE!!!
Just ask any supporter of any candidate what they DON'T like about their candidate, and I think the majority of people can't name more than one thing, and it'll probably be something like "so and so is too awesome".
I wasn't trying to say that Senator Clinton is crazy (although I like your cold and politically calculating) I was saying that her supporters are crazy.
They list out all the things they want and all the things they believe in, which jive almost 100% with Senator Obama, and then they say that they are going to vote for Senator McCain. THAT is what I see as crazy.
I don't remember if it was on one of the news shows or on a commercial, but there was a woman who talked about her newfound support for McCain and her support for a woman's right to choose. Then someone told her that McCain wanted to repeal Roe/Wade and the woman didn't know that.
And my gross generalization about women (which, yes, was meant as comical) should have been a gross generalization about the ONE IN TEN Clinton supporter who has flopped to McCain (I got that stat from MSNBC about 10 minutes ago.)
Anyways, all that being said, everyone should check out Kucinich's speech from earlier tonight.
The guy did a little too much coke before he went onstage.
Wow... what a nut job kucinich is. The level of misinformation is amazing.
Speaking of misinformation, I believe MSNBC got their stats wrong. The numbers I have heard were closer to between 20% and one third of Clinton Democrats voting for McCain, depending on the poll.
I did get a laugh at that kucinich video though... "love roller coaster" was his theme song!
Maybe I'm wrong here Mike, but I think it was 20-30% not voting for Obama, and 10% actually voting for McCain.
Dynamite speech tonight by Hillary though.
"Weir, I know that you are joking but that kind of stuff gets under my skin."
Thank you, John. I second that, both on the basis of responsible political discourse (as you say, you can dislike someone for other reasons than their race, gender, age, etc.), and as a woman personally. Weir, even if you don't legitimately believe that shit, you put it out there and it gets into people's heads and takes on a life of its own. Forgive the wrist slap but I hear this kind of thing all the time--it seems to have seeped into American culture and it hasn't noticeably gone away despite our supposed "growth"... I see and hear it in the comments my relatives make over Thanksgiving dinner, magazine covers in the Jewel checkout line, oneliners in mediocre sitcoms, etc. This constant sorting of people into teams and who's better--that's not how society moves forward. And, in general, *puke*. To paraphrase Roger Ebert (although when he said it it was about Asians playing villans in a movie), [women] have the right to be whoever the hell they want to be. They do not have to represent their people." I don't believe, and don't go around saying, that men (and by entension you) are stupid/crazy/whathaveyou, so shut the [bleep] up.
< *gets off soapbox, harrumphs, sits down, kicks back some dry roasted peanuts and takes a swig of... er.. apple juice (what? It's good!). Feels bad and goes back to side-hug Weir, because yes, I know you didn't mean it. But still.*>
The 1 in ten, or 2 in ten Clinton supporters (was it ever stated that they were all women?) bailing--yeah, that does hurt. What sucks is that they're going to have to go through a sort-of grieving process for the dreams they had pinned on Hillary, and you can't rush emotions. Barack only has a couple months to attempt to chip away at that and I don't know if he can, even with his talent for speaking.
I think Obama's best solution, given the time constraints, is to give them a substitute to transfer their hopes onto--leak some rumors about a top female cabinet pick. Like, now. Ideally Secretary of State.
And what's Chelsea doing? Barack, call her up, get her working for you. I have a feeling people underestimate her potential influence, both what she could do inside her family and out facing the public. Public sentiments towards the girl have been on the upswing I hear.
"Obama is supported by 78% of Democrats while McCain gets the vote from 85% of Republicans. The GOP hopeful also has a slight advantage among unaffiliated voters."
"Obama’s support has declined in each of the last three individual nights of polling. This may be either statistical noise or a reaction to the selection of Biden. If it’s the latter, it probably has less to do with Biden than Hillary Clinton. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democratic women say Clinton should have been picked and 21% of them say they’ll vote for McCain."
"McCain is viewed favorably by 57% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 53% (see trends). Clinton is viewed favorably by 47%. "
http://tinyurl.com/2u693r
I've said it before and I'll say it again: until we get to October (actually September 27th, the day after the first debate) all the polls are meaningless. Obama will get a bump coming out of the convention and McCain will get a bump next week coming out of his. Then they'll lob generic attacks at each other for a few more weeks and the polls will waffle a bit more.
Anyone watch The Daily Show last night? They were interviewing a bunch of Clinton supporters who are either for McCain or just not for Obama and they were all saying how ridiculous is was that Obama and McCain supporters accuse them of being racist or ageist, when they insist that they just don't like Obama or McCain. Then they were asked what brought Hillary down and the one girl immediately says that the media portrayal of her was really sexist.
By the way, of the 3 (ageism, sexism, and racism) the one that has by far the most merit (really, the only one with merit) is ageism. No company can discriminate on the basis of sex or race but there are plenty of professions that can mandate minimum and maximum age, and for good reason. I sure wouldn't want to board a trans-Atlantic flight with an 85-year old pilot.
And just to clarify, I don't consider McCain too old and I think that there are too many jokes about it in the media, although I have to admit to laughing at some of them ("McCain's so old, Abraham Lincoln went to a high school named after him").
Wow, somehow I just got blamed for magazine covers in the check out aisle. That was a pretty impressive stretch.
You know what a good defense to someone saying women are crazy is? Fly off the fucking handle.
That'll show em.
The next time I complain about people using the word 'ironic' incorrectly I'll have another correct example.
As for the voters, the one pro-Hillary anti-Obama woman they interviewed on MSNBC after the speech said it convinced her to vote Obama. The one they interviewed on CNN said she would not.
In all seriousness however, I DID see that sketch on the Daily Show last night. And there was something else I wanted to say about it.
When they were interviewing those people they cited Michigan and Florida and said that the election was stolen away from Hillary.
And here is the problem for Hillary Clinton. Nothing was stolen. There were clear guidelines that all of the candidates agreed to. Blah blah blah, you've heard these arguments before.
Hillary's problem is that it doesn't matter how eloquent and passionate she is about supporting Obama NOW, because she convinced her supporters the she was being cheated. SHE did it. It wasn't the media, or her opponents, it was her. It was her dragging out the fight, it was her bitching about the rules, it was her going back on her word, and it was her changing the goalposts 3 or 4 times.
People feel cheated, and when people feel cheated you are not going to change their minds about anything (see Florida recount 2000.)
Yeah, you make good points on the feeling cheated thing. Those people it won't matter what Obama does--they're just going to plug their ears and go "la la la."
Just wanted to weigh in quickly before Biden goes on...
I thought Clinton's speech was decent and/or average. He did what he needed to do, and he did it enthusiastically.
But, I think that Kerry's speech immediately following Clinton was much better and hit all the right points.
I've been waiting for a while now for someone to call McCain on all of the changes to his positions, and Kerry finally did it by comparing Senator McCain to Candidate McCain.
I also have a feeling that was a bit of a setup for Biden to come out and punch McCain in the stomach, but we'll see.
I feel like puking.
I think scientists can stop trying to develop the next artificial sweetener... It's in Denver.
Fake Sugar
Granted there are lots of fake things about these conventions, but what exactly was fake-sweet?
The only thing I can think of is the Beau Biden introduction which, while it sure played on some heartstrings, was really just a biography of his father.
I enjoyed it.
Wier, if you can't see it then you're not nearly as cynical as you claim to be.
http://tinyurl.com/6554j7
Vs.
http://tinyurl.com/6ktssv
The Clintons are pissed because they didn't get enough "respect" from the DNC (Bill was instructed to keep his speech at ten minutes) and Obama (no one asked him to rally for Obama until this week, so say his spokespeople).
Obama is pissed because the majority of coverage of the convention is either about The Clintons, or about The Clintons & Obama. They are stealing his thunder and it shows.
Then they go and talk each other up at every opportunity, even though we know they hate each other, all the while trying to put on their fake smiles and fake praise of the other person.
That's what I'm referring to. I'd love to hear them actually get up and say what's REALLY on their minds. We know they're on the same political team, so it'd be nice to hear "I don't like Obama, but I like the democrat party. If you want a democrat in office, vote for him. If you vote for McCain, you'll get another republican, because the republicans aren't sore losers, and they will vote for whomever is at the top of their ticket."
Wouldn't that be better than Bill's Candidate X vs. Candidate Y "endorsement"?
Oh, and on a side topic... You know who understands the plight of the working poor?
That guy who can't make a mortgage payment because he bought a big screen TV, and has a $150 per month Cable bill?
You know who I don't want to vote for for President?
That guy who can't make a mortgage payment because he bought a big screen TV, and has a $150 per month Cable bill.
Just because Obama's not as rich as Cindy McCain's dad doesn't make him as middle class as I am.
Just like the PUMA movement, I Propose...
EMMA: Every Man My Ass
And are you saying that McCain-Romney isn't the exact same thing?
Bill clearly said "my candidate didn't win" and then the rest of his speech was a long way of saying "but Barack is still a lot better than any Republican". That's the way I took it, anyway. It was also clearly intended as a speech for the Democratic base; he didn't get into any specifics and just lobbed generic accusations at the Republicans. It was designed to remind the base why they hate the Republicans, and I think on that level it was effective.
Biden's was a lot more targeted towards the undecided voters and independents, as he hit on a lot of specifics (McCain voting with Bush 95 percent of the time, repeatedly voting against the minimum wage, supporting more corporate tax cuts).
"...It was designed to remind the base why they hate the Republicans..."
You think? I really didn't know you dems hated republicans. I thought it was just G.W.B. that you hated.
"...the rest of his speech was a long way of saying 'but Barack is still a lot better than any Republican'..."
This is what I meant by fake. Taking the long way, 'cause, you know, it'd hurt way too much to actually say that. And you've got to know he'd gladly see McCain in office before he'd see Obama there. Hillary will be too old to run for office in 2016
Finally:
mike said...
I wish it would be Rudy, but it (sadly imho) will probably be Romney.
Not a fan of Romney. I think that he would be a bad bad choice for McCain, but it won't keep me from voting for McCain.
And John,
I thought you claimed to be fiscally conservative.
Tell me, how does a higher minimum wage affect inflation?
How does a lower corporate tax rate affect production? Isn't taxation part of the cost of production? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to increase the supply of an item, lower it's cost, and sell more of it? Wouldn't we get more tax revenue that way?
And, unless I've misunderstood the way government works, wouldn't it be Bush voting with McCain 95% of the time... you know, 'cause Bush votes last (unless there's a veto).
Well, if you really want to get technical, Mike, Bush doesn't actually vote. It is not really a vote when you can never lose (No matter which way he goes, law or veto, he always wins 1-0.) That is just deciding, even though we've all laughed at him calling himself 'The Decider.'
What else...
I guess what you see as artificial sweetener, I just see as a kind of business as usual.
It happens in every facet of life. Take a real world job, for instance. If you and a coworker are up for a promotion, and the coworker gets it, you are NOT going to stand up at the next meeting and talk bad about him. Or take sports. After the Bulls beat the Lakers in '91 you didn't see Michael and Scottie go to the press and say "Magic Johnson sucks ass and doesn't deserve to be on the same court as me."
What else?
I'm going to flip your argument on you a little bit and say that I expect next weeks convention to be 100% worse. I mean, if you look at the Dems you can at least say that while the primary was ugly, at least at heart they agree on 95% of the same stuff. When you look at Republicans, half of the base HATES McCain. Much like the Clinton supporters, there was a huge group of right-wingers that said they would vote Democrat or stay home if McCain was the nominee. I think it was Limbaugh who spent tons of time talking about this and trying to organize anti-McCain events.
And if you think that a single one of them will stand at a podium next week and give anything but glowing praise for their candidate, you are crazy.
Unless McCain goes off the rails and actually picks Lieberman as his VP, then the right will abandon him in droves.
Oh yeah, and...
When Biden talked about the minimum wage hike last night, I had the same thoughts about the relationship between the min. wage and inflation. Of course, the opposite side of that argument is that inflation was steady around 3% for a long time while the minimum wage didn't get a bump for (I think) 10 years.
And now I'm rambling....
I just said that Biden hit on a lot of specifics and proceeded to list what those specifics were. I gave no indication whatsoever what my opinion was on them.
I, of course, do have many opinions on them but I don't feel like writing that much right now and we will have plenty of time to discuss this weekend in any case.
Again, I AM HOLDING OUT HOPE THAT HE DOESN'T PICK ROMNEY.
If he does, then it will be the love fest all over again, and I'll have to get the puke bucket ready.
If it goes as I think it will, it will be someone McCain likes personally. He just doesn't seem to be able to play nice with people he really really really dislikes, and even though they've been civil and cooperative, I don't expect to see a McCain Romney ticket.
As far as your premise of work, that's entirely different. Much more is at stake, and I reject the premise based on the importance of the office. That said, I wouldn't stand up and give a speech pointing out how awesome so and so is at handling customer issues, when I just spent the last year telling everyone and anyone who would listen that he's the worst at handling customer issues.
It would sound disingenuous, and it would cheapen and lower my credibility. Much like... never mind, either you get it or you don't. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just saying.
And finally, perhaps inflation stayed at 3% BECAUSE the minimum wage had not been increased?
You're right John. I did read too much into that remark.
My apologies.
BTW, are we close to beating the comments record yet? I can't recall what the last one was.
I reject your rejection of my premise.
Oh yeah! I no longer care who gets elected...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013752/
:-)
Mike, what do you think about Sarah Palin? (And the rumors that her 5th kid is actually her grandson!?!)
I think she's an excellent choice, and I'm very excited to be voting for her ticket. She has been a champion of honor and integrity in public office, and she has executive experience... something that has been lacking on both sides of the race. I think she'll be a great asset.
She does have some challenges ahead, though. And even though Obama is not going to come out and say it himself, there are always his "surrogates" that will say nasty things about her, her family, and her ability to raise a family as Vice President. These attacks are merely a not so subtle way of raising doubt that a woman can do the job that a man has done for over two hundred years, and it's sad that the Democrat party is the one making this an issue.
You would think that the most "liberal" of our population would be okay with a woman running for office, but their record has fallen a little short on this in the last six months, eh?
As far as her raising her grandson as her son? Or the matter of her daughter's pregnancy? Weren't there people concerned that Obama faked his birth certificate? What about Biden and his racist views? And then there are the false accusations that John McCain was such a bad pilot that he blew up a jet on an aircraft carrier.
That kind of mud slinging is just a way of getting people away from, and obscuring a candidate's own record on, the important issues we SHOULD be voting on.
Wow. I don't know if you're just parroting some talking points, but when you said:
"She has been a champion of honor and integrity in public office, and she has executive experience..."
I kept waiting for the part of your post where you admitted sarcasm.
Integrity?
Funny or disturbing? A comic look at the timeline of her having her last baby.
She was director of a 527 for Ted Stevens.
And she benefited politically by supporting then denouncing the Bridge to Nowhere.
And what executive experience are you talking about? That she was the mayor of a town of somewhere between 6,500 and 9,000 people? I saw the voting record, when she was elected she received just over 900 votes.
Oh, you must be talking about her role as Governor for 18 months of a state with less than 700k people. One of only a handful of states that only have 1 Representative.
Maybe you're talking about all of her foreign policy experience.
The only thing good about her (for you) is that she is a staunch supporter of the entire far right platform, which is something McCain can't claim.
Oh yeah, I forgot, she was once a member of the group (not the party) Alaskan Independence Party.
The point of the group and the party is to have a statewide vote on Alaska's statehood. In other words, they want to secede from the union.
From ABC News
Most women, by their 5th kid, have a pretty good idea how long it will take to actually have the baby.
Ted Stevens was the longest serving republican in the senate. I guess she had some secret information about his private personal residence that no one else in Alaska or Washington had until this year.
And the bridge to nowhere, and the way it really went down:
"We want to help you build a bridge, which you need, and it will cost $398 Million. Your cut comes to 160 Million"
"Okay, sounds good. I'll go tell everyone that I support it, and that it's a good idea, and will get us a lot of jobs. That's what we do, right, as politicians? We do things that will benefit the people who have put their trust in us!"
"Great, we'll get started right away, but we changed our minds... we're only going to cover $69 Million. You now owe $329 Million"
"Uh... Okay, never mind then."
The difference between being an executive and legislating is clear, and it is commonly accepted (even by the democrat party in elections past) as superior to
legislative experience when it comes to relevant experience as president.
Being mayor of a small town, or governor of a small state is still preferable to being a state senator who only got elected because he managed to get every other candidate (most more qualified, and one his "mentor") thrown off the ballot.
Oh, and how long has Obama (At the TOP of his ticket, btw) been a US senator?
As far as the Alaskan Independence Party, I have to say if California had more say over the livelyhood and well being of the people of Illinois I might join a similar organization. Alaska should have full control over their own land and personal rights, and as far as I understand, this is all the AIP really wants. Why is it that democrats don't get that? Is it because it doens't sit well with their current marxist agenda?
Are you being obtuse on purpose, or is it just your nature?
Well, I'm working on a whole post about the Sarah Palin pick, so for the moment I'll just limit myself to commenting on some of the last couple posts.
Mike said:
"Is it because it doens't sit well with their current marxist agenda?"
If you heard a thud just now, it was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor. I would therefore like to turn your following question back onto you:
"Are you being obtuse on purpose, or is it just your nature?"
If you're not just being difficult, then you truly do not understand the difference between capitalism and socialism and you certainly are not drawing any distinction between socialism and Marxism (of which there is a wide gulf).
Just because someone is for SOCIAL PROGRAMS does not make them a SOCIALIST. There is absolutely nothing inherently contradictory with having a capitalist society and also having a lot of social programs. If you disagree with that, then you are forced to say that the US is (and pretty much always has been) a socialist country since we have (just off the top of my head) the following
social programs: military, police force, fire departments, interstate highways, sewers, AMTRAK, MEDICAID, social security, welfare, unemployment, the post offics, etc. Please note again that I'm not endorsing all of these, just listing them.
There are a lot of good criticisms of Democrats' economic policies, and that remains my largest reservation about a potential Obama administration. But the right way to argue against them is to specifically criticize one or two or a whole group of policies and say why you don't like them. Saying that the Democrats have a "Marxist agenda" is taking a page out of the McCarthy and Nixon political playbook and is exactly the type of mud-slinging you said you wanted to avoid 3 posts ago.
Pick your jaw up John. Weir, you win this one. You pissed me off enough that I posted a knee jerk reaction to what I perceived as outright lying and misleading by posting partially factual information. I overstepped the line though, although I was merely referring to what seems to be a growing movement toward socialism within the democrat party as a whole, and toward outright Marxism on the furthest fringes of the left. But I’ll get back to that.
I’m still a bit mad about this though. Half truths given to people that won’t take the time to look things up for their selves are as bad as outright lies.
Take, for example, your comments on the bridge. I’m sure you knew the entirety of the story, yet you didn’t mention any of that. I suppose either it helps your argument against her, or it’s just more “fun” to say it in a way that makes her appear bad. Or the inference that she was somehow involved in picking out curtains in Ted Stevens new addition to his mansion, rather than the truth that she was involved in a republican fundraising effort. Or the mention of her fifth child as a possible embarrassment. Oh and finally, your inclusion of her as a member of a “fringe” group of secessionists, while failing to mention that she never claimed to be a member, and only visited one of their meetings in performing her duties as mayor of the town they held their convention in. Because of these omissions of fact, in my opinion, you have lied.
It’s like the investigation of Sarah Palin for misusing her authority as governor. The facts are that her former brother in law should have been fired for making death threats, driving drunk in a police car, and beating up his wife. His boss didn’t fire him. She fired his boss. Is there anything REALLY wrong there with what she did? Her subordinate didn’t perform in the interests of public safety, and she replaced him. But all you get to hear is that she’s under investigation. More outright lying.
Now, back to the Marxist comment, it just seems that half the country just doesn’t get it when it comes to personal freedom. It’s as if there’s lip service for freedom, and then a strong effort to take away all of the hard won freedom. I really do believe that there is a movement within the far left to abolish all rights, and start a new collective. I believe it because of actions, and words. Not just because we have Amtrak, but because it is becoming politically acceptable to punish success by taking. Taking money that isn’t yours, and giving it to someone else who didn’t earn it is either theft or collectivism. And whatever name you give collectivism, it is still inherently evil.
Yes, evil.
I believe it to my core, and just as you, John, believe global warming is caused by humans, there is nothing you can do to make socialism more palatable to me. Yes, I believe we live in a nation trending toward socialism, and with every social program, and every unfair tax, and every inequitable distribution of wealth, we slide deeper toward the abyss. And there are people out there who are cheering this on. And they are registered as democrats.
I don't know how you can take the democrats to task in one sentence for reckless socialist spending, and then in the next defend the Gravina Island Bridge.
Quick numbers from Wiki:
Statistics show that Ketchikan's airport is the second largest in Southeast Alaska after Juneau International Airport, handling over 200,000 passengers a year, while the ferry shuttles approximately a half million people in the same time period (as of December 2006).[7] For comparison, the Golden Gate Bridge carried an average of 118,000 vehicles each day in 2006.
To me that is a waste of $400M. Especially when it was pork. Especially considering that it was diverted to help pay for federal aid to New Orleans. Especially considering that even though it wasn't earmarked for the bridge, Alaska got the money anyway.
Especially when the Alaska DOT says that the bridge isn't worth it unless someone else pays for it (They said it in hindsight, but still...)
And come on Mike, you can't actually support spending 14 hours on a plane after going into labor? I could see if she went into labor, gave her speech, then went to the hospital. You know, putting it off by 30 minutes or so, but a cross country plane ride is downright ridiculous. I know that women prefer to have their own doctors, but still, the kid was already diagnosed as a downs kid, and 14 hours later they get to the hospital. My first post was just joking about the conspiracy theorists, but when the actual truth/timeline came out this became an actual story. If you are going to talk about decision making abilities, this was an epic failure.
And...
I know that people see executive experience as comparable to executive governmental positions. I mean, you can look at Mitt Romney on a national scale, and Jim Oberweis on a local scale. Again, I went to wikipedia for the stats on this:
"During his three years as the [Developing Communities Project] director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000,"
Sounds like he did a pretty good job as an executive there.
And as for how he got elected to the State Senate, he just challenged the signatures, it was a court that threw his opponents off the ballot. If the signatures were bad, then the candidates were either cheating, or negligent.
Whew.
I'll let you and John argue the economics of the situation.
I'll try to defend myself without attacking you, though.
First off, I didn't mention ANYTHING about the so-called TrooperGate. I didn't mention anything about it because it is currently under investigation. I don't know what happened, and neither do you. Your version of the story closely resembles the version I heard. If that is true, great, no problem. Course the investigation could reveal that the Boss was trying to follow procedure and establish a line of evidence before firing the brother-in-law, and Palin wanted it taken care of quickly for family reasons. If that is the case there is a small amount of abuse of authority going on. (Reports on the web today indicate that the final report on the investigation was supposed to be due OCT 31, but that since Friday, steps are being taken to delay the report until after the election. This, IF TRUE, is troubling.)
Honestly, when I said she was the director for a Ted Stevens 527, I wasn't trying to attach her to Stevens, I was trying to attach her to 527's. IMO the money that MOST 527's raise is fairly dirty.
Next, I didn't include the Bridge to Nowhere details for brevity. However, in my own defense, this has become pretty standard in the last 4 years. If he never got labeled as a flip-flopper under the same circumstances, we might have had a President Kerry for the last 4 years.
I never said her fifth child was an embarrassment. I wasn't even trying to imply that. I was trying to imply that the circumstances around the birth of her fifth child represent questionable decision making abilities.
And finally, I didn't claim she was member of AIP. AIP did.
I didn't say YOU said anything about "troopergate".
sloth15 said...
Oh yeah, I forgot, she was once a member of the group (not the party) Alaskan Independence Party.
sloth15 said...
Mike, what do you think about Sarah Palin? (And the rumors that her 5th kid is actually her grandson!?!)
"...I was trying to attach her to 527's. IMO the money that MOST 527's raise is fairly dirty."
I've stated in the past, and cited evidence on this blog, that MOST 527 money goes to democrats.
I think John is withholding his next blog to spike the comment total on this one.
Excerpted from Frederick Engel's "Principles of Communism", discussing the gradual movement toward communism. Anything here look familiar?
"Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.), forced loans, and so forth.
Gradual expropriation of land owners, factory owners, railway and shipping magnates, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
Confiscation of the possessions of all émigrés and rebels against the majority of the people.
Organization of labour or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, thereby putting an end to competition among the workers and compelling the factory owners, insofar as they still exist, to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.
An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Centralization of the credit and monetary systems in the hands of the state through a national bank operating with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks bankers.
Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railways, and ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation -- all in the same proportion as the growth of the capital and labour force at the disposal of the nation.
Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mothers' care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.
Construction on national lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture, and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of either.
The demolition of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.
Equal right of inheritance for children born in and out of wedlock.
Concentration of all means of transport in the hands of the nation."
I was going to point-by-point that post, but it started to make my head hurt.
But I will question this one:
"Equal right of inheritance for children born in and out of wedlock."
So you're saying bastard children have less right to inheritance than legit children? I honestly don't get the point, and don't get why it would be a socialist viewpoint.
It means that there is less value on marriage. This is reflected in the current ideaology in many ways. Including, but not limited to, the so called marriage tax, whereby a couple would be taxed at a higher rate when married. This devalues the marriage contract.
It is also reflected in the tendency of current society to "reward" people for not getting married when they have children by giving them a free education, free housing, a montly stipend. Increasing the "proletariate" through breeding of a lower class increases the number of workers.
In short, it is a way of bringing about revolution through increasing the number of poor people.
That said, I don't agree with literally cutting off one's bastard children. I believe one should take responsibility...
it's raining, i have to put my top up.
Top's up, now I can finish my thought.
...for their children, whether by marriage or not, and I really don't like the term "bastard", even though I'm sure you didn't mean it to be insulting to the millions and millions of children born each year out of wedlock.
You have to read between the lines on some of these because it was written in the late 19th century, and some things aren't timely. But the INTENT of Engels' writing is clear enough, and there's plenty of interpretation of it if you care to look it up.
Go ahead, though, point by point. I'll be happy to debate it if you feel like it.
Yeah, not meant to be offensive, just trying to be a little clinical.
(Ok, that is not true either. Truth is, I'm just lazy and 'bastard' is easier to type than 'child born out of wedlock.' I could have thought about my audience a little and been a bit more sensitive or discrete.)
I see what you're saying and without going into respect of the institution of marriage, it seems to delve into the same type of issues dealt with between the left and right on sex education.
I mean, in a perfect world, families that love each other would be married and blah blah blah the whole country would look like a 50's sitcom.
Unfortunately, that is not the way it works in real life. I mean, personally I think it shouldn't cost any more or less to be married, but that aside, if you take away the incentive to stay single, it doesn't mean that hordes of people will be lined up at the justice of the peace the next day.
To (hopefully) bottle the end, one measure of a country's greatness is the lengths at which they go to protect the most vulnerable of its citizens. (That is paraphrased from someone famous, I'm sure.) We need to take care of our elderly, and out children. I've used this stat before, and I'll probably use it again, but ONE IN FIVE CHILDREN IS BORN INTO POVERTY. For all the talk the right spews about its moral superiority, cutting social programs would disproportionately effect children.
Post Script (for the times when P.S. is just too feminine):
I've been staring at the first post in this chain all day. Mike said: "It'll be nearly impossible for McCain to pick a VP that both rallies the hard core right wing of the republican party, while simultaneously putting much needed distance from the Bush White House." Well, he sure rallied the Right (biggest fund raising day and month) and put distance between himself and President Bush (you don't get much more distance than Alaska hehe.)
Also, a second Post Script (Because never in my life will I ever use P.P.S.): I was flipping channels half an hour ago and for some reason stopped on TMZ. Right after a 30 second piece on Liz Tyler's estranged husband they did 2 minutes on Sarah Palin. No agenda when I'm saying this, but when trash TV starts picking up politics it can't be good.
Also, props for posting in the car.
We finally find out who the daddy is.
Now, if I was an irresponsible reporter or blogger, I might fail to do my homework, and simply speculate:
Well, if he is 18, and she is 17, and she is 5 months pregnant, isn't there a chance that he was 18 and she was 16 when they conceived? And wouldn't that mean he is a statutory rapist?
Of course, I am NOT an irresponsible journalist or blogger. In fact, I tried to do my homework and get ages on these young people, but I don't have much time, and both of their wikipedia entries redirect to Sarah's entry.
So instead I'll just post it as a rhetorical example of bad journalism.
(Of course, this whole post is a rhetorical example of the new blogger-speculation-without-facts media machine. So it is possible that posting this will result in a paradox and accidentally end the world. If so, my bad.)
Oh god. The story is freaking unreal.
Seriously Mike, I'm going to be watching the news all week, and the first time I hear a right wing pundit Say that things like this are part of the Obama "Smear Machine" I might break my TV.
Because it is going to happen.
Seriously, it is not left or right journalism at this point, it is gossip-hungry americans buying magazines with scandal on the cover. Unfortunatly, I have a feeling that this story is going to sell like hotcakes, so politics be damned, it isn't going anywhere.
(Not spell or grammar checked.)
Don't you only get your news from the Daily Show?
Really not intentionally holding back the next blog. Had a lot of catching up to do at work today that I didn't have time to catch up on Meet the Press and This Week and I want to hear those before I comment on Palin.
I'm also reasonably sure that no one besides the 3 of us will ever end up reading all this . . .
In any case, on communism:
Boiled down to its central tenets communism is about central planning and communal ownership of land, labor, and capital. What Engels lists there (as well as Marx) is simply a script of the way they thought it would happen. That doesn't mean that if you happen to support something on the list you are pushing a Marxist agenda. For example, I don't think anyone would call Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke socialists just because they head the Fed, which certainly seems to fall under the heading of a "national bank."
I have a devout passion for economics. From "The Origin of Wealth" (one of my favorite books) there is something that I absolutely agree with, which is that "just as biology became a true science in the 20th century, so too will economics come into its own as a science in the 21st century." As such, I don't believe that there is such a thing as an "evil" economic system anymore than I believe in an "evil" chemistry. I don't object to communism on any moral level, just on a practical one: it doesn't work. Just like the idea of a geocentric solar system: it's not evil, just wrong. Injecting emotion into it is exactly how you end up with the backers of intelligent design. There is an answer that they want to be true, and so they intentionally look for only that evidence. I'm not at all saying that you're doing that here, just saying that it's a slippery slope.
Economics is simply the study of the allocation of scarce resources. In responding to a journalist who asked why he had changed his mind on something, Keynes said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?" That is the essence of the scientific mind. If I ever saw compelling evidence that a communist or any other economic system was superior to capitalism in the allocation of resources I would immediately become an advocate of it.
All of that is a very long-winded way of saying that to cite as evidence that something is bad "because it's a communist idea" is as ridiculous of an idea as saying that something is great "because it's blue." Something is a good or bad idea on its own merit; its inclusion or exclusion from communist or capitalist principle is irrelevant. For example, killing someone is a bad idea because all humans are born with an inherent right to live. "Thou shalt not kill" also happens to be in the Bible. However, it is not true that the reason killing people is bad is because "it's in the Bible". When you hear someone say that killing is wrong it would be faulty logic to say "oh they must be a Christian" or that they have a "Christian agenda" just as when you hear someone say something that happens to be in the Communist Manifesto it doesn't mean that they are a "Marxist" or are pushing a "Marxist agenda".
Which brings me to my final point. The extreme left fringe of the Democratic party (i.e. the likely Nader supporters) scare me, as does the extreme right fringe (i.e. the ones likely to vote for whoever Pat Robertson tells them to). But it's a cheap shot either way to use the fringe beliefs of one party to counter a left-center or right-center argument.
"I'm also reasonably sure that no one besides the 3 of us will ever end up reading all this . . ."
John, I am reading this, but more as an observer than as a potential poster.
It's really interesting how you've got a staunch Democrat and a staunch Republican, and then you in the middle making both sides play nice. That kind of interaction doesn't happen much in real life, I don't think.
No Becks, because in real life Mike & I would have this conversation over cocktails, and by the time comment 70 rolls around we'd both be in an alcohol induced love fest that would culminate in a fantastic kareoke version of Ebony & Ivory.
only it would be the eddie murphy/joe piscapo (sp?) version
That's ok; Joe Piscopo hasn't deserved to have his name spelled right since Johnny Dangerously in 1984.
And yes, I did have to look it up to make sure that was how it was spelled.
Yeah, I felt it wasn't worth looking up either.
We're really padding the count now, aren't we?
Yes
Yes we are.
L
O
L
See, it is not just a political story anymore, it is an entertainment story. Which means it WONT go away.
"Teenage mum Jamie Lynn Spears has sent troubled Alaskan 17-year-old Bristol Palin a baby gift package following the scandal surrounding her pregnancy.
Spears, who revealed she was pregnant last Christmas - when she was just 16 - feels a kinship to Palin, the daughter of U.S. Republican vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, and decided to show her support by sending designer baby burpcloths.
The Palin family confirmed reports their eldest daughter Sarah was pregnant shortly after the Alaskan governor was picked as Senator John McCain's running mate in the upcoming presidential election.
U.S. TV show Access Hollywood has revealed Jamie Lynn's mother Lynne Spears called Los Angeles baby boutique Petit Tresor on her daughter's behalf to order a small gift.
A store insider explains Lynne and Jamie Lynn wanted to send a gift worth under $100 (GBP54) to Bristol, and chose a collection of Plain Mary white burp cloths with pink writing.
The note attached to the gift read, "Dear Bristol, Hang in there. xoxo, Jamie Lynn." "
Do they have to report that as a campaign donation?
Admit it, you had to go looking for that. No one reads British tabloids in the US, and you're searching out trashy stories to make your point.
BTW, You could cite your sources... or are you taking one from the Biden playbook?
I got the news from IMDB.
They are sourced by WENN.
I don't know who that is.
This should be a direct link to it to make you happy.
And I don't have to go far to find these stories. They are hitting the front page of yahoo as well as over and over on Digg's top stories.
I read a couple different news sources throughout the day. Most of them are at least halfway credible.
And while I have no idea what this site is, they cite some pretty credible sources when they list 8 More Shocking Revelations
I particularly like the one about banning books.
Yeah... You and I definately have a different definition of credible.
Apparently even Obama isn't liberal enough for "Alternet.org".
Yeah, keep getting your news from them, and I won't have to apologize for calling you a marxist anymore.
Come on Mike. While the main site may have been some liberal machine, all it was was a collection of stories from Time Magazine, ABC News, The LA Times, and The Washington Post.
Ok, they also cited the Huffington Post. I guess I have to give you that one.
What did your candidate expect when he gave the nation 60 days to vet his VP pick? I mean, it has been 2 years and ~10% of Americans still think Obama is Muslim.
Rumor is going to get reported as fact. A lot of that rumor will get debunked, but there just isn't enough time to go over all of it.
But I guess according to McCain's campaign manager, this is the stuff he wants the election decided over. Issues be damned.
(Is Politico credible enough for you?)
So, let me get this straight... You don't agree that people vote for a candidate they like? One that looks good? One that is charming and likeable?
You're saying that people will only vote for Obama becuase of his position on the issues? Obama's really in trouble then, because he's on any given side of any given issue, depending on who's in the room, and has no discernable platform other than "change". If Obama gets elected, then that's all we'll have left in our pockets.
-sigh-
We just can't seem to keep things civil can we?
Mike, how can you take Weir to task for posting "non-credible" stories and then repeat outright lies yourself?
Since the day Obama announced he was running for President he has been 100% consistent with the fact that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans (and neither you, me, or anyone we know is part of that 5%).
Now, if you want to make the argument that there's no way he can balance the budget while making those cuts and implementing the kinds of programs he wants to, then that argument has some validity and I welcome you to make it.
Otherwise your clever turn of a phrase doesn't even have the credibility of "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".
John,
You're smart enough to know that the 5% he's talking about is the part of the economy that employs people, buys good and services, and generally runs the economy.
Don't accuse me of lying, when you know what I'm referring to. The 95% is a BS number because if you raise taxes on the businesses that make the economy what it is, the costs of everything will rise. Just look at the price of gasoline and the cost of a loaf of bread if you need an analog.
I'm not repeating anything I don't believe to be completely truthfull, and I resent that accusation. For someone who claims to have such love of economics, you should understand yourself that supply side economics is a well thought out, if not completely proven, school of thought.
I listened to a decent amount of her speech tonight, and I'll get to that later, but I'll just say for now that getting along is boring. We did it for most of the day.
And I know this is generic, not candidate specific, and parroting, but we had a surplus under who? And now we have a....???
The economy is historically better under who? (facts, not opinions.)
Until tomorrow, I'll leave you with some reading.
You know, the guy that owns the company I work for doesn't make $50,000 per year. He, and his partners, make quite a bit more... a couple of million per year. But when they have to start paying higher taxes, they'll stop hiring people like me.
Why oh why don't you get that simple concept. What are they going to pay ME with when the government comes asking for more?
I'm in tech support. I work in a field that is fiercely competetive. There are MILLIONS of Indians and Russians just waiting with their hands out. Waiting for MY job. When it gets too expensive to run a business here, companies will relocate.
Have you ever played a game called Sim City? It's a really good primer on economics, and when you raise taxes in the game businesses go away.
Tell me why I'm wasting my breath on this???
Mike, when you say that if Obama gets elected all we'll have left in our pockets is change, any reasonable thinking human being would interpret that as you saying that he's going to raise taxes. I don't know how I (or anyone else) can be expected to follow one over-simplified sentence down 3 levels to get to the meaning you intended. At the very least, you have ommitted key information which by your standard ("Because of these omissions of fact, in my opinion, you have lied.") means that you lied.
But if you don't agree with that one, then this statement that Obama "has no discernable platform other than 'change'" is 100% a lie. Here's his platform. It's real tough to find, too. You have to actually go to his website and click on issues. But don't let the facts get in the way or anything.
He has said he is going to raise taxes. In fact he said "I'm not bashful about it".
Now you're going to tell me I am lying?
And so far as his platform for "Change", it looks like a wish list to me, and not really a plan. But I've only visited his website a couple of times.
So, benefit of the doubt time here... what's his plan? I'm open to being wrong on this one, and I'll apologize fully.
Look, I don't think he's the Anti-Christ. I just think that his economic policy is flawed. Cutting spending and lowering taxes would be a winner in my book, and that's not what he's claiming he'll do.
Hey, even if he came out and said, "Flat/Fair tax is the way to go." he'd get my vote!
*And even you said it was a clever turn of phrase. Thanks :-)
Let me clarify, before anyone jumps down my throat here... I understand he's "only" going to raise taxes for the top 5%.
Please see my earlier statements on how I feel about this and its' effects on the rest of us.
Fact Vs. Fiction RNC Day 2
Hope the AP is a good enough source.
Anyways, I took some notes while watching the Palin speech last night:
-How many people in that room had heard of Palin before Friday? 10%? 25% max?
-I've seen shorter standing ovations for States of the Union. Or maybe she just can't control a crowd.
-Holy crap republicans, sit down and shut up. This is going to take 3 hours at this rate. You dont have to standing -O- her after every sentence.
-called her opponents "competent"
-Just from an auditory standpoint, I hate her voice.
-Talking Pt 1: rather lose an election than the war
-Talking Pt 2: republicans put America first
-Talking Pt 3: McCain = military = POW = experience
-she played up the service of her son and nephew while the biden's downplayed it
-CRAP, THE DEMS JUST LOST THE ELECTION. Piper is sickeningly adorable.
-she pledged more government support for special needs families
-Talking point 4: Dems are frequently not proud of America (she is looking at you Michelle.)
-Wow. Community organizers have no responsibility. She is gonna catch some heat on that comment.
-Wow, this crowd REALLY loves the attack lines.
-Now she attacks the media.
-Were there this many standing ovations last week? I remember a bunch, but not one after every sentence.
-"I pledge to carry myself in this spirit!" meaning of honor and dignity etc... when she said "I pledge" I was hoping for something substantial. Maybe something about policy.
-Shocking that Alaska has a surplus. They have 20% of the oil in this country and she taxes the shit out of em.
-God, enough with the ovations already. Are there 'applause' signs like they have for tv shows?
-"We're gonna lay more pipe"(lines.) Yeah, I'm sophomoric.
-There was an old dude in the crowd with a button that read "Hoosiers for the Hot Chick." I guess sexism is OK only some of the time.
-Obama speaking in front of Styrofoam columns was somehow bad, but speaking in front of a 40 foot TV screen isnt? I don't get it.
-attack attack attack.
-Wow, she just said that terror suspects have no rights. This chick is actually starting to scare me a little.
-wow, bordering on outright lies when she talked about taxes.
-I really hate the word Maverick when not talking about Pete Mitchell.
And then I actually fell asleep. Nothing against her, I was just really tired.
Seriously, does Stewart do it better than everyone?
Possibly NSFW.
Yeah, I saw the Daily Show last night and that was awesome. Most of the time he tries to keep things pretty light but every once in a while you can tell when something really pisses him off.
The only negative about it was that I think it got his blood up so much that when Newt came out he barely let him talk. That's unfortunate because Newt is one of the few ultra conservatives that I enjoy hearing debate the left. I don't agree with everything he says, but at least most of his argumments are based in logic and he keeps things pretty civil.
And Dick Morris is an absolute scumbag. It was true when he was heading campaigns for the Clintons and it's true now. He and Karl Rove are the Bill Bellicheck's of politics. They view it as this fun game where anything that helps you win is permissible. Even Machiavelli would have said "whoah, take it easy guys" if they were running his campaign. If hell does exist, I believe there is a special circle devoted to them.
20 seconds after a line about adult literacy, the cameras showed this
Post a Comment