[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So let me get this straight: it's supposedly a numbers game, but you don't even know any of the numbers? This is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy. If people don't take Obama's word for it that he's right, why should they believe you that he's right? Please bring some content to this, or do us all a favor (particularly your own side) and STFU about it. You're doing no one any good by promoting the impression that everyone who supports Obama's policy proposals does so through blind idol-worship.

This is a good point. I would have shared the number with you guys, but I know that it has been stated many many times in Obama's arguments. Despite this, I couldn't remember them My not being able to regurgitate them speaks more to my really lousy ability to remember these sorts of numbers than to my giving Obama some sort of blind idol-worship.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Obama has been very clear saying that these changes are targeted at the richest 5%, or whatever that number was, no?

Actually, his plan increases taxes for the top 1% ONLY.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060900950.html

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Depends where you look and which polls they use.
http://electoral-vote.com/ was more accurate last year.

The numbers are where they are now because there have only been the three state polls you quoted since the DNC, where Obama received a clear bounce. We'll have to give it another week or two before we see the effects of both conventions at the state level.

I used to like electoral-vote.com, but now I think that their process is really dumb. They basically just take the latest poll from what I think are hand selected sources and use it. For my money, pollster.com is your best bet.

[lpkmckenna]

Has everybody seen yesterday's The Daily Shows analysis of GOP apologists? You gotta see it!

You just can't make this stuff up! Farking hypocrites.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If.

Currently, if it where called today and the states trend as they have, there will be 9 points between them.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mccain/?map=10

Colorado, which is given to Obama but averages only +.4% for him would make the difference. And these polls are of "registered voters", many who will never vote, yet skew towards Obama. That's without what Dick Armey and Susan Estrich refer to as the "bubby factor". If you want to count Colorado in your column based on that .4% given the facts, you're engaging in mighty wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Unless Obama is over 5% up the day before election, he will lose - I predict. It will be close, but he will lose.

Your argument is valid, but I don't think it'll be as close as you do. The bigger problem in polling these days are cellphone only voters. They're currently not being included in polls and they tend to be more educated, wealthy, and liberal than those with land lines. Quick math... 120 million people voted in 2004, 8 million of whom didn't have landlines. (7.1 percent of voters in 2004 don't have a landline. Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...14/cell_phone/). Bush won the popular vote by 3 million. It wouldn't take much of a split in this demographic to change the race, and realistically the rate of cellphone only voters has only gone up since. (I don't know anyone with a home phone.)

I know my post isn't much more than some random facts, but I'm pretty sure John McCain is/should be worrying about this.

[Dakar V]

It comes as no surprise Rove was spinning the hell out of the situation.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Too late. They've already tried to defend Obama's lack of experience. They've tied themselves into knots insisting that Obama has more experience thanher.



AGAIN, no one has ever said that Obama does not have the experience to be the back-up. Only the experience to be the guy in charge.

You must be watching a different campaign than me. Pundits aside, the Dems message of the week seems to be that Palin deserves our respect as a governor, but that Obama/Biden are talking about issues and McCain/Palin aren't. They are defending Obama's experience when it's trivialized, but they very deliberately haven't said that Obama has more experience than Palin.

See: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...hat-about-you/ ("I’ll let Governor Palin talk about her experience and I’ll talk about mine,” Mr. Obama said, ticking through his accomplishments in the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate. As he criticized Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama said voters should focus instead on the proposals being put forward by both parties.)

And: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...lins_grea.html (Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, praised his rival Sarah Palin for "a great night" and a "very skillfully delivered political speech" but criticized her for not focusing on such key issues as health care and the economy.)

As for your second point, if you're not qualified to be president then you aren't qualified to be vice president. That's the inconsistency in their message that the Republicans introduced with the Palin pick. However, because Obama can't run on experience, that's obviously going to be dangerous for the Dems to exploit, so I don't think they'll hype it too much, however much we end up chattering about it here.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The numbers are where they are now because there have only been the three state polls you quoted since the DNC, where Obama received a clear bounce. We'll have to give it another week or two before we see the effects of both conventions at the state level.

Agreed, I was just stating now. thats all, I am excited to see the Palin Effect™.

I used to like electoral-vote.com, but now I think that their process is really dumb. They basically just take the latest poll from what I think are hand selected sources and use it. For my money, pollster.com is your best bet.

I think they are more recent on E-V but maybe you are right, all 4 states I checked were the latest available polls, but ill check them more, thanks

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Actually, his plan increases taxes for the top 1% ONLY.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060900950.html

Thank you!

Think about it people, from a purely logical perspective, but aside your philosophical beliefs in equality, welfare, morality, and all that...

You have a set of problems: health care expenses are increasing across the board in part because there are a growing number of people uninsured, increasing energy costs are putting a burden on the poor and middle class, etc. etc. You want to design a solution that will benefit the greatest number of people. Why? Not solely for equality and reasons of morality, but because we want to minimize economic strain since this negatively effects us all. If you can design a system where the tradeoff makes things worse for 1% of the population and better for 99%, isn't this a no brainer, hypothetically speaking?

It's kind of like the classic military decision that is explored in shows like Battlestar Galactica: do you intentionally kill 100 people to save the lives of 1000, or not kill the 100 people because that act in and of itself is philosophically and morally wrong?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Actually, his plan increases taxes for the top 1% ONLY.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060900950.html

How can people who pay no taxes get a 5.5% tax decrease? Oh yeah, Obama's new welfare program that the WP didn't explain. Funny. I didn't expect much more from them.

It would be very interesting, and more illustrative to see a chart that showed the percentage of one's income one pays out under each plan. I'd like to see whose tax rates are flatter, as that's really the only way to tax fairly. But again, this is an analysis made by a couple of liberal think tanks, parroted by the Washington Post. I don't really think that they want all the facts to be known.

I'm just glad to hear that apparently Obama's plan keeps the tax cuts the middle class got from Bush, despite all Democrats crying about them in the past.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

Your argument is valid, but I don't think it'll be as close as you do. The bigger problem in polling these days are cellphone only voters. They're currently not being included in polls and they tend to be more educated, wealthy, and liberal than those with land lines. Quick math... 120 million people voted in 2004, 8 million of whom didn't have landlines. (7.1 percent of voters in 2004 don't have a landline. Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...14/cell_phone/). Bush won the popular vote by 3 million. It wouldn't take much of a split in this demographic to change the race, and realistically the rate of cellphone only voters has only gone up since. (I don't know anyone with a home phone.)

I know my post isn't much more than some random facts, but I'm pretty sure John McCain is/should be worrying about this.

Polls generally skew democrat. The reason being that more people who actually get contacted by phone are those who ARE HOME. During working hours, that tends to be the unemployed and women more than working men. Especially when you poll "registered voters" instead of "likely voters" which tend to skew more toward Republicans. Efforts have been made by people like Zogby in the past to fix this, but it isn't an easy task. I remember 1996 when almost all the polls where off, some by 10 points favoring Democrats when compared to the final numbers. That was the year Zogby hit it big by being the only pollster that was even close.

Add that to what Estrich and Armey have refered to as the "bubba vote" (people who won't admit that they won't vote for Obama for fear that they'll be viewed as racists) that Estrich witnessed during the primaries, (polls showing Obama winning big, yet Hillary pulls it out) and your races which are shown to be around or just outside the margin of error aren't as close as what Obama supporters likely hope for.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How can people who pay no taxes get a 5.5% tax decrease? Oh yeah, Obama's new welfare program that the WP didn't explain. Funny. I didn't expect much more from them.

Who pays no taxes? 15% + $780 is no taxes?
So why would increasing them 9 or 12% be considered bad if it's no big deal?

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...164272,00.html

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You must be watching a different campaign than me. Pundits aside, the Dems message of the week seems to be that Palin deserves our respect as a governor, but that Obama/Biden are talking about issues and McCain/Palin aren't.

At least twice that I know of their campaign has either taken shots at her experience, or had to defend his experience by saying he had more than her.

"Talking about the issues" is meaningless. If you are talking about the issues and not explaining that you're planning a new welfare program via tax policy, and not explaining that your "cut and run" military policy would have ensured defeat, and not talking about how it is you are going to stimulate the economy by slapping huge tax fines on those who are responsible for creating new jobs and sources of income, you're just exhausting hot air and euphemistic pablum.

For the most part, Palin's speech last night talked about "the issues" and highlighted how Obama was wrong concerning them, and McCain was right. I guess when you don't have experience to brag about, and you really can't explain your stances on policy without having to answer questions about the socialistic nature of your ideas, then you'll talk generically about "the issues". Good for them!

As for your second point, if you're not qualified to be president then you aren't qualified to be vice president.

So in voting for GHWB, your argument is that the American people believed that Dan Quayle was ready and qualified to be President? Why is it that the guys on the #2 ballot are often times people who never could get to #1 on their own? The road to VP is littered with failed primary candidates like Joe Biden who never could get the members of their party to believe that they were the best candidate for the job of President, no less a majority of both parties. Biden has never even been choosen as the second best in regards to votes.

The fact is that there are different standards for a competent President and his/her VP. Otherwise, the VP would be the one at the top of the ticket. Given that for the most part a VP traditionally has had little power (save for maybe Dick Cheney), few important responsibilities and is seldom ever needed to "take over", I'm not sure the average American really believes that the person in the #2 slot must be as experienced and worthy as their boss, the President. In fact, this election shows that a large part of the populace doesn't really require the candidate of the #1 position to be all that experienced or capable.

[zerostar]

Since this is relevant to the main topic I will post it. Obama was just on MSNBC and they asked him a few questions I will quote as accurately as I can remember.

Q: Why aren't you responding more to Palin?
A: OBAMA: Because I'm campaigning against John McCain, and their policies are the same.

Q: Do you have any reaction to the comments of your experience as a community organizer/reaction to harshness at you:
A: OBAMA: How can they think that is not relevant? Who are they fighting for if they think fighting for workers in the community is not important?
OBAMA: i've been called worse on the basketball court, this is no big deal.

Q: Regarding the scrutiny Palin has received
A: OBAMA: This is nothing new. I expect that she wants to receive the same scrutiny as any male candidate, which includes questioning experience. I've been going through this for 19 months, she's been going through it for 4 days.
Ultimately, the election is about McCain and myself and who is best to lead the country.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

At least twice that I know of their campaign has either taken shots at her experience, or had to defend his experience by saying he had more than her.

Links please? I don't remember this.

The first time he even mentioned her was during a rally:

She “seems like a very nice person,” he began, repeating remarks he’s made often since McCain announced her selection on Friday. “But I’ve got to say she’s opposed, like John McCain is, to equal pay for equal work. That doesn’t make sense to me.”

The official memo said:
John McCain made a political calculation and has chosen a candidate who will mollify the right and shares his view that the economic policies of George W. Bush are working and should continue," the memo read. "And that’s a risk America can’t afford."

"What does it say that he knuckled under to the right-wing of his party, who angrily threatened to veto McCain’s preferred candidates, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, for their pro-choice views?," the memo reads. "What does it say that, in order to satisfy the right, he hastily selected someone he barely knew-and had only met once – to serve a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Who pays no taxes?

A lot of low income families.

Instead of paying taxes, Obama's plan is to take money investors could have put back into the markets for things like jobs and business expansion and just cut a welfare tax check to families who don't pay any taxes. In other words, classic socialistic wealth redistribution.

For some reason, he doesn't highlight that in any of his speeches.

http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1219103...st_emailed_day

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Polls generally skew democrat. The reason being that more people who actually get contacted by phone are those who ARE HOME. During working hours, that tends to be the unemployed and women more than working men. Especially when you poll "registered voters" instead of "likely voters" which tend to skew more toward Republicans. Efforts have been made by people like Zogby in the past to fix this, but it isn't an easy task. I remember 1996 when almost all the polls where off, some by 10 points favoring Democrats when compared to the final numbers. That was the year Zogby hit it big by being the only pollster that was even close.

Add that to what Estrich and Armey have refered to as the "bubba vote" (people who won't admit that they won't vote for Obama for fear that they'll be viewed as racists) that Estrich witnessed during the primaries, (polls showing Obama winning big, yet Hillary pulls it out) and your races which are shown to be around or just outside the margin of error aren't as close as what Obama supporters likely hope for.

You keep saying that polls skew Democrats, but what evidence do you have? Democrats did better in 2006 than polls were predicting, so where are you getting this information from?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Links please? I don't remember this.

http://www.observer.com/2008/politic...icy-experience

I'm looking for the other story where Obama responded, but can't find it yet. I'll try to post when I find it.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

http://www.observer.com/2008/politic...icy-experience

Stating facts is not taking shots, stating facts are still facts no matter the but.. but...

don't bother finding the other, I know which you mean I think about the running the campaign, again no lies.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Links please? I don't remember this."

09/02 on CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwkOOrp0HyE

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A lot of low income families.

Instead of paying taxes, Obama's plan is to take money investors could have put back into the markets for things like jobs and business expansion and just cut a welfare tax check to families who don't pay any taxes. In other words, classic socialistic wealth redistribution.

For some reason, he doesn't highlight that in any of his speeches.

http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1219103...st_emailed_day

This is no different than any other 1040 added plan, did you just start paying attention? Republicans and Democrats alike have supported these programs in the past, including the child tax credit (and supported doubling it!)

Is there any difference in principal with these types of programs then rebates and tax credits and even tax brackets? No its just fun and hyperbole to call it WELFAYYYRE.

Welfare for farmers is fine, for companies shipping jobs overseas is fine, in a state of economic hardship it is not fine for the American working family, I get it. I really do.

[Gee-Man]

No one's mentioned this yet, but...

I thought Gov. Palin had a good and very smoothly delivered speech last night, with some good lines, some good zingers against Obama, and a whole lot of sarcasm in between. I suppose she has the right, what with all the scrutiny she's been getting for the past 4 days, but her snarky tone from the middle half onward, just after her bio bit, started off as refreshing, then became tedious by the end of the speech. Sheesh - we get it, you clearly don't like Obama personally. Any chance you could at least try to appear respectful, just a little bit?

She's definitely better than anything I've seen McCain deliver. In any case, although it was a good speech, one part seriously pissed me off - her gleeful mocking of Obama's days as a community organizer. Hey Governor Palin - I happen to know of another guy who was one of those do-nothing "community organizers" that you look down on:



My brother was a community organizer for many years, so I've seen firsthand the good work that they do, typically for no real financial benefit to themselves. In a contest of noble character, the fact that she was willing to trash people who spend their lives trying to do some good, and all for some cheap red meat to throw to the convention crowd was, in my book, telling. And disgusting.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

just after her bio bit, started off as refreshing, then became tedious by the end of the speech. Sheesh - we get it, you clearly don't like Obama personally. Any chance you could at least try to appear respectful, just a little bit?

Thats why I posted Obamas response today on MSNBC, it was great, cool as a cucumber and basically said he is running against McCain, not her, shut her down and kept on going.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So in voting for GHWB, your argument is that the American people believed that Dan Quayle was ready and qualified to be President? Why is it that the guys on the #2 ballot are often times people who never could get to #1 on their own? The road to VP is littered with failed primary candidates like Joe Biden who never could get the members of their party to believe that they were the best candidate for the job of President, no less a majority of both parties. Biden has never even been choosen as the second best in regards to votes.

The fact is that there are different standards for a competent President and his/her VP. Otherwise, the VP would be the one at the top of the ticket. Given that for the most part a VP traditionally has had little power (save for maybe Dick Cheney), few important responsibilities and is seldom ever needed to "take over", I'm not sure the average American really believes that the person in the #2 slot must be as experienced and worthy as their boss, the President. In fact, this election shows that a large part of the populace doesn't really require the candidate of the #1 position to be all that experienced or capable.

There's a difference between "competent" and "best candidate." The parties nominate the person for president that they think will be the best candidate. Very often, there enter into the selection process for "best candidate" issues that have nothing to do with competency, but have more to do with adherence to party orthodoxy (such as abortion). I think it makes intuitive sense that, aside from the consideration of whether someone is the best candidate, there are varying levels of competency below that, which I'll define broadly as the ability to execute the job, irrespective of their political views. Very often a few of the failed primary candidates you could safely describe as "competent," yet they not determined by the selection process to be the best candidate (for example: John McCain in 2000).

I think most people expect that the vice president will have this kind of minimum level of competency to execute the job if called upon (yes, including Dan Quayle). One of the McCain campaign's criticisms of Obama is that we can't take a chance on his inexperience, implying that he's not even minimally competent. To nominate someone for VP who is similarly inexperienced, then, is inconsistent.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A lot of low income families.

Instead of paying taxes, Obama's plan is to take money investors could have put back into the markets for things like jobs and business expansion and just cut a welfare tax check to families who don't pay any taxes. In other words, classic socialistic wealth redistribution.

For some reason, he doesn't highlight that in any of his speeches.

http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1219103...st_emailed_day

The assumption here is that those jobs and business expansion would somehow benefit the same group at the bottom end of the socio-economic ladder. Why should we assume that?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

No one's mentioned this yet, but...

I thought Gov. Palin had a good and very smoothly delivered speech last night, with some good lines, some good zingers against Obama, and a whole lot of sarcasm in between. I suppose she has the right, what with all the scrutiny she's been getting for the past 4 days, but her snarky tone from the middle half onward, just after her bio bit, started off as refreshing, then became tedious by the end of the speech. Sheesh - we get it, you clearly don't like Obama personally. Any chance you could at least try to appear respectful, just a little bit?

She's definitely better than anything I've seen McCain deliver. In any case, although it was a good speech, one part seriously pissed me off - her gleeful mocking of Obama's days as a community organizer. Hey Governor Palin - I happen to know of another guy who was one of those do-nothing "community organizers" that you look down on:



My brother was a community organizer for many years, so I've seen firsthand the good work that they do, typically for no real financial benefit to themselves. In a contest of noble character, the fact that she was willing to trash people who spend their lives trying to do some good, and all for some cheap red meat to throw to the convention crowd was, in my book, telling. And disgusting.

Good call, man. Good call.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Was this already mentioned? Couldn't find it in Search here, so.....

Wrong woman, wrong message

[Chongo]

This is Obama's community organizer model, and his son praised him for following his model.
from Algore's Current website http://current.com/items (from the Boston Globe)

ALL THE elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situations and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd's chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people. The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style.
Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.

L. DAVID ALINSKY

[lpkmckenna]

Keeping to the high road. Excellent, Obama, excellent.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A lot of low income families.

Instead of paying taxes, Obama's plan is to take money investors could have put back into the markets for things like jobs and business expansion and just cut a welfare tax check to families who don't pay any taxes. In other words, classic socialistic wealth redistribution.

For some reason, he doesn't highlight that in any of his speeches.

http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1219103...st_emailed_day

Yeah because it's so much better to tax income from actual work, rather than easy money from speculation. The international markets have lost their raison d'être a long time ago. The powerful have managed to have everybody and his dogs somehow involved with the stock market with the 401k fallacy, so that they can make as much money : if the stocks go up they pile up tons of $$ and everybody is happy because their meager retirement account is going up. If it gose down, they still make money while shorting, and can justify layoffs. I'd rather tax the crap out of speculation in order to get the money back and ACTUALLY invested in society.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Keeping to the high road. Excellent, Obama, excellent.

In this day and age, there's really no reason for a candidate to take the low road. That's what the bloggers are for.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is Obama's community organizer model, and his son praised him for following his model.

Good god this secret Marxist/Communist/Muslim/Babykiller thing is tedious. Do you guys actually believe this stuff, or are you just having fun trying to convince anybody that a totally mainstream politician has a secret agenda to destroy the U.S.?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

No one's mentioned this yet, but...

I thought Gov. Palin had a good and very smoothly delivered speech last night, with some good lines, some good zingers against Obama, and a whole lot of sarcasm in between. I suppose she has the right, what with all the scrutiny she's been getting for the past 4 days, but her snarky tone from the middle half onward, just after her bio bit, started off as refreshing, then became tedious by the end of the speech. Sheesh - we get it, you clearly don't like Obama personally. Any chance you could at least try to appear respectful, just a little bit?

She's definitely better than anything I've seen McCain deliver. In any case, although it was a good speech, one part seriously pissed me off - her gleeful mocking of Obama's days as a community organizer. Hey Governor Palin - I happen to know of another guy who was one of those do-nothing "community organizers" that you look down on:



My brother was a community organizer for many years, so I've seen firsthand the good work that they do, typically for no real financial benefit to themselves. In a contest of noble character, the fact that she was willing to trash people who spend their lives trying to do some good, and all for some cheap red meat to throw to the convention crowd was, in my book, telling. And disgusting.

Hats off to your brother, but I think her tone was much needed. There was a lot of concern that she'd not be able to hold up to Biden. The fact that she went directly after Obama was telling and gave the red meat that convention crowd and the millions of viewers needed.

She's been literally skewered by a wealth of pathological hatred and sexism. When her experience as mayor was belittled, she belittled back. It's all fair game. I know you'd like to see them take the high road, but if they do, they'll be the only ones and they will lose. You can thank Hillary for this history lesson.

Now the real test will be whether or not she can conduct herself gaffeless for the next couple of months.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Good god this secret Marxist/Communist/Muslim/Babykiller thing is tedious. Do you guys actually believe this stuff, or are you just having fun trying to convince anybody that a totally mainstream politician has a secret agenda to destroy the U.S.?

Talk about

Do you really think the assumption here is that Obama is bent on actually destroying the U.S. as much as it is his support for policy with a substantial historical record of failure? None of the above has been used by the McCain campaign at all. Of course fear tactics will be used. What do you think the "oh boy, McCain may only have a few months left" BS is about? (which started well before his VP pick BTW). How about the book banning nonsense? The "Creationism" BS? She's going to take your science and your Danielle Steele novels?

C'mon, let's not pretend Obama is being victimized here.

[placebo1969]

Has this poll been posted? According to CBS News, Senators McCain and Obama are tied.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

She's been literally skewered by a wealth of pathological hatred and sexism. When her experience as mayor was belittled, she belittled back. It's all fair game. I know you'd like to see them take the high road, but if they do, they'll be the only ones and they will lose. You can thank Hillary for this history lesson.

I dunno, I don't think Hillary was the one taking the high road. There was a lot of sexism thrown Hillary's way, but none of it was coming from the Obama campaign, it was mostly the media and out of control bloggers. If anything, Hillary attacked Obama first and relentlessly. I wouldn't take the same lesson out of her defeat as "take the low road".

I know it's politics as usual, and I'm not surprised or shocked by the overall smugness/snarkiness in Palin's speech. Like I said, she's somewhat due. I just thought the community organizer thing was way way over the line, and kinda dumb too. She could have got in a zinger about his accomplishments while he was an organizer without trash-talking the entire profession. Think about it - the people who volunteer to walk the streets and get out the vote for Republicans in the days leading up to Election Day are... wait for it... "community organizers". How funny would it be if all of them threaten to boycott on November 4th because of the public dissing by her.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you really think the assumption here is that Obama is bent on actually destroying the U.S. as much as it is his support for policy with a substantial historical record of failure?

So you are saying the economic policies of the last 8 years have been a success?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Talk about

Do you really think the assumption here is that Obama is bent on actually destroying the U.S. as much as it is his support for policy with a substantial historical record of failure?

That may be what you think (and I strongly disagree), but it's not what I was responding to. The reference to Alinsky is obviously a none-too-subtle way of saying that Obama is a communist. Therefore, he will secretly destroy the USA. The intended message is not exactly dog-whistle, more like steam train-whistle.

None of the above has been used by the McCain campaign at all. Of course fear tactics will be used. What do you think the "oh boy, McCain may only have a few months left" BS is about? (which started well before his VP pick BTW). How about the book banning nonsense? The "Creationism" BS? She's going to take your science and your Danielle Steele novels?

C'mon, let's not pretend Obama is being victimized here.

I'm not claiming that no one on the left engages in fear tactics. That's what negative campaigning is all about. Of course partisans will be partisan - that's how politics works. I'm not trying to make a general point about who is a victim more or less often, I'm just tired of seeing the same tired secret muslim/marxist/communist/infanticide stuff w.r.t. Obama, when all of it has no basis in reality. Nobody who's sane can really believe that the mainstream, corporate-savvy, Democratic nominee for president is actually planning to convert us all to Islam, or whatever they're afraid of this week.

If you want to debunk tired stereotypes about McCain when they show up here, feel free. I won't stop you.

Unless they're true, of course

[Helmling]

Well, one thing's for sure judging from this 17 page thread: Choosing Palin was a great way to get the country focused on the GOP ticket. If I were McCain, though, I'd be a little concerned that he's getting lost in the hoopla over his VP pick.

By the way, there's a very interesting article on McCain at Time.com.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I happen to know of another guy who was one of those do-nothing "community organizers" that you look down on:

The fact that you'd equate the great MLK, Jr. to a self-aggrandizing demagogue like Obama is a bit revolting. MLK was a civil rights luminary. Obama has next to nothing to show for all of the "community organizing" he did, especially when compared to MLK. Plus, MLK never would have hoisted up a pathetic guy like Jeremiah Wright as his spiritual mentor. I think that if MLK were reading this thread he'd be appalled at the comparison as well. To his credit, I have yet to see Obama have the nerve to invoke MLK's memory for political purposes - I think he knows it could cost him dearly to do so.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Was this already mentioned? Couldn't find it in Search here, so.....

Wrong woman, wrong message

Interesting commentary. To me it reads as a case of damning with faint praise for Sarah Palin while excoriating John McCain for even picking her in the first place. Although I was quite pleased to see the writer make the same argument I did earlier in this thread--namely, that the best woman for the job would have been Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Sen. Olympia Snowe or former Sen. Elizabeth Dole--but that McCain did not choose the best woman for the job (in terms of competency and experience) but rather the best ideologically compatible woman for the job. It's his choice, but I think it is going to not resonate as well as he might hope with non-right-wing anti-abortion females.

[Cold Warrior]

I just watched her speech on YouTube. Is it me, or does she sound very Canadian in her English?

[Dork.]

She did spend most of her life in Alaska, which is like Canada, only colder....

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

She's been literally skewered by a wealth of pathological hatred and sexism. When her experience as mayor was belittled, she belittled back. It's all fair game. I know you'd like to see them take the high road, but if they do, they'll be the only ones and they will lose. You can thank Hillary for this history lesson.

Again with the sexism argument? Puhleeese.

Who here or in the media has questioned her qualifications because she is a woman? There have been plenty of other reasons to question her qualifications but being a woman is not one of them and you know that.

But I will say it again, she is NOT the most qualified woman--in terms of managerial and/or executive experience I think Elizabeth Dole beats outs Sens. Hutchinson and Snowe even though the latter two have much more legislative and policy experience--but she is the most ideologically qualified woman for the Republican party. If the Republicans wanted to have a female VP to draw in un-decided voters they could have done worlds better with the moderate Olympia Snowe or the slightly more conservative, but better known, Elizabeth Dole. Heck, with one of those two on the ticket I might even have been tempted to vote for the Republicans just to be able to say I helped put a woman a heart-beat away from the presidency. But Sarah Palin? BAH! She appeals to a very specific segment of the electorate that would never vote Democratic anyways.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I just watched her speech on YouTube. Is it me, or does she sound very Canadian in her English?

I was commenting on this to a buddy of mine when we watched the speech last night. She has a flat, rounded pronunciation that is more common to the Midwest and Great Lakes area of this country. I think it is most noticeable in vowel-heavy words where all the vowels are pronounced consistently in one way (e.g.: a is always ehh, not eh or uh, o is always oh, not ohh or uh). I have some in-laws from the Midwest part of the country and they have this pronunciation. For example, the word dog is ALWAYS pronounced with a "pure" vowel sound (i.e.: dohwg not dawg). I was reading a few years ago that linguists have been studying this phenomena for quite some time and think that the English language is slowly undergoing another Great Vowel Shift where the pronunciation of the major vowels change across the whole language. The last time this happened was in the 1400s if I'm not mistaken. But as always, Oisín is the one to provide the definitive, and final, answer to these types of questions.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The fact that you'd equate the great MLK, Jr. to a self-aggrandizing demagogue like Obama is a bit revolting. MLK was a civil rights luminary. Obama has next to nothing to show for all of the "community organizing" he did, especially when compared to MLK. Plus, MLK never would have hoisted up a pathetic guy like Jeremiah Wright as his spiritual mentor. I think that if MLK were reading this thread he'd be appalled at the comparison as well. To his credit, I have yet to see Obama have the nerve to invoke MLK's memory for political purposes - I think he knows it could cost him dearly to do so.

I just knew when I posted it that someone here would take this line of argument. So I will simply say this:

MLK was a community organizer (look it up). Obama was also a community organizer, regardless of what you think of him. Palin didn't just trash-talk Obama's record AS a community organizer, she trashed the job itself. That means she was trashing people like MLK and anybody else who's ever done the same job. Simple as that.

If you think that this simple list of facts means Obama = MLK, then you have a problem with reading comprehension.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's kind of like the classic military decision that is explored in shows like Battlestar Galactica: do you intentionally kill 100 people to save the lives of 1000, or not kill the 100 people because that act in and of itself is philosophically and morally wrong?

Glad to see that basic philosophy education now come from sci fi TV shows.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I just watched her speech on YouTube. Is it me, or does she sound very Canadian in her English?

After three trips to Ontario province (Lac Suel) I picked it up right away. It seems the states bordering Canada have been influenced by their speaking style, ya know?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Good god this secret Marxist/Communist/Muslim/Babykiller thing is tedious. Do you guys actually believe this stuff, or are you just having fun trying to convince anybody that a totally mainstream politician has a secret agenda to destroy the U.S.?

The opinion of Alinsky's son in not good enough. If anyone knows his style he should.

a little more background
from The Washington Post, Sunday, March 25, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032401152.html

CHICAGO -- The job offer to "Miss Hillary Rodham, Wellesley College" was dated Oct. 25, 1968, and signed by Saul D. Alinsky, the charismatic community organizer who believed that the urban poor could become their own best advocates in a world that largely ignored them.

Alinsky thought highly of 21-year-old Rodham, a student government president who grew up in the Chicago suburbs. She was in the midst of a year-long analysis of Alinsky's aggressive mobilizing tactics, and he was searching for "competent political literates" to move to Chicago to build grass-roots organizations.

Seventeen years later, another young honor student was offered a job as an organizer in Chicago. By then, Alinsky had died, but a group of his disciples hired Barack Obama, a 23-year-old Columbia University graduate, to organize black residents on the South Side, while learning and applying Alinsky's philosophy of street-level democracy. The recruiter called the $13,000-a-year job "very romantic, until you do it."

[hyteckit]

I'm going to blame Palin's speech for the 350 point drop in the Dow today.