New and Improved 3-ply election thread...

[kwall]

So anyone who is not in agreement with you must be far to the left so far as to be socialist?

 

I believe in democratic socialism

 

i wasn't talking to you.

[Edie]

In reading this editorial by Fareed Zakaria, I came across this comment that I think really sums up why McCain is not suited to be POTUS.

 

dd:

 

Being an independent voter from New Hampshire, I had the opportunity to see (and did see) virtually every candidate from both parties during the primaries. For those of you who can remember past last night's headlines, recall that in December 2007, John McCain was all but written off as a Republican contender -everyone thought it would be Giuliani or Romney. McCain fired almost his whole campaign staff and ran everything himself. When I saw him speak, I was impressed. Without all the "advisors" and "marketers", I believe I saw the real John McCain. At that time, I decided that McCain would be the best Republican candidate, and Obama the best Democratic candidate - I'd be pleased to choose between the two in November 2008.

 

But since then - now that he is the Republican candidate, it is clear to me that McCain will do/say anything just to win the presidency. He calls himself a patriot, but he is the worst kind of traitor- a traitor to his own ideals. The people and groups he shunned then (when he was himself and had nothing to lose) are the ones he panders to now. With the exception of his Iraq war stance he has completey changed his stance on most key issues.

Picking Sarah Palin is just one more example of John McCain doing anything he can to be elected. He saw a "rising star" woman, and thought he'd be able to pick up women voters- at the same time he'd get a VP who he could control by feeding her sound bytes. I come from a family that has had women in fairly high government offices at both the state and federal level, so I would be happy to have a women President or VP, but not one who is ignorant to the fact that she was chosen BECAUSE of her sex and personality, not because she was the best choice. Any woman who can't see that McCain is condescending toward toward her is not the type of woman I want in the White House.

 

I want to believe that the real John McCain is still there- buried behind the Campaign Advisors and Spin doctors he re-hired, and who undoubtedly picked Palin. But I can't be certain which McCain I'll get.

 

Say what you want about Obama, but he has been largely consistent since the very beginning of his campaign.

 

I suggest you keep these things in mind when you vote in November.

[fatheadfred]

The house dissed that buy-in. Kind of a surprise to me.

[ih8music]

The house dissed that buy-in. Kind of a surprise to me.

we're all fucked.

[kwall]

The house dissed that buy-in. Kind of a surprise to me.

and even though they have the majority, i fully expect the democrats to blame the republicans for it. probably bush himself, too. and reagan.

[Good Old Neon]

From the Daily Kos:

 

What Does CBS Have?

by BarbinMD

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 07:05:11 AM PDT

 

Buried near the end of today's column from Howard Kurtz, where he is talking about Sarah Palin's disastrous interview with Katie Couric, was this interesting tidbit:

 

And the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.

 

Given the excruciatingly bad answers she gave on Alaska's proximity to Russia giving her foreign policy experience, or her take on the $700 billion bailout, it's hard to believe that there's anything worse...isn't it? But the important question is, what is CBS waiting for? Why haven't they aired the entire tape?

 

source - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/2...4907/302/613984

[kwall]

But the important question is, what is CBS waiting for?

probably the last week of october.

 

Why haven't they aired the entire tape?

probably because they have an agenda.

[NightOfJoy]

and even though they have the majority, i fully expect the democrats to blame the republicans for it. probably bush himself, too. and reagan.

 

More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill.

[JUDE]

More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill.

 

"Reagan Democrats"

[bleedorange]

Here's an interesting video cutting together some clips from 2004. Of course, there is an obvious and transparent political slant to it, so I'm sure it will be dismissed out of hand, but it's still interesting.

 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Hearings

[sweetheart-mine]

re: waste in defense spending brought up earlier, most of you probably know that the u.s. now spends more on our military (and military ventures) than all the rest of the countries in the world combined. strange? lopsided beyond belief? here the years vary only slightly and are all twenty-first-century figures:

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

 

$623 billion -- u.s. military expenditures

$500 billion -- the rest of the world, including $65 billion by china, $50 billion by russia, and it's downward from there.

 

i'm no economist, but really, what does this tell the world about our priorities?

[sweetheart-mine]

With all due respect, and in essence I agree with you, Obama often comes across every bit as militaristic as McCain, his saber-rattling towards Iran and Pakistan every bit as bellicose. The unfortunate fact is, regardless of who is in the White House, the US, more often than not, does not respect borders or the autonomy of other nations.

 

it usually disappoints me when obama talks about fighting the "war on terror." at the same time, i recognize that he has to do it -- he has to have a perspective on it and plans for possible actions he might consider taking IF he found them necessary as president. i completely disagree that obama "comes across every bit as militaristic as mccain" and that his saber-rattling is "every bit as bellicose" as mccain's. they're not even close. also, obama's military talk is only one aspect of his broader foreign-policy perspective. mccain appears to have little to no other perspective -- the military filter is always there.

[markosis]

[intolerant] behavior will not change anyone's mind. There needs to be understanding and we need to see what is common between us as humans, not take hardcore stances against one another.

 

Just wanted to quote/paraphrase myself from another thread.

[John Smith]

and even though they have the majority, i fully expect the democrats to blame the republicans for it. probably bush himself, too. and reagan.

 

Now you seem to be willing to toss aside the whole last week in order to make a nothing point. People from both sides of the aisle have said that they will only support it if it is a bipartisan bill supported by both candidates and both parties. Since the bipartisan deal was negotiated last week and was scuttled when McCain came to town (Makes you wonder if one side bargained in good faith? Or simply in a manner to blind side the other party?) a new bipartisan deal was negotiated (without input from the candidates) and scuttled mainly by the right. Your pithy comment is designed to toss sh*t at the democrats and remove the republicans from all sense of blame. The way this last week has gone takes me back to two seminars I have been to in the last year. At the first a lobbiest said that one party would not allow any meaningful legislation to be passed this year, even legislation that they support their goal being to degrade congress and improve their chances in the elections. The other seminar a republican staffer said that the democrats would not get any legislation passed this year. Both point towards an obstructionist attitude and both point towards the need to clean house of people Like Boehner and his crew. Get the radicals out and get good people in who want to do the work of the country and not the work of a party being run from its most radical fringes. McCain talked about gaining bi-partisan support and reaching across the aisle yet he talked to zero democrats when he was in Washington last week. Hell he couldn

[bleedorange]

Now you seem to be willing to toss aside the whole last week in order to make a nothing point. People from both sides of the aisle have said that they will only support it if it is a bipartisan bill supported by both candidates and both parties. Since the bipartisan deal was negotiated last week and was scuttled when McCain came to town (Makes you wonder if one side bargained in good faith? Or simply in a manner to blind side the other party?) a new bipartisan deal was negotiated (without input from the candidates) and scuttled mainly by the right. Your pithy comment is designed to toss sh*t at the democrats and remove the republicans from all sense of blame. The way this last week has gone takes me back to two seminars I have been to in the last year. At the first a lobbiest said that one party would not allow any meaningful legislation to be passed this year, even legislation that they support their goal being to degrade congress and improve their chances in the elections. The other seminar a republican staffer said that the democrats would not get any legislation passed this year. Both point towards an obstructionist attitude and both point towards the need to clean house of people Like Boehner and his crew. Get the radicals out and get good people in who want to do the work of the country and not the work of a party being run from its most radical fringes. McCain talked about gaining bi-partisan support and reaching across the aisle yet he talked to zero democrats when he was in Washington last week. Hell he couldn

[John Smith]

Reactions: Obama says a bill will be crafted. McCain blames Obama and the democrats for playing partisan politics with the bill. Peolsi says the bill never would have been brought to the floor if it was known that the republicans could not deliver their votes which apparently were promised when the negotiations were completed. Hmmm who pulled the ball out when Charlie Brown tried to kick it? Initial thoughts on this are that the republicans trashed the bill and their comments make it sound like they intended to all along. Seems like they are trying to help McCain by playing partisan politics while crying about partisan politics. One more reason to get rid of those people.

 

BTW I am against the bill as presented so I am glad it failed. This thing need to be so tight as to control of the money and it should not include one penny for Gramms foreign bank buddies. It also needs to have more relief for the regular folks out there.

[John Smith]

There was an awful lot of bipartisan opposition to this bill, too.

 

I agree it is an ugly bill. The whole crisis and the reaction to it hhas nto been well thought out. $700b with no thought as to what the actual need is? The public knows this figure was pulled out of the air and yet congress and the WHite House refuse to quantify it at all. BTW the democrats delivered their veto proof figure. The republicans were way short on their promised numbers. Hennce the vote against it was not really bi-partisan, it was highly partisan. Which makes it all the more unusual since republicans seemed to be the ones driving the process (Bush, Boehner (a dick and a half) and McCain)

[bleedorange]

I agree it is an ugly bill. The whole crisis and the reaction to it hhas nto been well thought out. $700b with no thought as to what the actual need is? The public knows this figure was pulled out of the air and yet congress and the WHite House refuse to quantify it at all. BTW the democrats delivered their veto proof figure. The republicans were way short on their promised numbers. Hennce the vote against it was not really bi-partisan, it was highly partisan. Which makes it all the more unusual since republicans seemed to be the ones driving the process (Bush, Boehner (a dick and a half) and McCain)

 

You should probably aim a little of that hatred in the direction of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand your logic behind the opposition not being bipartisan other than your mantra of, "It's always Republicans' fault," but when the vote comes down 228-205 with 40% of Democrats voting against it, I'm not sure I see the highly partisan nature of the opposition.

[ih8music]

interesting take on how the vote broke down based on whether the representative was in a tightly contested re-election bid, or was in "comfortable" shape (or not running at all). this appears to have been a (bipartisan) CYA move by many members of the house.

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swi...men-doomed.html

[bjorn_skurj]

Well, obviously a better job of selling this to the American people must be done. It could also use a few scapegoats whose cruel and unusual punishment would be part of the plan.

[Party @ the Moontower]

After 72 years of republican endorsements, paper endorces OBAMA

The choice is clear: OBAMA

 

Kucinich sums up my thoughts on the Bailout in 1 minute

Kucinich on bailout

[bobbob1313]

One more reason to get rid of those people.

Politicians in Washington?

[gogo]

After 72 years of republican endorsements, paper endorces OBAMA

The choice is clear: OBAMA

The accompanying article summarizing the editors' previous endorsements has a few gems:

 

[sweetheart-mine]

After 72 years of republican endorsements, paper endorces OBAMA

The choice is clear: OBAMA

 

Kucinich sums up my thoughts on the Bailout in 1 minute

Kucinich on bailout

these are great. i love kucinich. in some ways it's a miracle he keeps getting elected, when pretty much without fail he says what he thinks, decade after decade -- though at the moment i think he's speaking for a lot more people than usual, including people who at other times might not give him the time of day.

[kwall]

Your pithy comment is designed to toss sh*t at the democrats and remove the republicans from all sense of blame.

wrong again. just making a prediction.

 

i'm encouraged that congress accurately reflected the will of the people. why would i be seeking to absolve them from something that i'm glad they did? makes no sense.