sweetheart-mine

So what you're saying is that the federal government should waste less money, leaving more for state and local governments?

some states have little money to accomplish much of anything on several important fronts without matching federal dollars for certain programs or without possible specified federal grants.

maine middle-class families have been left out of the bush administration's budget "ideas" ever since he got there. this means that cities, towns, and the people that live in them go without and have seen their services wilt.

sometimes state and local governments show better financial judgment than the federal government ever could by itself, but i would never make the blanket statement you make above. the federal government waste of money apparent today goes way beyond the reach of any state or local government, and, as the vast majority of us know, benefits the very few.

oh sure! if i had kids, as a red sox fan that's surely what i'd have hoped for them.

I don't know about you, but where I live libraries and schools are owned by local governments. Hospitals are not typically owned by the federal government (with the exception of VA hospitals). That just leaves the post office. It's too bad there aren't privately-owned companies that can be used to mail things.

yes, but federal Waste of billions (and soon possibly trillions) of taxpayer dollars leads to less funding for states and districts, and thus taxpayers and their basic services. "Bye bye post office, library, school and hospital" is not as far-fetched as you so glibly make it sound.

Kristof: McCain more Bushy than Bush

as highlighted in this piece, and in some posts here today, mccain's downfall is that he sees most everything through a militaristic vision, a path of destruction and forceful control. even just as an end unto itself, where does this lead? mccain's view makes him a real throwback in my eyes, and devoid of possibilities for a future world powered mainly by diplomacy and devoid of possibilities for long-lasting communications (even though they might never be complete agreements). no matter what the fallback means are (and they are usually militaristic), if continual, focused, all-out-effort diplomacy -- along with firm stances but without immediate last-resort invasions and bombs -- fails, then i think the world fails, we fail ourselves and others. not only are we no longer a beacon in the world, we are becoming its waterloo. and so i think we must try, much harder than until now, to keep at it and to persuade others of the future that lies there. otherwise, what future, for anyone? mccain keeps saying "country first," but what about "world first"? "country first" is not going to cut it in the long run; we've been doing that for quite a while now, and all it has brought is isolation and well-earned fear of others.

i don't understand when people don't put mass violence as only a last resort in their "arsenal." if we end up with a president, as we have now, who is eager to stick our sword in middle-eastern ground in this superficial and extremely prideful way, i think that if bush is not our last president, mccain may well be. the same new-world-order people handle and advise them both. it would be like watching what we are supposedly (told we are) fighting for in iraq swirl right down our own drain. it's crazy.

who has the larger vision to see beyond the very old crap and to think and look ahead while leading? you know, i Really Don't Like politicians, but yet another one will be our next president, and i hope it's the one who sees the world through a broader lens and can conceive of many roads to peace, not only the bomb-them-out path. because that's a vicious circle. my friends . . .

the snl "debate" was very, very funny -- i lol'd. i thought they caught the politician-essence quirks of them both, in the end demonstrating mccain tailing off into the spin of the other planet he nowadays seems to choose to be on. very well done, and it almost makes me wish the pre-election phase could go on for a bit longer than it will . . . but not quite.

You guys can't even give McCain credit even a little bit.

i gave him credit: for being successfully disdainful and for being much more focused than he has seemed of late.

you remind me of one of the best statements i ever heard newman make in an interview (long time ago). although known for refusing to discuss his personal life, newman did finally respond when this interviewer asked why he thought his marriage was so long-lasting. he sighed, paused, and said: "you know, it's such a throwaway society. in our house, when the toaster breaks, we fix it."

it seemed pretty much a wash, except that most of the time mccain was more focused than he has been for some time. he did come across as not civil, which i'd think would not be a plus, but i'm afraid it might have been. that condescension has played well for republicans in national debates as far back as i can remember. on the other hand, obama did much better in his grasp of foreign policy than i think many expected him to. that may have been the main surprise, to some, which of course will work in obama's favor.

one thing i look forward to in the v.p. debate is that biden, despite the occasional gaffe, can be a very knowledgeable yet easygoing speaker and has a sense of humor, including about himself. that will be different!

did anyone else find it exhausting to watch and listen to a dense, relentless 90+ minutes of nonstop political posturing? i barely have the energy to breathe this morning.

Also, why wouldn't McCain look at Obama???

it had to be some kind of power non-move. not acknowledging obama by looking at him was one of the 7 or 8 repetitive types of disdain mccain showed tonight. i didn't know which mccain would show up, but somehow didn't expect that one. i should have, though -- it was the same tone he and his running mate and guiliani used at their convention. it was ugly, but i'm a bit dispirited by it because i think it will appeal to a lot of people. it could come across as strength, misguided though that is.

all this time many of obama's detractors have been calling him arrogant and aloof, and yet the debater mccain is the one with those qualities. interesting.

oh, how awful. may the lovable-looking and beloved lilly be home very very soon.

Does anyone know of anywhere on the web to get the Republican take on things? The only reason I ask is because I know where to find opinions that pretty much line up with my own and I've gotten a steady diet of it, so I'd like to know what these other people are thinking.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_obama.html

Because of Mexicans?

yes. (yes, that's why it's a refreshing change of topic.)

lou dobbs just told wolf blitzer he is 100% against the bailout. what a refreshing change of topic.

Guiliani

parasite.

And some don't like to be caught thinking.

some people don't like to think.

ok, let me rephrase. some people don't like being around people who analyze.

A lot of times I enjoy debating in this thread because the level of discourse is higher than most other places I can find (with the exception of friends and family). However, it makes it difficult when blanket statements like this are thrown out that blow my previous sentence right out of the water.

 

Not all people who are not voting for Obama are racist or scared of intellect. They just disagree. But whatever.

some you listed were personal observations. some were even facts (one dude is in fact blackish). but whatever.

i don't think anyone said "all" people not voting for obama are racist or scared of intellect. that would be foolish. if someone did, you'll need to point that out.

Why all the anti-education, anti-intellectual, elitist bias we hear from the right? Why glorify someone who barely graduated from the Naval Academy(thank goodness daddy and grandpa were Admirals, ring a bell?) and demonize someone who graduated with honors from Columbia and Harvard Law? How is being well educated ever a negative?

a lot of people don't like being around people who think. you'd think that would be less the case when selecting leaders.

i thought it rolled off the tongue a bit better.

maverickosity: stephen colbert is going to be very jealous.

I'm betting it gets weirder.

i bet so too. it's on a roll; it won't want to stop now.

I would say no. The tone of his campaign over the last couple months smells of Rove and/or his acolytes. I don't get the sense that McCain is at the wheel right now.

right, i think. that may be why he seems numb and a bit robotic, whereas he didn't when he was first running. come to think of it, rove hasn't been himself either lately, has he? what's happening, body snatchers and pod people?

it's not desperation, it's maverickosity.

oh yeah. i almost forgot. (i'm so glad you turned maverickness into a better and catchier noun. it needs it.)

I don't think it will happen. With barely a month until the election, I think it would cause irreparable damage, no matter who they brought on board. It couldn't be another unknown if they admit this one is a fiasco. The scrutiny would be intense and the trust in judgment would be shot. Then who? Mitt? Rudy? Jeb Bush? The Law & Order guy? I don't imagine the great undecided masses lining up to throw a parade for any of those guys.

it can't happen, i agree -- he's already been so erratic, especially recently. a bit concerning that he seems not "right" and we actually would end up with a president palin if he can't carry on. that reality is seeming way too real right now.

p.s. he should pick the "law & order" guy. fred has such broad horizons and the needed sparkling personality.

is mccain really making the decisions and running his own campaign, or is he just following his handlers' orders? either way, it's not good.

fear

maybe. probably. but you know, when he picked palin, which was a pretty crazy move given what we've seen (and not) of her, weren't he and obama basically tied in the polls? i don't understand the desperate moves, when it seemed obama would have a double-digit lead starting a long time ago but has never had it. and during the past two weeks you'd think obama's lead would have jumped more than it did; i don't think mccain is losing supporters, despite some odd and sometimes disturbing behavior.