Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[GrantDawg]

She did this time...

YouTube - Dems for Bailout: Pelosi #1 "anything goes mentality" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey3ZlsmIkz4)


The speech he posted didn't include her ab-libs which is the part I saw. I guess she has to address the Speaker even though she is the Speaker (or more likely, who ever is acting as speaker when she is not).

[Galaxy]

Why do Dems dwell on the past? We are in Iraq, and we have to do it right. Did we screw up on it? Of course. However, we bought it, we broke it, now let's try to fix it. Learn from the past, but focus on the present and future. Same thing with the economy. I get this feeling from Obama (today's speech supported this).

[Arles]

What amazing to me is how duplicitous both sides are. The house republicans want no part of this because 80+% of their constituencies are for it. If you were elected by a community that is 80% against something, and vote for it, are you really reflecting the "will of the people"? It seems to me that a majority of the people are against it because of the size and all the "extras" thrown in.

Why not just do a bill for the $100-250 billion (dep on who you believe) that's needed now for the banking issue and pass that as a straight treasury loan (most likely payed back in 4-5 years). Then, people can debate the content and payout of the other $600 billion later. It seems that both sides know it has to be done and are trying to get as much political gain from the bill while also hoping for "the cover" of bipartisan support.

Interesting enough, sometimes the majority just has to stomach a bad pill for the good of the country. The republicans did it in the mid 90s and early 2000s, now it seems that is the democrats turn to do so. Welcome to the responsibility of being the majority.

As an aside, I'm finding myself hoping more and more for Obama to win the election simply for the fact that the media and political factions will start talking more positive about the country afterwords. For the past 18 months, the US has been beaten like a rented mule on nearly every aspect by the press (foreign policy, economics, you name it). If Obama is president, we'll have 9-12 months of the "new camelot" with a ton of uplifting stories. If McCain is president, it will be another year of negative beat downs. I don't know that the country can withstand that.

[GrantDawg]

Why not just do a bill for the $100-250 billion (dep on who you believe) that's needed now for the banking issue and pass that as a straight treasury loan (most likely payed back in 4-5 years). Then, people can debate the content and payout of the other $600 billion later. It seems that both sides know it has to be done and are trying to get as much political gain from the bill while also hoping for "the cover" of bipartisan support.

I think that is a good plan.

[Flasch186]

Arles, thats not enough $ to stem the blood short term. It truly isnt. PLUS you need to reinstill confidence that the amount is enough to help the country through this. If you dont effect the psychology youre missing a pillar of the issue.

[GrantDawg]

Arles, thats not enough $ to stem the blood short term. It truly isnt. PLUS you need to reinstill confidence that the amount is enough to help the country through this. If you dont effect the psychology youre missing a pillar of the issue.


But isn't that the amount this bill would actually give for the short term?

[larrymcg421]

Why do Dems dwell on the past? We are in Iraq, and we have to do it right. Did we screw up on it? Of course. However, we bought it, we broke it, now let's try to fix it. Learn from the past, but focus on the present and future. Same thing with the economy. I get this feeling from Obama (today's speech supported this).

You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.

Oh wait, you were right, but let's not focus on the past.

Heh.

[Arles]

Arles, thats not enough $ to stem the blood short term. It truly isnt. PLUS you need to reinstill confidence that the amount is enough to help the country through this. If you dont effect the psychology youre missing a pillar of the issue.
Even the most generous of plans only had around $250 billion going out first (with the changed one now in the 150-200 range). So, if $200 billion isn't enough for the short term, the current bill that was just rejected won't do any good.

[GrantDawg]

Watched CNN for most of the day, then flipped it over to Fox News. Wow. You know it is one thing for a commentator to say that this bill failed because of Obama's lack of leadership, but when it is a reporter stating it as fact....

The other thing interesting to me is it seems everyone they have had on (right/left, whatever) is for this getting passed.

[Arles]

yeah, it's quite amazing. Everyone is saying this needs to get passed but most don't want to vote for it ;)

[SirFozzie]

yeah, it's quite amazing. Everyone is saying this needs to get passed but most don't want to vote for it ;)

That's because no one wants to be out in the cold without the political CYA. Bunch of bastards.. (both sides)

[GrantDawg]

BTW, this whole thing of "Barak's not doing enough" and "McCain's not doing enough"....it is pretty evident what happened here. McCain thought he could at least appear to take charge and take credit for getting this plan done and be all Presidential. But a) He over-played his hand by suspending his campaign and trying to cancel the debate. It ended up being very unpopular. b) He got there and saw the deal that was and then wasn't. He wasn't forging any consensus among the house GOP and anybody. c) His people started pointing out to him this bill is very unpopular. If he leads the way on this, he will get the blame for it.

So now it is, "The Dems have the vote. Just let them pass it." The GOP would love Obama to go in to take the lead on this, and let be all over him. And as for Obama? He wants it passed, but don't expect him to openly stump on it. He doesn't want this to be the "Obama plan" any more than McCain wants this to be the "McCain plan".

[Galaxy]

You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.

Oh wait, you were right, but let's not focus on the past.

Heh.

I don't mean forget the past. But if your in a mess, put forth a plan to get out of it. Just don't dwell on it.

[Flasch186]

But isn't that the amount this bill would actually give for the short term?

no, you left out the confidence issue. without the confidence issue the amount of $ goes up, exponentially. IOW, after today's debacle the amount needed actually goes up from yesterday. We lost a trillion in Mkt value, today.

[Arles]

no, you left out the confidence issue. without the confidence issue the amount of $ goes up, exponentially. IOW, after today's debacle the amount needed actually goes up from yesterday. We lost a trillion in Mkt value, today.
And I thought this was to stop the bleeding on the credit issue, not artificially prop up the markets.

[Flasch186]

The markets are simply a window and for those who dont know (perhaps you Arles) the stock market is just a small window. the Credit Market, TAF/R auctions, Credit default swaps, the fact that 4 institutions were taken over today in foreign countries (not including N. Rock months ago), LIBOR rates, etc.. Watch when Asian markets open.

Dont prop up a strawman when one doesnt exist. Take your queues from going to mall if you want or drive up and down the street and look at vacancies in strip malls, how about foreclosures (look closely, the lawns are overgrown, no blinds in the windows, business cards stuck in the fram of the front door), and you can file that in your journal. If you want it easier just watch CNBC.

I believe until I shut down the Financials thread I said the dollar would strengthen (it did), I said oil would pop (it has), I warned NoSkillz on the commodities bubble (i was right), my problem isnt knowledge it's patience and bankroll.

Anyways, how this effects the Pres. race? IMO, CRUSHING to McCain.

[GrantDawg]

no, you left out the confidence issue. without the confidence issue the amount of $ goes up, exponentially. IOW, after today's debacle the amount needed actually goes up from yesterday. We lost a trillion in Mkt value, today.


It does not. The amount is the bad loans, not market inflation. I didn't leave ouot the confidence issue either. Reread the proposal Arles gave. Paulson is asking for 250 billion right now. Give him that. Then you work on the rest and have it when it is needed.

[timmynausea]

Based on the recent polls, Obama appears to be pulling away in Pennsylvania with an RCP average now at +5.5. Despite his gain in national polls over the past week, though, most of the other toss-up states appear to be pretty much as close as ever. The most surprising thing to me is that both the recent North Carolina polls are Obama +2.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_mccain_vs_obama-334.html)

[Flasch186]

It does not. The amount is the bad loans, not market inflation. I didn't leave ouot the confidence issue either. Reread the proposal Arles gave. Paulson is asking for 250 billion right now. Give him that. Then you work on the rest and have it when it is needed.

Im sorry, I disagree. He asked for 700b and they countered w/ 250b tethered which he said, 'ok' to. We lost 1.4 trillion in mkt cap and an immeasurable amount of confidence, today. The tab just went up IMO.

[larrymcg421]

Fox News/Rasmussen (LV)

PA: Obama 50-42
OH: McCain 48-47
FL: Tie 47-47
VA: Obama 50-47
CO: Obama 49-48

For Obama, it's looking pretty good. He has to hold PA (and the rest of the Kerry states) and just win one of these other four states. (This is assuming he's already gonna steal IA and NM, which seems very probably at this point.)

For McCain, not looking quite as good. He's got to win those bottom four states or find a Kerry state to pick off. NH is looking possible at this point, but that won't be enough (the best it will do is give him a 269-269 tie.)

Of course, I expect things to shift wildly over the next few days as the public reacts to the financial crisis and then the VP debate on Thursday.

[Flasch186]

VP debate is Thursday, I think.

[larrymcg421]

Based on the recent polls, Obama appears to be pulling away in Pennsylvania with an RCP average now at +5.5. Despite his gain in national polls over the past week, though, most of the other toss-up states appear to be pretty much as close as ever. The most surprising thing to me is that both the recent North Carolina polls are Obama +2.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_mccain_vs_obama-334.html)

The RCP averages react slowly since state polling is done so infrequently that old polls are still on the books. For instance, Obama only recently took the RCP lead in North Carolina because a +17 McCain poll from Sep 10th finally fell off the averages.

[GrantDawg]

VP debate is Thursday, I think.


Yeah. Gonna be interesting. I hope they both say something really stupid.

[Arles]

The markets are simply a window and for those who dont know (perhaps you Arles) the stock market is just a small window. the Credit Market, TAF/R auctions, Credit default swaps, the fact that 4 institutions were taken over today in foreign countries (not including N. Rock months ago), LIBOR rates, etc.. Watch when Asian markets open.
As someone who works for a US arm in a Japanese company, I'm well aware of the impacts to Asia. As you should know, the Asian markets already opened and it wasn't nearly as bad as many had predicted:

World markets fall as US bailout seen taking time - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/world_markets)

Dont prop up a strawman when one doesnt exist. Take your queues from going to mall if you want or drive up and down the street and look at vacancies in strip malls, how about foreclosures (look closely, the lawns are overgrown, no blinds in the windows, business cards stuck in the fram of the front door), and you can file that in your journal. If you want it easier just watch CNBC.
That's OK, I prefer to talk down to people when discussion things. It makes me feel more "right" :p

I believe until I shut down the Financials thread I said the dollar would strengthen (it did), I said oil would pop (it has), I warned NoSkillz on the commodities bubble (i was right), my problem isnt knowledge it's patience and bankroll.
I bolded the important part. Just get enough cash into the situation to start the credit cleanup (as many said, $200 million would be plenty) and then hammer out the rest over the next few months. Regardless of what congress does in the next three days, the Dow will be back over 11,000 by Thanksgiving and all will be fine. The world markets will also recover independent of whether it's a $100-200 billion now and a different bill later or whether it's the full $700 billion.

The biggest issue is to the world right now is fear about US unemployment going up (which was there before this whole banking thing started). If US demands on imported goods go down, that will hurt the world.

Anyways, how this effects the Pres. race? IMO, CRUSHING to McCain.I'm just glad to see you can be objective on all this and not take sides when looking at the facts. :D

[SirFozzie]

Arlie: Except that with 25% more of people trusting Obama over McCain when it comes to economic issues, you have to think that this IS a problem for McCain

[larrymcg421]

Another interesting thing on RCP is their current electoral map has Obama at 249 without tossups. That means he has a RCPO average of +3 or higher in states with 249 electoral votes. They currently have him winning IA, NM, and CO among Bush states. From there, his winning scenarios would be:

*Florida by itself gives him 276
*Ohio by itself gives him 269 and the House elects him.
*NC and Nevada gives him 269 and the House elects him.
*Winning any two of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, and North Carolina gives him between 269-277 electoral votes.

What's interesting is that many of these scenarios come without Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire, all of which are currently listed as tossups. So there are plausible winning scenarios where he could lose three Kerry states and still win the election. That would have been unthinkable earlier on.

[Arles]

Arlie: Except that with 25% more of people trusting Obama over McCain when it comes to economic issues, you have to think that this IS a problem for McCain
IMO, McCain's pretty much done unless the "I won't vote for a black guy" thing is way under blown. If the republicans continue to handle this the right way, he will probably lose. IMO, that's fine. It's more important to make sure we don't panic and make a terrible decision on this bailout and have Obama as president than quickly get a bill through to help McCain.

This bailout is becoming the economic version of going into Iraq back in 2003. Once it's done, we have to face the bill and it won't be pretty. I'd rather get this right and have Obama as president than rush through and get an albatross around our neck for the next 4-7 years.

[Flasch186]

As someone who works for a US arm in a Japanese company, I'm well aware of the impacts to Asia. As you should know, the Asian markets already opened and it wasn't nearly as bad as many had predicted:

World markets fall as US bailout seen taking time - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/world_markets)


That's OK, I prefer to talk down to people when discussion things. It makes me feel more "right" :p


I bolded the important part. Just get enough cash into the situation to start the credit cleanup (as many said, $200 million would be plenty) and then hammer out the rest over the next few months. Regardless of what congress does in the next three days, the Dow will be back over 11,000 by Thanksgiving and all will be fine. The world markets will also recover independent of whether it's a $100-200 billion now and a different bill later or whether it's the full $700 billion.

The biggest issue is to the world right now is fear about US unemployment going up (which was there before this whole banking thing started). If US demands on imported goods go down, that will hurt the world.

I'm just glad to see you can be objective on all this and not take sides when looking at the facts. :D

It has nothing to do with anything other than my consistent analysis that aligns with the polling that the economic crisis hurts McCain. this was doubled down upon by his 'pausing the campaign' move. IMO it didnt work and over the next week that will get more and more airtime in the mainstream media. Hence the 'crushing' part. Honestly I dont know he'll shed that since most American's polled already viewed it in this light prior to the past week.

My analysis of the situation as I see it.

[Flasch186]

Arlie: Except that with 25% more of people trusting Obama over McCain when it comes to economic issues, you have to think that this IS a problem for McCain

thank you. It wasn't bias, it was analysis and polling (if you call the polling factual).

[Flasch186]

IMO, McCain's pretty much done unless the "I won't vote for a black guy" thing is way under blown. If the republicans continue to handle this the right way, he will probably lose. IMO, that's fine. It's more important to make sure we don't panic and make a terrible decision on this bailout and have Obama as president than quickly get a bill through to help McCain.

This bailout is becoming the economic version of going into Iraq back in 2003. Once it's done, we have to face the bill and it won't be pretty. I'd rather get this right and have Obama as president than rush through and get an albatross around our neck for the next 4-7 years.

I didnt see this post before responding to your partisan comment. We agree I see and you see it isn't bias.

[GrantDawg]

IMO, McCain's pretty much done unless the "I won't vote for a black guy" thing is way under blown. If the republicans continue to handle this the right way, he will probably lose. IMO, that's fine. It's more important to make sure we don't panic and make a terrible decision on this bailout and have Obama as president than quickly get a bill through to help McCain.

This bailout is becoming the economic version of going into Iraq back in 2003. Once it's done, we have to face the bill and it won't be pretty. I'd rather get this right and have Obama as president than rush through and get an albatross around our neck for the next 4-7 years.


I'm totally with you (except I am a Obama supporter, so that's a good bonus).

[gstelmack]

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs. Dems, you CONTROL the House, and only 60% of your side voted for it. You could have past this all on your own without a single republican voting for it. Why did 40% of your own party's reps reject it?

[Flasch186]

because the entire house wanted it to be bipartisan (maybe for 'who's willing to walk the plank' sake) and somewhat of a mandate to the US (confidence, I dont know if you all understand it's importance) and to the world.

[GrantDawg]

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs. Dems, you CONTROL the House, and only 60% of your side voted for it. You could have past this all on your own without a single republican voting for it. Why did 40% of your own party's reps reject it?


Already answered. It was a brokered deal that both parties would vote 50-50, so that it is a bipartisan effort. The Dems did, and Rep didn't.

[Flasch186]

because it's not a 'sure thing' that it will save us (Y2J) but it's the best thing we have going at the moment and the moment is very very very tenuous and short.

[GrantDawg]

Btw, I was just watching Rove rant on that point. "Peloise couldn't even get so and so to vote this bill..." etc. etc. The thing is, she by agreement wasn't supposed to need their vote. It is actually becoming pretty clear the Republicans wants this to become completely on the the Dems to help steal seats in the House. What's more important, doing the right thing or getting more power? In politics, the answer is always power.

[Big Fo]

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs.

Even though the bill was going to pass before Republicans took their ball and went home after Nancy Pelosi was mean to them?

[Arles]

What ticks me off reading the reports today is all the finger-pointing, especially by Dems at Repubs. Dems, you CONTROL the House, and only 60% of your side voted for it. You could have past this all on your own without a single republican voting for it. Why did 40% of your own party's reps reject it?
Prior posters have good points, but don't underestimate the political end. If every day this bill wasn't passed hurt Obama instead of McCain, the democrats
probably would have forced it through. However, they now can say they are "trying" and wait for a full bipartisan bill knowing most of the full fallout will impact McCain.

[Flasch186]

What? They delivered more than the votes needed on their side of the "bargain already brokered". They did MORE than the agreement called for. The GOP balked at the moment of no return which is crazy since they couldve balked hours prior. The conspiracy theory would be the GOP sabotaged McCain. Tonight would be completely different if the GOP just did what they said they'd do.

[GrantDawg]

What? They delivered more than the votes needed on their side of the "bargain already brokered". They did MORE than the agreement called for. The GOP balked at the moment of no return which is crazy since they couldve balked hours prior. The conspiracy theory would be the GOP sabotaged McCain. Tonight would be completely different if the GOP just did what they said they'd do.


No doubt. They decided to save their own asses, and left McCain hanging.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What? They delivered more than the votes needed on their side of the "bargain already brokered". They did MORE than the agreement called for. The GOP balked at the moment of no return which is crazy since they couldve balked hours prior. The conspiracy theory would be the GOP sabotaged McCain. Tonight would be completely different if the GOP just did what they said they'd do.

So there was a deal where neither side hung their ass out on the line while still passing the bill? Fabulous stuff.

If you don't believe in the bill, don't vote for it. If you do, vote for it. It's a simple system. The Democrats put a bill out there that their own party couldn't even fully support, then bitched when it didn't pass and pointed fingers. There's only one party in Congress that could decide to block or pass this bill and it was the Democrats. If the bill was all that, they should have voted for it. Instead, they tossed up a half-ass bill with half-ass support and acted shocked that it didn't pass. It rings very hollow.

[Flasch186]

youre ignoring a very critical thing, convenientally. this bill needs to be passed by equal sides to instill confidence to the people (who dont pay attentioin to the intricacies) like we do, and those in the rest of the world, that the entire gov't, both parties, are paying attention, and neither side wants to assume total risk since the bill isn't a 'sure thing'. Think what you want, blame whomever you want, but that is a fact and the fact that the GOP didnt deliver what they said they would in the back hall will have us all suffer the consequences, unless something gets passed quickly, and when i say quickly, i mean Quarter ends in the next week and numbers report the following.

[sterlingice]

Interesting enough, sometimes the majority just has to stomach a bad pill for the good of the country. The republicans did it in the mid 90s and early 2000s, now it seems that is the democrats turn to do so. Welcome to the responsibility of being the majority.

Could you point me to a couple of things that were unpopular at the time that the GOP did from, say, 1997-2005, for the good of the country? I'm just looking for, let's throw out there, 3. And not something that was popular at the time and unpopular after (like Iraq). But something unpopular with the whole country (not just Dems) where the GOP congress bravely bit the bullet?

SI

[Flasch186]

'Ill find one and get back to ya.' - Tina Fey

[DaddyTorgo]

Flasch - you'll never convince those on the right of the necessity of it being a brokered deal. they will continue to buy into the "spin" of the right that the dems shoulda passed it on their own without any republican involvement, notwithstanding the fact that a 50/50 deal was agreed upon and the house republicans essentially backed out at the last minute.

you can talk till you're blue in the face but there will be continue to be a segment that thinks that the party in power should have pushed it through without the other side.

[Mac Howard]

Neither party comes out of this with any credit. Two thirds of Republicans put their ideology and a third of democrats their re-election before the interests of the American people. The American people themselves appear to be staggeringly ignorant of the seriousness of the current financial situation.

It's like watching a train wreck - unfortunately I suspect I'm on one of the later carriages just waiting for the impact! :rolleyes:

700 billion? You just lost 1.2 trillion in one day! Even if you don't have shares then your pension plans, health schemes etc. are all paying for this.

[Arles]

Could you point me to a couple of things that were unpopular at the time that the GOP did from, say, 1997-2005, for the good of the country? I'm just looking for, let's throw out there, 3. And not something that was popular at the time and unpopular after (like Iraq). But something unpopular with the whole country (not just Dems) where the GOP congress bravely bit the bullet?

SI
I was referring to the government shutdown of 1995, which many attribute to costing Gingrich re-election and Dole a real chance at the presidency.

[Arles]

'Ill find one and get back to ya.' - Tina Fey
I think you've officially become the court jester of this thread. Well done!

[Flasch186]

oh comeon that scene was funny as heck, you gotta admit.

[JPhillips]

So there was a deal where neither side hung their ass out on the line while still passing the bill? Fabulous stuff.

If you don't believe in the bill, don't vote for it. If you do, vote for it. It's a simple system. The Democrats put a bill out there that their own party couldn't even fully support, then bitched when it didn't pass and pointed fingers. There's only one party in Congress that could decide to block or pass this bill and it was the Democrats. If the bill was all that, they should have voted for it. Instead, they tossed up a half-ass bill with half-ass support and acted shocked that it didn't pass. It rings very hollow.

That's not at all what happened. The bill was negotiated between the WH, the Senate and the House. The bill voted on today contained concessions designed to placate each group. When it came time to vote the House Republicans either couldn't carry out their promised number of votes or backed out.

If the Dems want to pass a bill they can, but it will contain a hell of a lot of language that House and Senate Republicans would find unacceptable. I still don't know if the bill was worth passing, but the days of negotiations were aimed at getting enough of a unified front so that nobody would take the entirety of the heat.

[Arles]

oh comeon that scene was funny as heck, you gotta admit.
Hey, court jesters are funny. But their main role is to instigate ;)

[Buccaneer]

I've been thinking of something lately. One of my main distrust of what a Democratic Congress will push through in a one-party government is the fear (real or imagined) of punitive legislation. In other words, to swing the pendulum to the opposite side, they will go after enemy industries (like energy and computer companies, for example). I have always been set against that for I believe in promoting technological and industrial advancements and changes to make things better. Encourage the developments of alternative ways of making existing energy exploration and production much cleaner and safer. Having assholes like Al Gore calling for civil disobedience will not help and is a turn-off. I am also reminded of the resources that were spend to go after Microsoft in the previous decade. I am a believer in technology and we need promoters, not attackers.

[SirFozzie]

At risk of a threadjack.. the sanctions on Microsoft are not NEARLY enough. Thought that would be clear by now.

[Kodos]

:rolleyes: Yes. Al Gore is such an asshole.

[Buccaneer]

:rolleyes: Yes. Al Gore is such an asshole.

It was an assholish thing to say.

[Warhammer]

:rolleyes: Yes. Al Gore is such an asshole.

Well there is a reason why Tennessee doesn't like him.

[Mac Howard]

This is a package that we as a public are being told is a necessity and yet no one wants to take ownership of it.

Because the American people haven't yet grasped the seriousness of the situation and the party that pushes it could be punished at the polls. They wanted it to be passed 50-50 so that it would be seen as non-partisan.

[Flasch186]

analysis

Analysis: House vote against bailout wounds McCain - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_bailout)

Analysis: House vote against bailout wounds McCain

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The house always wins, gamblers are warned, and the U.S. House made John McCain pay Monday for his politically risky, high-profile involvement in a financial rescue plan that came crashing down, mainly at the hands of his fellow Republicans.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bill's defeat can hardly be blamed on the GOP presidential nominee, and it's possible that a revised measure might succeed. But by his own actions last week, McCain tied himself far more tightly to the failed bill than did his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

McCain argues that action is better than inaction in times of crises. His efforts, however, were aimed squarely at House Republicans, the group mainly responsible for the bill's demise, which triggered a record drop of nearly 800 points in the stock market, the most ever for a single day.

If Congress' impasse leads to a credit crisis, "it's not going to be good for McCain," said veteran Republican consultant John Feehery.

Another prominent Republican strategist, who would talk only on background to avoid antagonizing associates, said the vote was trouble for McCain.

As recently as Monday morning, only minutes before the House's stunning vote, McCain suggested that his call for a White House summit meeting Thursday, and his visit with unhappy House Republicans that preceded it, had helped clear the way for the bill's passage.

"I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made on Wall Street and in Washington," he told a crowd in Columbus, Ohio. "Some people have criticized my decision, but I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis."

On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, top adviser Steve Schmidt said McCain managed "to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this."

The comment suggested that McCain took responsibility for rounding up the needed GOP votes, "and that was probably a stupid thing for him to promise to do," said Democratic adviser Jennifer Palmieri.

On Monday, only 65 of the House's 199 Republicans went along. The defeat dealt a major blow to President Bush and threw another twist into a presidential campaign already drawing record numbers of Americans for rallies and televised events.

In a sign of the difficulty he faces, McCain made no direct comment on the House vote for about four hours. His campaign initially issued a sharply worded statement by economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, who blamed Obama and other Democrats.

Just before House members voted, he said, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome." House Democrats already had denounced that argument, saying it suggested GOP lawmakers based a crucial vote on pique rather than conviction.

A few hours later, a grim-faced McCain read a statement to reporters in Iowa. "I was hopeful that the improved rescue plan would have had the votes needed to pass," he said. "I call on Congress to get back, obviously, immediately to address this crisis."

Obama "and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process," McCain said, adding: "Now is not the time to fix the blame; it's time to fix the problem."

Obama, of course, does face risks in the financial and political meltdown, and his party is hardly blameless for the legislation's collapse Monday. From the start, however, Obama kept more distance from the infighting, and questioned the wisdom of injecting presidential politics directly into the negotiating mix, as McCain did with the White House meeting that Obama had little choice but to attend.

Obama gave the legislative package tepid support Sunday. If several Democratic-backed additions stayed in it, he said on CBS' "Face the Nation," "my inclination would be to vote for it, understanding I'm not happy about it."

On Monday, many of the House Democrats who opposed the bill were blacks, who rank among Obama's strongest supporters. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., was one. "I do not believe that we have explored or exhausted all possible options to directly ease the pressure on financial markets without causing an undue burden to taxpayers," he said.

During last week's negotiations, Obama and many other congressional Democrats called for several changes to the bailout plan, which the Bush administration had unveiled days earlier. They included efforts to prevent further home foreclosures, greater oversight of the plan and limits on severance packages for executives leaving companies helped by the plan.

All those items were added to some extent, although Obama's aloofness limited his ability to claim credit.

McCain's involvement was more direct, complicated and difficult to assess. After temporarily suspending his campaign last week, and just before attending the White House meeting, he met with House Republicans in the Capitol. He heard loud complaints about the bailout proposal's costs, structure and details.

When the White House session took place, McCain surprised several at the table by having little to say other than that the House Republicans' unhappiness needed attention.

Those House members forced several changes in the package on Saturday, and McCain seemed satisfied, if not enthusiastic.

"This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with," he said Sunday.

He turned out to be wrong on Monday. Now his campaign must scramble to convince a worried electorate and a deeply divided party that he is the man to lead them to better times.

[DaddyTorgo]

nice article flasch, although it doesn't reference the fact that we spent all afternoon discussing, that it was a brokered 50/50 compromise -- which for an AP article you'd think it would.

[Vegas Vic]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, Obama has made substantial gains in the polls over the past two weeks, and the RCP electoral college projection now stands at Obama 301 McCain 237.

[Glengoyne]

You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.

Oh wait, you were right, but let's not focus on the past.

Heh.

You're aware that no matter how many times Obama says he was right about Iraq before we invaded, his stated plan for a hasty is still wrongheaded. Yes you get credit for being right back then, although I'm not so sure his exact position was as accurate as he now frames it in hindsight. I'm going to vote based on what you are going to do, quit belaboring the point.

[SirFozzie]

Wow. Obama over 330 EV on the Intrade predictions (Including Indiana, which has gone Democratic.. since like well.. never... 2004 was Bush with 60%). There's still a month to go, McCain has to do SOMETHING soon, or he'll be crushed by the spector of runaway momentum.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's not at all what happened. The bill was negotiated between the WH, the Senate and the House. The bill voted on today contained concessions designed to placate each group. When it came time to vote the House Republicans either couldn't carry out their promised number of votes or backed out.

If the Dems want to pass a bill they can, but it will contain a hell of a lot of language that House and Senate Republicans would find unacceptable. I still don't know if the bill was worth passing, but the days of negotiations were aimed at getting enough of a unified front so that nobody would take the entirety of the heat.

And I'm telling you that I find that to be a load of sh%&. The Democrats are the ones in power. They have the votes to pass legislation and should do so to force Bush to either sign it or veto it. When did the majority leadership suddenly become a bunch of pussies (to borrow a phrase from a poster on this board)?

Now is not the time to pacify people. Now is the time for the Democrats to take a stand and create a bill that will make them the hero in this situation. The fact that they are looking for an agreement that allow them to pass the blame if it fails is very concerning. Pass a partisan bill and take a chance that you may actually be right and the Republicans are wrong.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow. Obama over 330 EV on the Intrade predictions (Including Indiana, which has gone Democratic.. since like well.. never... 2004 was Bush with 60%). There's still a month to go, McCain has to do SOMETHING soon, or he'll be crushed by the spector of runaway momentum.

Good to see at least one market going up. :D

[Flasch186]

And I'm telling you that I find that to be a load of sh%&. The Democrats are the ones in power. They have the votes to pass legislation and should do so to force Bush to either sign it or veto it. When did the majority leadership suddenly become a bunch of pussies (to borrow a phrase from a poster on this board)?

Now is not the time to pacify people. Now is the time for the Democrats to take a stand and create a bill that will make them the hero in this situation. The fact that they are looking for an agreement that allow them to share the blame if it fails, or success if it works is very concerning. Pass a partisan bill and take a chance that you may actually be right and the Republicans are wrong.

fixed, but essentially you cant see it was already a brokered bill. And youre completely ignoring the importance of confidence. ok.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

fixed, but essentially you cant see it was already a brokered bill. And youre completely ignoring the importance of confidence. ok.

HEY! You can't call me partisan in a post and then take it out in an edit! This is what I'm talking about with Democrats! Stick to your guns! :D

[Flasch186]

Its not that. Usually when I type a post I am filled with piss and vinegar and then I read it and edit it to be nice because I didnt mean to be attacking. I do that ALLLLLL the time. And it is partisan for you to say Dems could just pass it and ignore many FACTS. One it was a brokered deal. so the GOP went against their word. The GOP got their feelings hurt and put the entire country at risk. This will effect McCain and it already has according to the polls.

[Butter_of_69]

The GOP got their feelings hurt and put the entire country at risk. This will effect McCain and it already has according to the polls.

Nice leadership McCain showed there. THAT'S what is killing him. As was mentioned in the thread earlier. Obama is widening the gap. We need some more debates where McCain just looks like an angry old man, and we can put this puppy to bed.

[Warhammer]

But, if the Dems were that set on the bailout, make a partisan bill and shove it down the GOPs throat and see if they like it. I mean they could take a chance.

[Flasch186]

But, if the Dems were that set on the bailout, make a partisan bill and shove it down the GOPs throat and see if they like it. I mean they could take a chance.

CONFIDENCE.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Its not that. Usually when I type a post I am filled with piss and vinegar and then I read it and edit it to be nice because I didnt mean to be attacking. I do that ALLLLLL the time. And it is partisan for you to say Dems could just pass it and ignore many FACTS. One it was a brokered deal. so the GOP went against their word. The GOP got their feelings hurt and put the entire country at risk. This will effect McCain and it already has according to the polls.

No one got their feelings hurt. Pelosi gave them an out to blame it on her when the true reason the bill didn't pass was that it was a lousy bill and the general public hammered the phone lines of their given congressman. If you believe that the 100+ Republicans voted against it because their feelings were hurt, what does that mean the 90+ Democrats who voted against it were doing? Was it a bi-partisan effort by Pelosi to hurt feelings on both sides?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

CONFIDENCE.

So, to summarize, your argument is that the public wouldn't buy into the bailout if it was passed along party lines? So we're now judging the quality of a bill/law based on the level of support on both sides rather than whether it's a quality bill? That's rich.

[DaddyTorgo]

this has probably been posted before, but reading the transcript i almost spit my coffee out.



Katie Couric: Why isn't it better, Gov. Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
Gov. Sarah Palin: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/National_Economy), helping the -- it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.



pretty much speaks for itself IMO

[Flasch186]

No one got their feelings hurt.


The GOP didnt use the same language but admitted so immediately following the vote.

[Flasch186]

So, to summarize, your argument is that the public wouldn't buy into the bailout if it was passed along party lines? So we're now judging the quality of a bill/law based on the level of support on both sides rather than whether it's a quality bill? That's rich.

What im saying is that the bill encompasses more than just dollar dollar bill ya'll. You dont get that, which is fine, but it is a cornerstone of the bill as well so without the confidence the bill instills it would have less of a successful impact. Until you admit this, we might as well stop talking about it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What im saying is that the bill encompasses more than just dollar dollar bill ya'll. You dont get that, which is fine, but it is a cornerstone of the bill as well so without the confidence the bill instills it would have less of a successful impact. Until you admit this, we might as well stop talking about it.

Once again, we are dealing with a Democratic-lead Congress with a 9% (probably less after yesterday) approval rating. If the above logic is truly what the Democratic leadership believes, we're far worse off than I ever imagined. That's leadership that should be tossed to the curb in favor of another Democratic senator/congressman who will do what's needed to take a stand for the Democratic Party.

When it's reported in the media that Pelosi was trying to secure extra Republican votes so some of the Democrats in the House could vote against it to further their election hopes and Bohner is using Pelosi's speech as cover for those who voted against it for perfectly legitimate reasons (i.e. their voters were opposed to it) rather than just saying they opposed it, we've really reached the point where the government has totally forgotten the reason they were elected to the offices they hold. Judging from the backlash by the public over the crisis and partisan actions on both sides of the aisle, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a lot of incumbants get nailed this November no matter which side of the bill they voted on. Just being in Congress at this point makes them guilty by association. We need a clean start.

[JPhillips]

And I'm telling you that I find that to be a load of sh%&. The Democrats are the ones in power. They have the votes to pass legislation and should do so to force Bush to either sign it or veto it. When did the majority leadership suddenly become a bunch of pussies (to borrow a phrase from a poster on this board)?

Now is not the time to pacify people. Now is the time for the Democrats to take a stand and create a bill that will make them the hero in this situation. The fact that they are looking for an agreement that allow them to pass the blame if it fails is very concerning. Pass a partisan bill and take a chance that you may actually be right and the Republicans are wrong.

No, they can't just pass a partisan bill. The Republicans could filibuster in the Senate and the President could veto. I'm not sold on the bill, but everyone in this acted in good faith except the House Republicans.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

No, they can't just pass a partisan bill. The Republicans could filibuster in the Senate and the President could veto. I'm not sold on the bill, but everyone in this acted in good faith except the House Republicans.

But why is that a problem? If the Republicans filibuster, then the blame for the delay falls squarely on their shoulders alone. If they don't and Dubya vetos it, the blame falls squarely on his shoulders.

As I said, if they keep playing this game, they're all going to lose out in the end. We need leadership in Congress and the White House and it's becoming blatently obvious that Dubya, Reid, and Pelosi are the last people we need in charge right now. Dubya holds no power over his party and Reid/Pelosi are more concerned about the elections and pissing contests than getting something done and showing true leadership in a time of trouble. It's pathetic.

[JPhillips]

How is passing a bill in the House knowing that it will get filibustered or vetoed, "showing true leadership"? The points of this bill were negotiated in good faith amongst all of those involved. When it came time to vote, four of the five parties involved in these negotiations acted in good faith and one didn't.

If it's a bad bill, say so and present an alternative, don't whine about your hurt feelings.

[DaddyTorgo]

How is passing a bill in the House knowing that it will get filibustered or vetoed, "showing true leadership"? The points of this bill were negotiated in good faith amongst all of those involved. When it came time to vote, four of the five parties involved in these negotiations acted in good faith and one didn't.

If it's a bad bill, say so and present an alternative, don't whine about your hurt feelings.

+1

if the house republicans had behaved there wouldn't have been a need to worry about a filibuster and the bill would already be signed. it takes an enormous amount of spin for somebody to try to argue they weren't the problem, and frankly i find it insulting to my intelligence

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

When it came time to vote, four of the five parties involved in these negotiations acted in good faith and one didn't.

So the Democrats in the House who voted against it 'acted in good faith' while the Republicans who voted in accordance with the wishes of their voting public were out of line for failing to cast their 'yea' vote so the House Democrats could appease their voters?

The picture you're painting only furthers my argument that this Congress is far more f'd up then we even realize. Representing your voters wishes or voting in the best interest of the public has now taken a back seat to playing politics to get elected. That's fine that you're OK with that, but I'm not. The Republicans and Democrats can go fu%$ themselves if they think that they can pull this kind of a stunt while the nation is watching them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

+1

if the house republicans had behaved there wouldn't have been a need to worry about a filibuster and the bill would already be signed. it takes an enormous amount of spin for somebody to try to argue they weren't the problem, and frankly i find it insulting to my intelligence

Then consider it an insult. Anyone who claims that only the Republicans or Democrats were responsible for the debacle that occured yesterday in the house is so caught up in the web of polical PR/deceit that they can't see the truth in front of their nose.

[Daimyo]

Amazing that some repubs are criticizing the dems for trying to act bipartisan. The spin on this is amazing.

[DaddyTorgo]

What's heartening to me at least is that I don't see the spin getting much play outside of this thread tbh. seems to be pretty universally being shown for its true colors by the media (which isn't to say that Pelosi shouldn't have been nicer, but is to say that the media recognizes and is presenting the story as "the house repubs refused to live up to their end of the agreement"

[JPhillips]

So the Democrats in the House who voted against it 'acted in good faith' while the Republicans who voted in accordance with the wishes of their voting public were out of line for failing to cast their 'yea' vote so the House Democrats could appease their voters?

Yes, because that was what was negotiated. You can disagree with them, but if they lived up to their bargain, they acted in good faith.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What's heartening to me at least is that I don't see the spin getting much play outside of this thread tbh. seems to be pretty universally being shown for its true colors by the media (which isn't to say that Pelosi shouldn't have been nicer, but is to say that the media recognizes and is presenting the story as "the house repubs refused to live up to their end of the agreement"

Once again, consider this an insult. Anyone who finds any part of this 'heartening' is way out of touch with reality and the general public's feelings on this whole mess.

Thankfully, we all know that the media is the true arbitor of truth when it comes to the political game.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yes, because that was what was negotiated. You can disagree with them, but if they lived up to their bargain, they acted in good faith.

By all means then, put them on their 'Horse of Good Faith' and let them ride away with their conscious fully clean.

[ISiddiqui]

Then consider it an insult. Anyone who claims that only the Republicans or Democrats were responsible for the debacle that occured yesterday in the house is so caught up in the web of polical PR/deceit that they can't see the truth in front of their nose.

+1

[Toddzilla]

Amazing that some [X] are criticizing the [Y] for trying to act bipartisan. The spin on this is amazing.(apply to every situation in every election).

+1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At the same time MBBF, your protestations in the failings of Congress, when historically short-sighted political gains are all Congress ever looks at, rings a little hollow as well.

But I think the magnitude of the power play varies from situation to situation. This one is of a pretty high order when it comes to importance of resolution in a timely manner.

[DaddyTorgo]

*shrugs* not going to get drawn into a name-calling, insult-fest with you MBBF. Not worth it.

[sterlingice]

Neither party comes out of this with any credit. Two thirds of Republicans put their re-election and a third of democrats their re-election before the interests of the American people.

Edited for correctness

SI

[molson]

Then consider it an insult. Anyone who claims that only the Republicans or Democrats were responsible for the debacle that occured yesterday in the house is so caught up in the web of polical PR/deceit that they can't see the truth in front of their nose.

Absolutely true. But objectively speaking, I think this clinches the election for Obama. (Perhaps the safely employed Democrats sought out this debacle for that reason).

And I think this also gives a bump to every Congressional challenger v. every incumbent up for election, whether the challenger be Democrat or Republican.

[Mac Howard]

Edited for correctness

SI

Possibly, sterlingice, but they do have an ideological objection to government interference and I suspect some of them are sincere even if I don't agree with them. Never underestimate the debilitating power of ideology :)

[sterlingice]

Possibly, sterlingice, but they do have an ideological objection to government interference and I suspect some of them are sincere even if I don't agree with them. Never underestimate the debilitating power of ideology

Complete and utter crap. Completely.

If this were not 5 weeks before an election, the vote would be completely different. Now, if you want to argue that being in a GOP dominated district means they have to vote one way ideologically to not get thrown out on their ass, then you'd be right.

But please, don't even try to make the argument that more than a handful are doing this because they believe it is wrong. There are going to be a few, and I mean less than 20, on the far extreme of each side that would have voted against it because it went too far or not far enough. However, those were not the "swing" votes that disappeared yesterday.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

*shrugs* not going to get drawn into a name-calling, insult-fest with you MBBF. Not worth it.

You're the one that brought in the insinuation that if someone didn't agree with your partisan position that it was an 'insult to your intelligence'. I've been about as non-partisan as I'll ever get when I point out that both sides have royally f'd this up from a political perspective. I was just confirming that if you take that kind of a position, it's no wonder you feel insulted.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Absolutely true. But objectively speaking, I think this clinches the election for Obama. (Perhaps the safely employed Democrats sought out this debacle for that reason).

And I think this also gives a bump to every Congressional challenger v. every incumbent up for election, whether the challenger be Democrat or Republican.

I'm not sure if I'd use the word 'clinch' on your first point as there are still a few weeks left for some screw-up, but I'd agree that it's by far in his favor at this point. I made the same point earlier in the thread as your second point, so I definitely agree with that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

LOL.......I decided to tune into a train wreck and listen to Rush Limbaugh to see what his take would be on all the excitement yesterday. Imagine my surprise when he took the exact same position I took. He stated that the Democrats were playing politics with these votes and got burned and the Republican should stop pretending that Pelosi's speech had anything to do with their 'No' votes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

:eek:

Did you feel that a partisan like Rush Limbaugh would actually tell both sides to quit with the politics? I was surprised. Although he has now gone into bashing Dodd and Frank for their role in this mess, so the non-partisan comments didn't last terribly long. :D

[sterlingice]

Did you feel that a partisan like Rush Limbaugh would actually tell both sides to quit with the politics? I was surprised. Although he has now gone into bashing Dodd and Frank for their role in this mess, so the non-partisan comments didn't last terribly long. :D

Shouldn't it make you ask that if you were agreeing with someone you called a train wreck that maybe your position is flawed?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It sounds to me like you both are agreeing that the Democrats are playing politics, while the Republicans are making a noble ideological stand - with a side of politics thrown in as the stated reason for the stand.

I already said that both sides were out of line. I said that no one was using the will of their voting base as the primary decider of their vote, which results in a total disconnect in this case that will hurt the incumbants up for election this year, no matter what they voted. There's nothing 'noble' about either side.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Shouldn't it make you ask that if you were agreeing with someone you called a train wreck that maybe your position is flawed?

SI

The assumed 'train wreck' was that he would spend most of his time solely blaming the Democrats for this vote. I was surprised to hear him attack the Republicans as well for playing politics. But as I mentioned earlier, he did slowly go downhill after that, so I downgraded my shock level and turned him off. :)

[DaddyTorgo]

I already said that both sides were out of line. I said that no one was using the will of their voting base as the primary decider of their vote, which results in a total disconnect in this case that will hurt the incumbants up for election this year, no matter what they voted. There's nothing 'noble' about either side.

i feel like this is pretty much par for the course for congress though. they do this all the time. the will of the actual voting base is VERY rarely the primary concern of any politician.

[larrymcg421]

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

*The bill should pass.

*Simply voting against it is unacceptable. Those voting against it need to explain their alternative proposal. Doing nothing is not an option. (Well, it's an option, but not a good one.)

*The bill should be worked out in a bipartisan manner.

*Pelosi's speech was not a good idea. Doesnt make sense to broker a 50-50 compromise so you havea bipartisan solution and then attack the people you just made a deal with.

*Blaming Pelosi's speech doesn't make the Republicans look good. Makes it sound like theyre putting hurt feelings above the good of the country.

*Every challenger candidate across the country should have to answer the question on how they'd vote. It's chickenshit to stay mum now and then attack whichever way the incumbent votes. I have a feeling we will have alot of challengers "deciding" on how they feel about the bailout after the final vote.

[Mac Howard]

Complete and utter crap. Completely.

If this were not 5 weeks before an election, the vote would be completely different. Now, if you want to argue that being in a GOP dominated district means they have to vote one way ideologically to not get thrown out on their ass, then you'd be right.

But please, don't even try to make the argument that more than a handful are doing this because they believe it is wrong. There are going to be a few, and I mean less than 20, on the far extreme of each side that would have voted against it because it went too far or not far enough. However, those were not the "swing" votes that disappeared yesterday.

SI

Then what is your explanation for the more Democrats voting for the bill than Republicans? If both were equally and only concerned about losing their re-election then we would expect an equal number of "nos". Clearly there is a greater antagonism to this bill in the Republicans and I would suggest that is their ideological opposition to government interference.

[Arles]

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

*The bill should pass.

*Simply voting against it is unacceptable. Those voting against it need to explain their alternative proposal. Doing nothing is not an option. (Well, it's an option, but not a good one.)

*The bill should be worked out in a bipartisan manner.

*Pelosi's speech was not a good idea. Doesnt make sense to broker a 50-50 compromise so you havea bipartisan solution and then attack the people you just made a deal with.

*Blaming Pelosi's speech doesn't make the Republicans look good. Makes it sound like theyre putting hurt feelings above the good of the country.

*Every challenger candidate across the country should have to answer the question on how they'd vote. It's chickenshit to stay mum now and then attack whichever way the incumbent votes. I have a feeling we will have alot of challengers "deciding" on how they feel about the bailout after the final vote.
Agree completely with all the above. The house republicans should explain their alternative (which is a much better bill, IMO) and argue for that. At worst, pass a small bill for the initial amount as a loan.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At worst, pass a small bill for the initial amount as a loan.

+1

[DaddyTorgo]

lol - so i know i'm like the only one still cracking on Palin, but i just saw this line by someone commenting on the AC360 blog about the island in Alaska.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=585 border=0 _extended="true"><TBODY _extended="true"><TR _extended="true"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 10px" vAlign=top width=138 _extended="true">Jim W.</TD><TD width=5 _extended="true"> </TD><TD vAlign=top width=442 _extended="true">September 30th, 2008 12:02 pm ET
I can see the moon from my house. I have space traveller experience!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

made me LOL

[Fighter of Foo]

Then what is your explanation for the more Democrats voting for the bill than Republicans? If both were equally and only concerned about losing their re-election then we would expect an equal number of "nos". Clearly there is a greater antagonism to this bill in the Republicans and I would suggest that is their ideological opposition to government interference.

I think everyone is in such shock over our government actually working the way its supposed to for once no one knows how to react. That's certainly the case for me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If this were not 5 weeks before an election, the vote would be completely different.

I agree, but in the opposite direction. Absent the election, I don't believe the vote would have been anywhere near as close as it was so quickly. Instead of a plan eventually approved on the next week or so as I expect we'll see, I imagine we'd be looking at 2-3 weeks of wrangling instead. Both sides would have taken more cracks at finding some political hay in the situation if they had more time.

[GrantDawg]

I agree, but in the opposite direction. Absent the election, I don't believe the vote would have been anywhere near as close as it was so quickly. Instead of a plan eventually approved on the next week or so as I expect we'll see, I imagine we'd be looking at 2-3 weeks of wrangling instead. Both sides would have taken more cracks at finding some political hay in the situation if they had more time.


Doubtfull. My bet is if this crisis would have happened the week after the elections, a lame-duck congress would have passed it very quickly.

[Fighter of Foo]

I agree, but in the opposite direction. Absent the election, I don't believe the vote would have been anywhere near as close as it was so quickly. Instead of a plan eventually approved on the next week or so as I expect we'll see, I imagine we'd be looking at 2-3 weeks of wrangling instead. Both sides would have taken more cracks at finding some political hay in the situation if they had more time.

Quoting Scherer (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/a_failure_of_leadership.html):

"Nearly every major political leader in America supported the bailout bill. The President of the United States. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for president. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and the Senate. All of them said the same thing. Vote yes."


If there wasn't an election next month, this sails through with no problem.

[sterlingice]

Then what is your explanation for the more Democrats voting for the bill than Republicans? If both were equally and only concerned about losing their re-election then we would expect an equal number of "nos". Clearly there is a greater antagonism to this bill in the Republicans and I would suggest that is their ideological opposition to government interference.

As stated in the paragraph you quotes above:

Now, if you want to argue that being in a GOP dominated district means they have to vote one way ideologically to not get thrown out on their ass, then you'd be right.

SI

[timmynausea]

Wow. Obama over 330 EV on the Intrade predictions (Including Indiana, which has gone Democratic.. since like well.. never... 2004 was Bush with 60%). There's still a month to go, McCain has to do SOMETHING soon, or he'll be crushed by the spector of runaway momentum.

He is also up 64 to 35 in the head to head markets. Someone posted that during the debates it had dropped to a 7 point margin, so it seems the money has really gotten behind Obama the past few days.

[Vegas Vic]

If Obama is leading by five or six points after the next debate, the election is over with.

[larrymcg421]

There's a surprising poll on the Senate race in Georgia. SurveyUSA has Saxby Chambliss up by only two points over Jim Martin. Definitely an outlier at this point, so we'll wait and see what other polls say. I almost want Chambliss to lose more than I want Obama to win.

[miked]

Quik pointed me to 538 which shows Chambliss very safe. His approval rating is actually over 50% and he's barely advertising here (at least I haven't seen too much). Amazingly, he and Purdue have high-ish approval ratings. I'm waiting for the gas prayer at the capital.

[Buccaneer]

If Obama is leading by five or six points after the next debate, the election is over with.

All Obama has to do is to play it really safe. Just go to rallies in certain places, keep a low profile in the DC mess and let the DNC et al do the dirty work. He should be president by default and then he'll let those around him tell him what he should do and say while president. That's better than what we have now.

[DaddyTorgo]

then he'll let those around him tell him what he should do and say while president. That's better than what we have now.

and i have faith that Obama will do that - listen to those around him, where I don't have that same faith of McCain...I think he'd get carried away with his "maverick" image or get headstrong and not listen to anybody else. And that's what worries me.

[Buccaneer]

and i have faith that Obama will do that - listen to those around him, where I don't have that same faith of McCain...I think he'd get carried away with his "maverick" image or get headstrong and not listen to anybody else. And that's what worries me.

The problem is that he is going to get conflicting advice and will succumb to analysis paralysis.Plus some of the people around him will not be smart enough to give good advice, some will be mavericks in their own accord. That will happen no matter who's there as Potomac Fever and the media will wear anyone down. Like I said, I would be keeping more of a wary eye on Congress and what punitive legislation they will force.

[Galaxy]

All Obama has to do is to play it really safe. Just go to rallies in certain places, keep a low profile in the DC mess and let the DNC et al do the dirty work. He should be president by default and then he'll let those around him tell him what he should do and say while president. That's better than what we have now.

Wait...Isn't that what happens now? :)

I trust that Obama will hire better people. I do wonder if Obama wins the election, if the bar will be set too high for what people will expect.

[Mac Howard]

As stated in the paragraph you quotes above:

Now, if you want to argue that being in a GOP dominated district means they have to vote one way ideologically to not get thrown out on their ass, then you'd be right.

SI

I have no doubt whatsoever that that's true, sterlingice, but the House Republicans don't need that motivation - the bill is antagonistic to everything they've believed in all their political lives. It would be no problem opposing the bill without any push from their districts.

[larrymcg421]

Quik pointed me to 538 which shows Chambliss very safe. His approval rating is actually over 50% and he's barely advertising here (at least I haven't seen too much). Amazingly, he and Purdue have high-ish approval ratings. I'm waiting for the gas prayer at the capital.

Yeah, that's why I was surprised by the SurveyUSA poll. There's a Dem poll that confirms this one, but I'd like to see what Rasmussen says before I get excited.

[NoMyths]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xRkWebP2Q0Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xRkWebP2Q0Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[NoMyths]

dola...

This was new information to me, having not given much thought to her education. In light of the apparent lack of it, though, here is the text from Wikipedia:

In 1982, Palin enrolled at Hawaii Pacific University but left after her first semester. From there she transferred to North Idaho College, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she then transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters. During this time Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant beauty contest, then finished third (second runner-up) in the Miss Alaska pageant, at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award. She then left the University of Idaho and attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Potential President of the United States, ladies and gentlemen.

[Galaxy]

Any hard sources, besides Wikipedia?

[NoMyths]

Sure thing: here's an AP article (http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html), for one.

The Wiki article is pretty well footnoted.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah - i'm not necessarily an educational-snob, but that is amazingly weak as far as a college-resume and course of study

[Galaxy]

Sure thing: here's an AP article (http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html), for one.

The Wiki article is pretty well footnoted.

Thanks....I just don't fully trust wikipedia (sometimes they don't have footnotes).

[NoMyths]

Thanks....I just don't fully trust wikipedia (sometimes they don't have footnotes).

It's good to treat Wikipedia with caution and double-check the info.

[Galaxy]

yeah - i'm not necessarily an educational-snob, but that is amazingly weak as far as a college-resume and course of study

Bush went to Yale, look at him. It's a good question that springs to mind. Do the choice of college matter in politics? Bill Clinton went to the University of Arkansas, a respectable public school (but not as selective, competitive, and "cache" of the Ivy League pedigree). Do you think you learn more from the more diverse demographics of a school like Arkansas, than an exclusive school like Harvard or Yale, that will benefit you in politics in life?

[NoMyths]

I think I'm more concerned that her B.S. was in communications/journalism from a number of relatively unknown schools, which isn't really the educational preparation I'd like to see for the potential leader of the free world.

[SirFozzie]

Communications/Journalism? Oh well (throws his college degree in Communication Arts out into the trash)

[NoMyths]

Also, how do you respond like this:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xRkWebP2Q0Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xRkWebP2Q0Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

...when your degree is in communications/journalism?

[Tigercat]

I really think a lot of people are under estimating what role Obamas background (yes, primarily race) will play in the voting booth the day of the election. Minority candidates usually see a drop from poll numbers to vote numbers, and if battleground states remain close...

[adubroff]

Bush went to Yale, look at him. It's a good question that springs to mind. Do the choice of college matter in politics? Bill Clinton went to the University of Arkansas, a respectable public school (but not as selective, competitive, and "cache" of the Ivy League pedigree). Do you think you learn more from the more diverse demographics of a school like Arkansas, than an exclusive school like Harvard or Yale, that will benefit you in politics in life?


While I don't think it matters much, Clinton went to Georgetown.

[Galaxy]

While I don't think it matters much, Clinton went to Georgetown.

Why am I thinking of University of Arkansas (I know he was gov. of Arkansas, or course)?

[sabotai]

While I don't think it matters much, Clinton went to Georgetown.

Georgetown, Oxford and Yale Law.

[sabotai]

Why am I thinking of University of Arkansas (I know he was gov. of Arkansas, or course)?

A quick google search says he taught at the University of Arkansas.

[molson]

dola...

Potential President of the United States, ladies and gentlemen.

She's clearly out of her league at this point, but she's had a very inspiring career.

Extremely successful people tend to find themselves in positions before they're ready for them.

[Arles]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xRkWebP2Q0Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xRkWebP2Q0Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Wow, she didn't remember the name of a few newspapers or magazines that she had recently read off the top of her head. What a travesty! How can we have a president who doesn't state off the bat they read Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post and New York Times.

I'm betting she was referring to some local papers and didn't want to look like a hick and say "well, last week I read the anchorage gazette and Wasalla times". So, instead of lying and say she reads the New York Times every day, she decided not to answer. I don't see the big issue here. It was a stupid question that was made even more insufferable by Couric asking it 10 times in a row when it's obvious Palin didn't think her newspaper basket was all that important given the other things going on.

[DaddyTorgo]

Wow, she didn't remember the name of a few newspapers or magazines that she had recently read off the top of her head. What a travesty! How can we have a president who doesn't state off the bat they read Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post and New York Times.

I'm betting she was referring to some local papers and didn't want to look like a hick and say "well, last week I read the anchorage gazette and Wasalla times". So, instead of lying and say she reads the New York Times every day, she decided not to answer. I don't see the big issue here. It was a stupid question that was made even more insufferable by Couric asking it 10 times in a row when it's obvious Palin didn't think her newspaper basket was all that important given the other things going on.

i don't even know where to start with your response.

1. i don't think we should have a president (or VP) who while on the campaign trail is reading the anchorage gazette and the wasilla times (or whatever) over the NYT, the Washington Post, and Time magazine.
2. She is a hick. By all accounts she's proud of the fact, so why not look like one. That seems to be her sweet-spot in terms of voters she's attracting too.
3. Not a stupid question at all - it demonstrates that she's up-to-date on current events and engaged with the world outside of Alaska
4. Even if couric asked her about the other things going on her answer would not have been coherent and intelligent (as she has shown time and time again)

[Arles]

She's clearly out of her league at this point, but she's had a very inspiring career.

Extremely successful people tend to find themselves in positions before they're ready for them.
I agree with this. She's in a position where every slip up she has is magnified by 10 and put on the front page of every paper. If she says there are 57 states or FDR was on TV in 1929, SNL has material for 3 weeks and every comedy show, columnist and new program is hammering her. Obama says something like that and it's "well, he's just tired from the campaign and you have to give him some slack." Biden or even McCain say something like that and it's "well, it was just a slip of the tongue - can happen to anybody."

In football terms, Palin is basically Eli Manning from 3 years ago and Obama/Biden are Brett Favre. No matter what Palin does, the media will report it in the worst possible light. With Obama/Biden, they circle the wagons. Palin has made plenty of mistakes and mis-statements, but so have the other three candidates.

For whatever reason (you can choose from she's young and pretty, not schooled in the right university, a pro-life woman, has a weird accent, from Alaska, she's undeserving in many people's mind), a ton of people (esp on the left) just flat out despise her and are giddy at every mis-step she makes.

The truth is that Palin has gotten to this point a little quicker than maybe she deserves, but you can say the same thing for Obama. While Obama got a good 20 months to ease into this situation with a mile of slack and lionizing media articles off the bat, Palin has been thrown in with no margin for error and a ton of criticism. At this point, she should just realize that she will be made fun of no matter how she handles things, be herself and hope enough people relate to her that she can help McCain.

[Arles]

i don't even know where to start with your response.

1. i don't think we should have a president (or VP) who while on the campaign trail is reading the anchorage gazette and the wasilla times (or whatever) over the NYT, the Washington Post, and Time magazine.
This comment is exactly why she fumbled the response. She knew the truth would draw even more ire. I guess papers in Alaska are incapable of picking the AP wire like the NY Times does for most of it's articles.

2. She is a hick. By all accounts she's proud of the fact, so why not look like one. That seems to be her sweet-spot in terms of voters she's attracting too.
When you're made fun of being who you are for 3-4 straight weeks, it probably gives you pause when you feel like you are overly playing into your own stereotype - especially when you are not a season vet of national coverage.

3. Not a stupid question at all - it demonstrates that she's up-to-date on current events and engaged with the world outside of Alaska
So, again, you aren't up to date unless you read the NY Times or Washington Post? This isn't the 30s, 80% of real reporting is done through AP and syndicated across the country to even "hick" towns in Alaska, Idaho and Montana. Even those cattle ranchers in Wyoming read in their local paper about that there war down there in EYE-RACK.

Even if couric asked her about the other things going on her answer would not have been coherent and intelligent (as she has shown time and time again)
It's just experience in dealing with a critical media. It takes people some time to adjust to it. Obama had 20 months to adjust to a mostly friendly media, she has 20 days to adjust a firing squad. She's going to look a little rough at times.

[Radii]

Wow, she didn't remember the name of a few newspapers or magazines that she had recently read off the top of her head. What a travesty! How can we have a president who doesn't state off the bat they read Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post and New York Times.



It really wouldn't matter who was saying it or when, that is just a hilarious clip. It basically boils down to:

Person A: "What newspapers and magazines do you read?'
Person B: "Ohh, you know... most of them"


Its a response that borders on incoherent and seems totally worthy of ridicule to me!

[Crapshoot]

Wow, she didn't remember the name of a few newspapers or magazines that she had recently read off the top of her head. What a travesty! How can we have a president who doesn't state off the bat they read Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post and New York Times.

I'm betting she was referring to some local papers and didn't want to look like a hick and say "well, last week I read the anchorage gazette and Wasalla times". So, instead of lying and say she reads the New York Times every day, she decided not to answer. I don't see the big issue here. It was a stupid question that was made even more insufferable by Couric asking it 10 times in a row when it's obvious Palin didn't think her newspaper basket was all that important given the other things going on.

Are you serious? She could read "Redneck Weekly" and you'd probably consider it intellectual reading. I thought Palin was actually a wonderful wildcard pick by McCain, but the more I see of this, the more JIMGA (of the top of my head) and others who decried it are turning out to be right. This woman is not ready for the stage.

[Arles]

It really wouldn't matter who was saying it or when, that is just a hilarious clip. It basically boils down to:

Person A: "What newspapers and magazines do you read?'
Person B: "Ohh, you know... most of them"


Its a response that borders on incoherent and seems totally worthy of ridicule to me!
I don't have a problem with people having fun with her on the bumbling. The end result is she just needs to relax a bit as she looks very tight in every interview. At the end of the day, she will be mocked not matter what. If you're going to be mocked, atleast be yourself. Hopefully that's the advice she's getting for the debate.

[Toddzilla]

I've heard and seen some pretty pathetic Palin apologists on TV in the past week, but Arlie, this is just sad.

[Arles]

I've heard and seen some pretty pathetic Palin apologists on TV in the past week, but Arlie, this is just sad.
It's simply a different perspective. I understand many won't agree, but it's nice to know that once again dissent from the right is treated with respect in this thread.

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time (and I have other things to work on now ;) ).

[Karlifornia]

So, Barack Obama is having is having success despite being inexperience. Arles says that is because Obama had many months of lionzing media press.
i
Sarah Palin is being bombarded because of her inexperience.....and she was thrown into it without being able to adequately prepare.

Sounds like John McCain's/McCain's advisors' fault to me.....Maybe he should have chose someone a little more fire-retardant than Palin.

Too bad..your candidate made a horrific decision, and now he's getting roasted over the coals for it by the media.

Thankfully for you, there are many people that will just vote conservative no matter the circumstances.

Okay, okay...there are many people that you would assume to vote liberal no matter the circumstances, and that's true. However, a lot of bad things have happened during this last 8 years. Hell, a lot of bad things have happened since the re-election. Sometimes people need a multiple break-ups before finally discarding a terrible spouse. How many women go back to their boyfriends/husbands after being hit by them?

2000: Okay, I'm falling in love

2004: That was bad, but maybe he only did this because he truly, truly loves me.

2008: You worthless piece of shit....you promised to make things better, but really were only looking out for yourself. You don't care about me at all! Goodbye!

McCain will probably get elected anyhow...because of the FreeMasons....or something.

[ISiddiqui]

Too bad..your candidate made a horrific decision, and now he's getting roasted over the coals for it by the media.

Horrific decision?

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: On Dumping Palin (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/on-dumping-palin.html)


In the Colorado Springs volunteer office, “you could hear a pin drop” (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/on-road-colorado-springs-colorado.html) in the days before Palin was picked. In Reno, the volunteering had been anemic; the Saturday morning after the Palin pick, organizers arrived to an early morning volunteer line waiting at the door. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/on-road-reno-nevada.html)

Our direct observation shows McCain is being overwhelmingly outworked on the ground as it is; Take Palin away and you can add 2-5% to Obama’s total in every close state due to ground game. As Bill Paxton once said, "Game over, man, game over!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xm1XErUvXo)


Obviously it helped McCain a great deal in this race.

[astrosfan64]

It's simply a different perspective. I understand many won't agree, but it's nice to know that once again dissent from the right is treated with respect in this thread.

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time (and I have other things to work on now ;) ).

Arles - Palin is the first person I've ever seen talk that makes George Bush look like a scholar.

This lady is a dolt.

On a different note, reading the NYT, Newsweek or any other paper of choice makes you an idiot. I should hope that if you are a president, vp, or someone running for the spot you get your news and information from more reliable sources then those crap papers/magazines.

[JonInMiddleGA]

1. i don't think we should have a president (or VP) who while on the campaign trail is reading the anchorage gazette and the wasilla times (or whatever) over the NYT, the Washington Post, and Time magazine.

I really hope that we don't have an actual president or VP who wastes their time reading any of the above. Summaries of them okay maybe, but actually reading major portions of them? If the person in either position has that sort of time when the majority of the country doesn't then maybe they need to look at their priorities & find something more worthwhile to work on.

And that goes for Bush, Obama, or anybody from either party (that ends up in a top 2 executive position).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I really hope that we don't have an actual president or VP who wastes their time reading any of the above. Summaries of them okay maybe, but actually reading major portions of them? If the person in either position has that sort of time when the majority of the country doesn't then maybe they need to look at their priorities & find something more worthwhile to work on.

And that goes for Bush, Obama, or anybody from either party (that ends up in a top 2 executive position).

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that more accurate info would likely be available first-hand in the Oval Office.

[sterlingice]

I really hope that we don't have an actual president or VP who wastes their time reading any of the above. Summaries of them okay maybe, but actually reading major portions of them? If the person in either position has that sort of time when the majority of the country doesn't then maybe they need to look at their priorities & find something more worthwhile to work on.

And that goes for Bush, Obama, or anybody from either party (that ends up in a top 2 executive position).

Agreed- if you have enough time to read a paper more than once in a blue moon, you're probably not doing your job and that's where she's at right now. She's getting pumped so full of information that I'm sure she hasn't read a newspaper since getting the VP nod.

I just don't understand why she didn't say that- "I haven't read the paper since being picked, it's been a whirlwind", flash smile, onto next question. Or, "on the campaign trail, we get our news off the internet" or "I don't read the paper much but we watch a lot of news off the tv since it's a quicker response media".

But she didn't even have the wherewithal to think of anything- she just stood there like a deer in the headlights and bumbled something out. She looked like me in a job interview (I do poorly in that arena, to be sure). And you can see it in her eyes- she's always searching for a handler's answer and how she can fit it to the question. Whereas she couldn't judge that it was just a harmless question and she could go off the cuff.

SI

[Flasch186]

It's simply a different perspective. I understand many won't agree, but it's nice to know that once again dissent from the right is treated with respect in this thread.

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time (and I have other things to work on now ;) ).

at least your dissent isnt being called unpatriotic.

BTW the correct answer for Palin wouldve been to flip it around on Couric to sarcastically say, "y'know Katie the only thing I truly feel loyalty to is CBS news. Ill get summaries of a lot of different things, most recently been knee deep in security paperwork regarding our country's national security or in the case of the last few days details from Sec. Paulson, Bernanke, and the Senate and House leaders regarding the Financial Crisis, but at 630 it all shuts down so I can watch you on TV." ~ or something like that.

[QuikSand]

Sounds like John McCain's/McCain's advisors' fault to me.....Maybe he should have chose someone a little more fire-retardant than Palin.

Too bad..your candidate made a horrific decision, and now he's getting roasted over the coals for it by the media.

I understand what you're saying, but I think politics has simply entered a post-fact stage now. Look at this thread for perfectly good evidence. You have people lining up to defend pretty much anything that Sarah Palin does or says, and when even they can't continue to do so, they simply sidestep and attack the media instead.

And look at the people who are breathlessly posting and re-posting the evidence that she was a terrible selection. You think any of those people's votes were up for grabs and potentially swayed by a more thoughtful, experienced running mate for Senator McCain?

Let's face it. Elections don't get decided by people who have the timber to wade into threads like this. They get decided by the people who are over in the "console sales" thread bickering about whether Alien Hard-on Bloodbath IV will be better than III (or their societal equivalents). Those are the Americans who get to decide this stuff, not anyone here, and most definitely not anyone who is actually investing time into trying to understand issues or policy at any meaningful level.

[sterlingice]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that more accurate info would likely be available first-hand in the Oval Office.

"Sir, Peter Gammons is here to give you yesterday's baseball highlights, Marilyn vos Savant will be working the NY Times crossword puzzle with you, and Cobra Commander would like you to give him your weather forecast for today so he can set the Weather Dominator appropriately"

SI

[sterlingice]

Let's face it. Elections don't get decided by people who have the timber to wade into threads like this. They get decided by the people who are over in the "console sales" thread bickering about whether Alien Hard-on Bloodbath IV will be better than III (or their societal equivalents). Those are the Americans who get to decide this stuff, not anyone here, and most definitely not anyone who is actually investing time into trying to understand issues or policy at any meaningful level.

(I would point out that a lot of the people in the console sales thread are here)

Finally, something I can sink my teeth into in this thread! The Alien Hard-on Bloodbath series just went downhill after II, man. Everyone should know that! Oh, and when's the election? Is that Ron Paul guy still running? :D

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

(I would point out that a lot of the people in the console sales thread are here)


Where?

[Mac Howard]

Let's face it. Elections don't get decided by people who have the timber to wade into threads like this. They get decided by the people who are over in the "console sales" thread bickering about whether Alien Hard-on Bloodbath IV will be better than III (or their societal equivalents). Those are the Americans who get to decide this stuff, not anyone here, and most definitely not anyone who is actually investing time into trying to understand issues or policy at any meaningful level.

But isn't that depressing? :(

I think it was Winston Churchill who once said something to the effect that the best argument against democracy was to spend an hour with the average voter :eek:

Elitist crap, of course ;)

[sterlingice]

In football terms, Palin is basically Eli Manning from 3 years ago and Obama/Biden are Brett Favre. No matter what Palin does, the media will report it in the worst possible light. With Obama/Biden, they circle the wagons. Palin has made plenty of mistakes and mis-statements, but so have the other three candidates.

Exactly, one's a QB who has been in the spotlight for a few years (or a lot of years if you're Biden) while the other is a pissant johnny-come-lately spoiled brat who whined until he got sent to a team he and his daddy approved of. Yeah, I see some similarities there but it's not a perfect analogy.

SI

[Mac Howard]

Exactly, one's a QB who has been in the spotlight for a few years (or a lot of years if you're Biden) while the other is a pissant johnny-come-lately spoiled brat who whined until he got sent to a team he and his daddy approved of. Yeah, I see some similarities there but it's not a perfect analogy.

SI

lol

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think it was Winston Churchill who once said something to the effect that the best argument against democracy was to spend an hour with the average voter :eek:Elitist crap, of course ;)

Churchill was far too optimistic. No way you'd need an hour.

[sterlingice]

Where?

Well, you, me, Sack, Big Fo, cartman, I was thinking wade moore but maybe he was just in the recession thread. There are a few of us who just love arguing or something like that ;)

SI

[sterlingice]

Churchill was far too optimistic. No way you'd need an hour.

It took them under 5 minutes to point this out on Monday on the Daily Show

SI

[Mac Howard]

Churchill was far too optimistic. No way you'd need an hour.

:D

[Flasch186]

LOL

[DaddyTorgo]

I really hope that we don't have an actual president or VP who wastes their time reading any of the above. Summaries of them okay maybe, but actually reading major portions of them? If the person in either position has that sort of time when the majority of the country doesn't then maybe they need to look at their priorities & find something more worthwhile to work on.

And that goes for Bush, Obama, or anybody from either party (that ends up in a top 2 executive position).

touche. i guess i shouldn't have said "read" and should have said more like "had more of a familiarity with"

essentially: i'd rather have someone who's idea of a newspaper is closer to the NYT than the Anchorage Gazette. Does that make anymore sense?

I certainly don't want any candidate getting their news from either source, but I'd much rather have someone who would be inclined to read the NYT over the Anchorage Gazette.

Does that make things any better?

[JonInMiddleGA]

touche. i guess i shouldn't have said "read" and should have said more like "had more of a familiarity with"

essentially: i'd rather have someone who's idea of a newspaper is closer to the NYT than the Anchorage Gazette. Does that make anymore sense?

I certainly don't want any candidate getting their news from either source, but I'd much rather have someone who would be inclined to read the NYT over the Anchorage Gazette.

Does that make things any better?

Somewhat, although I still think it fails to take a practical reality into account -- that in this case we're talking about the sitting governor of a state.

I can't help but figure that a sitting Gov. Clinton read Arkansas papers as/more closely than the NYT, just as Gov. Perdue reads Georgia papers more closely today, just as Gov. Richardson reads New Mexico papers, etc.

Candidate or not, I would think the routine would die hard especially considering how little time I figure any candidate has to spend reading newspapers while they're on the trail. Throw in the amount of wire service content they all share & I really don't see a great deal of difference what paper they read if any. There's probably an equally legit shot to be taken today at anyone who reads a hard copy (vs the online edition) of any of them anyway.

edit to add: And that's coming from someone who has consistently been less than impressed by the Palin pick.

[flere-imsaho]

The problem is that he is going to get conflicting advice and will succumb to analysis paralysis.

By all accounts Obama has been, throughout his career, very good at either a) obtaining a decision via consensus or b) where consensus isn't going to happen, making a decision on the available information so things can move forward.

Obama's not Jimmy Carter. He's more attuned to late Boomers/Gen-Xers in business who value continuing progress over extended periods gaining consensus.

Do you think you learn more from the more diverse demographics of a school like Arkansas, than an exclusive school like Harvard or Yale, that will benefit you in politics in life?

IMO, the main benefit of going to prestigious schools is the opportunity to network. Obviously there are other benefits like prof/student ratio (mitigated by having TAs for a lot of courses) and better facilities, but it's the networking that's going to help you the most later in life, if you take advantage of it.

I think that can be especially important for politicians, in the sense that it can help them be more successful in raising money & winning elections. I don't think it necessarily adds a lot to their understanding, unless they themselves are naturally attuned to those possibilities.

For instance, the stereotypical drunken legacy-admission student to Harvard probably doesn't get a lot out of the diversity and exposure to top minds at Harvard because he/she doesn't really care. The driven blue-collar student at, say, the University of Minnesota, who takes advantage of a study abroad program, seeks out campus programs, and wrings every possible learning opportunity out of that institution, probably gets more out of their 4 years.

[Mike D]

She's clearly out of her league at this point, but she's had a very inspiring career.

Extremely successful people tend to find themselves in positions before they're ready for them.

Seriously though, if Palin doesn't read the newspaper, then she should say so. I don't understand why she was having a hard time with that.

[flere-imsaho]

Wow, she didn't remember the name of a few newspapers or magazines that she had recently read off the top of her head. What a travesty! How can we have a president who doesn't state off the bat they read Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post and New York Times.

You're missing the point. Her answer is a transparent evasion of a very simple question. She sounds like a 10-year-old answering the question "Why did you force your younger brother to eat slugs?"

You know, an acceptable answer would have been "I read a little of everything, depending on the time I have available. The Anchorage paper, of course, national newspapers & magazines, and of course the Wasilla Times so I don't lose touch with home!" But no, she has so say "all of them", which is just ridiculous. I mean, who reads "all of them?"

In football terms, Palin is basically Eli Manning from 3 years ago and Obama/Biden are Brett Favre. No matter what Palin does, the media will report it in the worst possible light. With Obama/Biden, they circle the wagons. Palin has made plenty of mistakes and mis-statements, but so have the other three candidates.

Archie's draft day machinations, combined with the hype and comments from Accorsi & Coughlin, made it quite clear that Eli was supposed to be a Super Bowl QB. Until he won the Super Bowl, everything he did was compared to this standard, and as a result he often failed to achieve this standard. Thus was every mistake amplified.

You pick a VP candidate, you tell everyone she's awesome, and then she acts less prepared than a first-year U.S. Rep, well of course there's going to be a media frenzy.

It's a simple case of signal to noise. Sure Obama & Biden have some noise in their records (mistakes, gaffes, etc...), but there's plenty of signal (saying the right things, looking presidential, accomplishments, etc...). Palin's noise-to-signal ratio isn't very good, and American loves noise.

For whatever reason (you can choose from she's young and pretty, not schooled in the right university, a pro-life woman, has a weird accent, from Alaska, she's undeserving in many people's mind), a ton of people (esp on the left) just flat out despise her and are giddy at every mis-step she makes.

Two things:

1. The media pays attention to her because she's a walking, talking copy-generator. The McCain campaign clearly hoped the media would pay attention to her because she was young, pretty and sharp-minded. Well, you live and die by that sword.

2. Face it, her stance on many issues makes her polarizing. More polarizing than the other three. There's going to be a sizable chunck of the electorate who, because of her stance on the issues, want to mount a crusade against her getting into office.

I really hope that we don't have an actual president or VP who wastes their time reading any of the above. Summaries of them okay maybe, but actually reading major portions of them? If the person in either position has that sort of time when the majority of the country doesn't then maybe they need to look at their priorities & find something more worthwhile to work on.

When I interned for George Mitchell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell) I worked in his press office, and was pretty sure he didn't read/watch much of the media. I know one of the things we did each day was compile a "briefing book" of newspaper clips from his home state (Maine), which I understood he read each day personally so that he was kept up-to-date with his home state (this book was circulated, by me, to about 25 of his staff at the time - which was fun, btw).

I'm sure some federal politicians read a newspaper daily, especially those with non-trivial commutes (Joe Biden, for instance). But yeah, most, especially the senior ones, should be getting more first-hand info, and that goes doubly for the President.

Agreed- if you have enough time to read a paper more than once in a blue moon, you're probably not doing your job

When I took the train into Chicago on a regular basis for work, almost everyone older than 35 was reading the NYT, WSJ or Chicago Tribune. In fact, you could tell who was a lawyer/judge because they were reading the NYT and who was working for the Merc or elsewhere in the financial industry because they were reading the WSJ.

[molson]

Seriously though, if Palin doesn't read the newspaper, then she should say so. I don't understand why she was having a hard time with that.

Sure, it was an embarassing display. And as this discussion illustrates, it was actually kind of interesting question - where DOES a governor get their news from? Any answer would have been fine. The Alaska governor should be in tune with Alaska news first. One who's running for VP should probably have a passing interesting beyond that. But whatever, any answer would have been better than the one she gave.

I was just expressing the fact that this lady has had a pretty remarkable political career. Hopefully she can recover from all this (I'm assuming back in Alaska after the election).

[chesapeake]

I can't help but figure that a sitting Gov. Clinton read Arkansas papers as/more closely than the NYT, just as Gov. Perdue reads Georgia papers more closely today, just as Gov. Richardson reads New Mexico papers, etc.

Clinton isn't a fair comparison. He was a current events & news nerd even before he was governor. You can still be a great elected official and not read every page of every paper.

But your key point is that Palin's staff should be assembling Alaska newsclips from all the papers in the state every day, and she should be reading them. I expect that she does. She should have said exactly that to Katie. By evading the question, she forces the viewer to draw his/her own conclusion as to whether she reads anything at all. Not smart.

Don't count Palin out yet. By stumbling as much as she has over the past couple of weeks, the expectations about her performance at the debate will be Bushian. If she can appear even modestly competent, she'll probably get decent reviews and be back on track. If, somehow, she comes of reasonably well, the ticket could get a big boost.

Biden, on the other hand, has to come off as brilliant for his performance to have any effect on the race.

[Fighter of Foo]

Seriously though, if Palin doesn't read the newspaper, then she should say so. I don't understand why she was having a hard time with that.

+1 The unnecessary obfuscation and lying is the problem. No one gives a shit what paper she reads or doesn't.

[Vegas Vic]

I think it was Winston Churchill who once said something to the effect that the best argument against democracy was to spend an hour with the average voter

That's one of the reasons I'm glad that the United States is a republic instead of a democracy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's one of the reasons I'm glad that the United States is a republic instead of a democracy.

:D

[Fidatelo]

I find Arles staunch defense of Palin to be laughable, until I think about it more and then it becomes a little sad.

[lungs]

That's one of the reasons I'm glad that the United States is a republic instead of a democracy.

And I'm guessing a good portion of the electorate doesn't know the difference between the two.

[Arles]

Seriously though, if Palin doesn't read the newspaper, then she should say so. I don't understand why she was having a hard time with that.
I agree completely here. Listen, I have an unhealthy amount of bias for Palin. I would agree that most people should not feel all that safe if Palin is president tomorrow. Heck, I'm one of Palin's biggest fans and that would worry me. Still, if there's one thing about McCain, it's that he is one resilient old mofo. I don't see how someone who survived years in a torture camp, defeated cancer twice and survived other serious injuries would somehow kick the bucket a month after he's elected. This guy is going to outlive a ton of people - he's the Keith Richards of politics ;)

But, I want to be clear that I completely understand the apprehension with Palin and think it's fair. My comments have been more aimed at some of the specific criticisms which I think are a double standard when compared to her and the other three. Still, the debate is going to be big for her and she needs a quality showing to get some good vibes going for the home stretch.

[Arles]

I find Arles staunch defense of Palin to be laughable, until I think about it more and then it becomes a little sad.
Another quality, well-reasoned dismissive comment that has become very commonplace in this thread. There were a ton of strong arguments you could have made in 2-3 sentences on why my comments were not appropriate. Instead, you played the "pity" card which is always a wonderful way to enter a discussion.

Kudos for you for making my point above and making it 100% clear that there is really no value in replying to this thread (as QS said above). Here's my comments again:

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time

[Fidatelo]

Another quality, well-reasoned dismissive comment that has become very commonplace in this thread. There were a ton of strong arguments you could have made in 2-3 sentences on why my comments were not appropriate. Instead, you played the "pity" card which is always a wonderful way to enter a discussion.

Kudos for you for making my point above and making it 100% clear that there is really no value in replying to this thread (as QS said above). Here's my comments again:

How's this: your defense of Palin is like the parent of a convicted murderer that just can't admit that her little 'baby' would ever do anything wrong, despite the security camera footage of her 'baby' shooting the store clerk and stealing the cash from the register. Sometimes, no matter how much you love something or want to defend it, it just becomes indefensible.

Palin has generated more embarassing footage out of one interview than many politicians do in entire careers. Her response to the video in question here is AWFUL. "All of them". Really? It was one thing when she spun off into a series of talking points, but to respond with "all of them" is ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC. The only thing more pathetic is someone trying to defend it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The only thing more pathetic is someone trying to defend it.

Nah, there's plenty of worse stuff. Off the top of my head, watching anyone try to defend a empty suit liberal piece of walking dog crap like Obama as being worthy of entering the Oval Office except as a tourist is a lot more pathetic.
And that's just an easy example off the cuff.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Expect a lot of litigation and recounts in Missouri if the vote is close. I spoke with a friend who works for the county election office and Missouri voter registration is receiving a large number of ACORN fradulent voter registration applications in several counties in Kansas City, Columbia, Jefferson City, St. Louis, and Springfield. He said they aren't sure how many bad registrations may have slipped through. They just busted 4 ACORN workers here in KC in conjunction with the fraud, but they think there may be more...........

ACORN Workers Indicted For Alleged Voter Fraud - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City (http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Nah, there's plenty of worse stuff. Off the top of my head, watching anyone try to defend a empty suit liberal piece of walking dog crap like Obama as being worthy of entering the Oval Office except as a tourist is a lot more pathetic.
And that's just an easy example off the cuff.

:popcorn:

[JonInMiddleGA]

They just busted 4 ACORN workers here in KC in conjunction with the fraud...........

Heck, that's not fraud. That's just well-intentioned, albeit slightly overzealous, effort to enhance minority voter involvement. You must be a rich white racist capitalist pig to even suggest otherwise, you should be ashamed of yourself.

What's next, are you going to mock worthwhile activities such as community organization? ;)

[Maple Leafs]

There's so much spin in this thread that every time I read it, I go back in time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

:popcorn:

Obviously you failed to read my words with the appropriate cloyingly sweet tone of voice that I used in order to pretend that my comment was an impartial observation instead of partisanship. Try it with the right tone of voice & see if you're less concerned.

Hey, it seems to work for the lefties here, I figured it would work for me too.

[Fidatelo]

Nah, there's plenty of worse stuff. Off the top of my head, watching anyone try to defend a empty suit liberal piece of walking dog crap like Obama as being worthy of entering the Oval Office except as a tourist is a lot more pathetic.
And that's just an easy example off the cuff.

I get the impression you're trying to stir me up, but if so, you're barking up the wrong tree. As an outsider I'm not really partial to any of your candidates.

[DaddyTorgo]

Obviously you failed to read my words with the appropriate cloyingly sweet tone of voice that I used in order to pretend that my comment was an impartial observation instead of partisanship. Try it with the right tone of voice & see if you're less concerned.

Hey, it seems to work for the lefties here, I figured it would work for me too.

Always good for a :lol: Jon.

[I. J. Reilly]

The answer Palin gave Couric about what she reads is damning because up until a month ago she was in the same position as just about every other citizen in the country. There is no way that as governor of Alaska she had a staff generated report each day about the big international issues. If she was interested in the information, she would have had to seek it out herself.

And the relevance of the NYT and the WSJ are not in the reporting, as said above the AP does an adequate job of that, the value is in the intellectual level of the commentary and editorials. Even in the internet age all the big thoughts end up in the major broadsheets as op-eds. She could have easily said “I stopped reading the NYT because the commentary from the likes of Paul Krugman has become so biased that it’s lost all value.” It would have been a great answer, but I doubt Palin has any idea who Krugman is.

[chesapeake]

Expect a lot of litigation and recounts in Missouri if the vote is close. I spoke with a friend who works for the county election office and Missouri voter registration is receiving a large number of ACORN fradulent voter registration applications in several counties in Kansas City, Columbia, Jefferson City, St. Louis, and Springfield. He said they aren't sure how many bad registrations may have slipped through. They just busted 4 ACORN workers here in KC in conjunction with the fraud, but they think there may be more...........

ACORN Workers Indicted For Alleged Voter Fraud - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City (http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html)

The story you posted "just happened" 2 years ago. Look at the date on the story.

[molson]

I don't think Palin needs much help looking bad at this debate tomorrow night, but this just adds to what might be a perfect storm for entertainment (from wiki):

"Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a book called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is being released on January 20, 2009."

How is this allowed? Imagine liberals, that the 2nd debate was going to be moderated by someone who was releasing a McCain book - would you think that was fair? I mean, she has a lot at stake financially in this election, and she's obviously a huge and public Obama fan.

At this point though, I'm just hoping for entertainment.

[larrymcg421]

Sure, we can argue about whether or not reading major newspaprers is necessary for higher office, but does anyone here think that the correct answer for a candidate to that question is "Many of them" and then failing to name what any of them are?

I mean, if she's afraid of letting on that she only reads the Wasilla Weekly or the Anchorage Gazette, that's fine, but why didn't she just name some newspapers off the top of her head?

[molson]

Sure, we can argue about whether or not reading major newspaprers is necessary for higher office, but does anyone here think that the correct answer for a candidate to that question is "Many of them" and then failing to name what any of them are?

I mean, if she's afraid of letting on that she only reads the Wasilla Weekly or the Anchorage Gazette, that's fine, but why didn't she just name some newspapers off the top of her head?

I wonder what's actually going on her head there. I'm assuming that she could at least NAME a newspaper, but who knows. I mean this as a non-faceitious question, what's going on there?

Did her people tell her to never name a specific newspaper? Was she so panicked that her answer would be spun negatively that she was paralyzed with fear? Was she worried about being associated with a "liberal" newspaper?

[DaddyTorgo]

I wonder what's actually going on her head there. I'm assuming that she could at least NAME a newspaper, but who knows. I mean this as a non-faceitious question, what's going on there?

Did her people tell her to never name a specific newspaper? Was she so panicked that her answer would be spun negatively that she was paralyzed with fear? Was she worried about being associated with a "liberal" newspaper?

good question

[JPhillips]

I wonder what's actually going on her head there. I'm assuming that she could at least NAME a newspaper, but who knows. I mean this as a non-faceitious question, what's going on there?

Did her people tell her to never name a specific newspaper? Was she so panicked that her answer would be spun negatively that she was paralyzed with fear? Was she worried about being associated with a "liberal" newspaper?

She just panicked. She's so nervous in these interviews that she can't think straight, so she says everything that pops into her head without filtering any of it. It reminds me a lot of unprepared guys I've seen in oral comprehensives.

[Flasch186]

I don't think Palin needs much help looking bad at this debate tomorrow night, but this just adds to what might be a perfect storm for entertainment (from wiki):

"Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a book called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is being released on January 20, 2009."

How is this allowed? Imagine liberals, that the 2nd debate was going to be moderated by someone who was releasing a McCain book - would you think that was fair? I mean, she has a lot at stake financially in this election, and she's obviously a huge and public Obama fan.

At this point though, I'm just hoping for entertainment.

Dont care who the moderators are from either side. AAMOF, I'd prefer if they have some people on who challenge one or both of the candidates. It could make the candidate even look better if they can answer the challenger and perhaps even spin the challenger around. I'd hope they'd have one that balances it out at one of the debates.

[larrymcg421]

Don't be fooled. Conservatives are happy that Ifill is moderating the debate. Palin is bound to screw up no matter who moderates the debate, so at least this gives them the good ol "liberal media" attack angle to use as an excuse for her performance.

[Butter_of_69]

Don't be fooled. Conservatives are happy that Ifill is moderating the debate. Palin is bound to screw up no matter who moderates the debate, so at least this gives them the good ol "liberal media" attack angle to use as an excuse for her performance.

You've got quicker fingers than I.

[Butter_of_69]

Besides, didn't McCain agree to the format and moderators long ago? Why would this be coming up just now? Oh right, because it's not really an issue, just a ready-made excuse. Carry on.

[DaddyTorgo]

Besides, didn't McCain agree to the format and moderators long ago? Why would this be coming up just now? Oh right, because it's not really an issue, just a ready-made excuse. Carry on.

+1

now is not the time for anyone to be making a stink about this. if the campaign felt it was a problem they have had ample opportunity to speak up, and if the campaign doesn't feel it's a problem then really why is anyone else claiming to know what is better for them then the professional, paid campaign workers?

and yes i'd say the same even if Rush Limbaugh or O'Reily were moderating a debate.

Look, it's not like the moderator determines who speaks first, or asks different questions of the two candidates. although they have an impact in determining what questions will be asked, it's not like they can have a massive effect on how well one candidate performs versus the other.

[Toddzilla]

I don't think Palin needs much help looking bad at this debate tomorrow night, but this just adds to what might be a perfect storm for entertainment (from wiki):

"Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a book called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is being released on January 20, 2009."

How is this allowed? Imagine liberals, that the 2nd debate was going to be moderated by someone who was releasing a McCain book - would you think that was fair? I mean, she has a lot at stake financially in this election, and she's obviously a huge and public Obama fan.

At this point though, I'm just hoping for entertainment.Wow - wasn't aware of that. That's a pretty bad oversight, IMO, and you'd think the commission on teh debates would try to get someone who at least doesn't appear to have a stake in the game.

[Toddzilla]

It's simply a different perspective. I understand many won't agree, but it's nice to know that once again dissent from the right is treated with respect in this thread.

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time (and I have other things to work on now ;) ).FWIW, mine was a comment on how sad the defense was and not saying the defender was sad for defending. But, if you want to act like a martyr, take your ball and go home because you're getting laughed at, maybe the internets aren't for you.

[timmynausea]

What's up with these Quinnipiac polls out today:

Pennsylvania - Obama +15
Ohio - Obama +8
Florida - Obama +8

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html)

[JonInMiddleGA]

the value is in the intellectual level of the commentary and editorials.

Yikes, no wonder newspaper sales have fallen so far. This explains a lot.

Even in the internet age all the big thoughts end up in the major broadsheets as op-eds.

And then onto the internet as reprints, bootlegs, repurposed, etc. Case in point was the writer I mentioned up the thread a few pages back who is largely known to me as "a nationally syndicated writer" but who actually appears to work for a Chicago newspaper. I've now read the piece but haven't touched the physical paper nor the paper's website. In other words, it's possible to read the work of various writer's without associating them with a particular paper at all.

And I'm not saying she reads any of those guys, just saying it seems pretty plausible that you could read the work without having any particular publication come to mind.

[larrymcg421]

What's up with these Quinnipiac polls out today:

Pennsylvania - Obama +15
Ohio - Obama +8
Florida - Obama +8

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Latest Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html)

I don't buy any of those yet. All of them look like outliers.

[larrymcg421]

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time (and I have other things to work on now ;) ).


Oh, give me a break Arles. You certainly didn't care baout the "90%" when your candidate was doing well. In the days following the Republican convention when it looked like Obama was tanking, I didn't threaten to leave the thread when McCain fans were having their little circle jerk about how badly Obama was stumbling.

I ask again, when did conservatives become a bunch of whiny bitches? Pelosi is mean to me! FOFC is mean to me! Now I know why people hated whiny liberals so much. That shit is annoying.

[Fighter of Foo]

From 538

"Quinnipiac's polls have shown a slight Democratic lean this cycle -- they've been 1-2 points more favorable to Dems than contemporaneous polls of their states. From what I can tell, their head of polling (Peter Brown) has fairly conservative politics, so I don't know that it can be called a partisan lean. But that is the side that the polls have tended to end up upon nevertheless.

At the same time, they are highly-rated (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings) polls, use large sample sizes, and have plenty of rich trendlines for comparison. Is it possible that they are outliers to a certain degree? Possibly -- maybe even probably -- but as I intimated yesterday (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/todays-polls-929.html), with Obama's surge nationally it was inevitable that we were eventually going to get an oh sh*t set of state polling for Obama. There clearly seems to have been some movement toward Obama in Florida, as well as in Pennsylvania, where the Morning Call tracker (http://www.muhlenberg.edu/studorgs/polling/documents/Release_sept30.pdf) has had him gaining a point literally every day since its inception. Ohio, I am somewhat less convinced about, but InsiderAdvantage (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html) also gives him the lead there (as well as a 6-point lead in Virginia (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_obama-551.html))."

[I. J. Reilly]

Yikes, no wonder newspaper sales have fallen so far. This explains a lot.

You’re looking down your nose at me because I can’t see Russia from my house, aren’t you?:)

[JediKooter]

Unless the McCain camp can teach her how to tap dance around the questions, I just don't see this debate being anything less than a train wreck of the Palin Express.

I'm not trying flair up tempers or anything like that, but, I have yet to see one redeeming quality in her that makes me think that she would be capable of fulfilling the duties of President if McCain some how can not finish his term, if he wins in November. She just doesn't have 'It'. Even Dan Quayle wasn't this bad.

[DaddyTorgo]

From 538

"Quinnipiac's polls have shown a slight Democratic lean this cycle -- they've been 1-2 points more favorable to Dems than contemporaneous polls of their states. From what I can tell, their head of polling (Peter Brown) has fairly conservative politics, so I don't know that it can be called a partisan lean. But that is the side that the polls have tended to end up upon nevertheless.

At the same time, they are highly-rated (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings) polls, use large sample sizes, and have plenty of rich trendlines for comparison. Is it possible that they are outliers to a certain degree? Possibly -- maybe even probably -- but as I intimated yesterday (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/todays-polls-929.html), with Obama's surge nationally it was inevitable that we were eventually going to get an oh sh*t set of state polling for Obama. There clearly seems to have been some movement toward Obama in Florida, as well as in Pennsylvania, where the Morning Call tracker (http://www.muhlenberg.edu/studorgs/polling/documents/Release_sept30.pdf) has had him gaining a point literally every day since its inception. Ohio, I am somewhat less convinced about, but InsiderAdvantage (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html) also gives him the lead there (as well as a 6-point lead in Virginia (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_obama-551.html))."

thanks foo-foo.

even if you lop off 2-3 points off those polls, they still look good for obama, particularly the PA one

[NoMyths]

Meanwhile, as the Green Party campaigns to have Cynthia McKinney elected president...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6nc-DouFzYM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6nc-DouFzYM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[JediKooter]

Meanwhile, as the Green Party campaigns to have Cynthia McKinney elected president...


She is definitely coocoo for cocoa puffs.

[KWhit]

I agree completely here. Listen, I have an unhealthy amount of bias for Palin. I would agree that most people should not feel all that safe if Palin is president tomorrow. Heck, I'm one of Palin's biggest fans and that would worry me.

Nominating Palin as VP and putting her a potential heartbeat away from the presidency is unbelievably irresponsible and shows a severe lapse in judgment by McCain and his staff.

A horrible, horrible choice made only to secure votes from the far right. If you're going to pick someone to be VP, you better make damn sure that person could handle being president as well.

[DaddyTorgo]

Nominating Palin as VP and putting her a potential heartbeat away from the presidency is unbelievably irresponsible and shows a severe lapse in judgment by McCain and his staff.

A horrible, horrible choice made only to secure votes from the far right. If you're going to pick someone to be VP, you better make damn sure that person could handle being president as well.


but but but...didn't you hear? John McCain is the original maverick! He's a maverick! You know? :lol:

*and if you hadn't heard I'm sure Sarah Palin would be happy to tell you all about it

[QuikSand]

I wonder what's actually going on her head there. I'm assuming that she could at least NAME a newspaper, but who knows. I mean this as a non-faceitious question, what's going on there?

Did her people tell her to never name a specific newspaper? Was she so panicked that her answer would be spun negatively that she was paralyzed with fear? Was she worried about being associated with a "liberal" newspaper?

She just panicked. She's so nervous in these interviews that she can't think straight, so she says everything that pops into her head without filtering any of it. It reminds me a lot of unprepared guys I've seen in oral comprehensives.

I think that's probably it, in part -- she is justifiably apprehensive about having anything she says get picked on. If she decided to spontaneously lie and say that she read the Wall Street Journal, there's the chance that (1) she'd say it wrong and it came out "the Wall Street Times" or something; (2) some joker would find that there was never a single copy of the WSJ delivered to or available in the AK state house during the entire term, or (3) something even more dreadful I can't even think of yet.

My guess is that her handlers have basically just said "here are twelve things you can say, just steer clear of everything else." Names of newspapers wasn't on the list. But a phrase like "health care reform" was, and so that phrase oddly slipped in a few times when she was responding to questions about the economic bailout plan. She's just doing what they tell her, I reckon.

I don't think there's any debate that the truth of the matter is that she simply hasn't had any real interest in national and international affairs until just now, and that the honest answer to the question being asked just felt too embarrassing to just let it go. At least she had the political sense to dodge that, i suppose.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't think there's any debate that the truth of the matter is that she simply hasn't had any real interest in national and international affairs until just now, and that the honest answer to the question being asked just felt too embarrassing to just let it go. At least she had the political sense to dodge that, i suppose.

if she hasn't had any interest in national or international affairs until now she should not have accepted the nomination. And yes, she couldn't turn it down publicly, but she could have made it clear behind the scenes. For her to have no interest in national or international affairs and still accept the nomination is really the height of hubris. It also displays a stunning lack of respect for the job, a lack of judgement, and a lack of respect for the American people.

[Arles]

Oh, give me a break Arles. You certainly didn't care baout the "90%" when your candidate was doing well.
This forum has always been mostly Obama Kool-Aid drinkers and it used to be somewhat bearable. As the election gets closer, it's just extremely difficult to have a respectful discussion here. No biggie, there are many other places where one can be had.

I've said about 10 times in the past 15 pages that I don't think it's the end of the world if Obama wins, nor am I thrilled with McCain. I've admitted my bias for Palin and am trying to atleast explain the reasons why she is doing poorly (not to say she is doing a wonderful job in interviews as some have argued against).

But, you guys want no part of any discussion like that. You just want the election to be tomorrow because you are so terrified something's going to happen to "steal" the election from Obama that all reasonable debate has gone out the window. Not that this couldn't have been anticipated (esp given the results in 2000 and 2004), but the tension in this thread is palpable and I expect it will be a name-calling, whining, anger-filled, elitist :cool: gathering over the next 3-4 weeks and I just don't see the need to participate in that.

I think the country will be fine if Obama or McCain wins. I think all four candidates are good people and trying to do the best they can. I don't have a ton of angst or anger about this election and therefore feel a little out of place in this thread.

In the days following the Republican convention when it looked like Obama was tanking, I didn't threaten to leave the thread when McCain fans were having their little circle jerk about how badly Obama was stumbling.
Again, that's because you are adamant that Obama will be a much superior president and are willing to put up with a minority of 20% complaining about him in this thread to discuss it. I'm fairly ambivalent about this election and feel no need to justify the McCain/Palin ticket to every piece of criticism (esp when 80% of the thread is criticizing it).

I ask again, when did conservatives become a bunch of whiny bitches? Pelosi is mean to me! FOFC is mean to me! Now I know why people hated whiny liberals so much. That shit is annoying.
This is the angst that I'm talking about. You guys are so vested in Obama that anything remotely positive about McCain/Palin needs to be immediately snuffed out without debate (ie, dismissive comments). As to your question, I see conservatives having two issues with participating in this thread from now on:

1. No actual debate is desired at this point. It's just a "quickest way to try and shut up/dismiss the McCain/Palin fan" by about 8-10 posters. Who wants to participate in that unless you really love that ticket?

2. I might be convinced to put up with 1 if I really thought that McCain/Palin would be a much better president/VP than Obama/Biden. But, I don't. I think they are similar and will vote for McCain, but I can't see an inch of difference in real economic/military/environment between the two tickets. I honestly don't feel like I have a candidate that represents what I would like to see done so why continue to fight for a side when even if I win the "battle", I don't really win anything.

Maybe this will fall on deaf ears here and I'll be referred to as a "whiner" again, but that's why I think this thread has run its course from a participatory standpoint for me. I'll still read it and I do think a lot of you have smart comments/perspectives, but I don't feel the need to say something I will regret in the next 5 weeks (something I think everyone participating will do) - especially when I don't see the outcome as all that "ground breaking". Either way, I will have someone in the White House I agree with between 30 and 50% of the time. That's something to fight for! ;)

[Kodos]

Whiner.

[Flasch186]

Arles, the problem Ive seen with this thread is that no matter which side of the debate a person is on they will be able to find op-ed pieces or facts to back up there side. There really isnt any open mindedness. I, in particular, have a hard time with "lying, hypocrisy" etc. but, as pointed out by others, it exists on both sides of the game and I am really the only one suffering from point it out and getting my panties in a wad. If anything Ive stressed myself out for no reason since as Bucc said 'it really doesnt matter' and 'my words dont matter' and he's right.

On both sides, I think some things are indisputable but than somehow they get disputed and we're both left scratching our heads saying, "How do they not see/read that? it's plain as day." For example, I thought McCain won the debate and somehow Im left scratching my head saying, "Did I watch the same debate as others?"

Anyways, dont listen to me because while I type it out I wont even be able to take this sort of low-stress position when something rankles me but at least you can see where im coming from.....for today, anyways.

[Big Fo]

The whole Palin controversy is a blatant ploy by the McCain campaign to have her portrayed as a moron before she comes out and rips Biden a new asshole in the debate. The struggling through basic questions, "omg sexist media" stuff, McCain holding her hand through the Katie Couric interview, maybe even her daughter's pregnancy, it is just an illusion designed to lower Americans' expectations. I recall Vegas Vic many pages back saying Palin has shown herself to be an excellent debater when running for governor in Alaska, and that wasn't the first or last time I'd seen that mentioned. Tomorrow night Sarah Palin will shock America and the world. Expect a five point bump in national polling and Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina to be taken off the board. We'll all be staying up late on election night.

[JonInMiddleGA]

For example, I thought McCain won the debate and somehow Im left scratching my head saying, "Did I watch the same debate as others?"

Peculiar thing about that (IMO). My impression from here & elsewhere seems to be that quite a few Obama-backers thought McCain won the debate and quite a few McCain backers thought Obama won the debate.

Damned if I know what to make of that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tomorrow night Sarah Palin will shock America and the world.

You mean there'll still be a viable McCain campaign after Thursday night?

edit to add: Since sarcasm is really easy to lose on the webz, please allow me to clarify: I'm not kidding.

[Arles]

Whiner.
Love it. :cool:

[Flasch186]

LOL

[JediKooter]

This forum has always been mostly Obama Kool-Aid drinkers and it used to be somewhat bearable.

I am a registered Republican and I will NOT be voting for McCain/Palin. Palin is too much of a liability to the future of this country and I will not take that risk and am voting for Obama. I wish there was more to choose from, but, there's not.

So, no kool aid drinking on my part.

[JPhillips]

Am I the only one that thinks the VP debate won't matter regardless of what happens?

[GrantDawg]

Am I the only one that thinks the VP debate won't matter regardless of what happens?


Nope. Unless Palin starts ranting about killing Jews, or Biden wants to increase taxes on the elderly by 100%.

[Big Fo]

You mean there'll still be a viable McCain campaign after Thursday night?

edit to add: Since sarcasm is really easy to lose on the webz, please allow me to clarify: I'm not kidding.

There was some sarcasm there (I don't necessarily believe that the McCain campaign had Bristol feign pregnancy to appeal to the pro-lifers in a "talk the talk and walk the walk" kind of way) with a dash of paranoia, but I do have a feeling that Palin will earn a creditable draw at worst in tomorrow's debate. Also, McCain has still has a shot, there's five weeks left and who knows how big the Bradley effect will turn out to be. Sure Obama is more likely to win at this point, but not as likely as the 85.4% chance on fivethirtyeight.com or others that seem to feel it's all but over.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Heh. I couldn't decide whether to put this in the college football thread or the presidential thread ... figured it fit better here than there.

Just noticed an article on ajc.com that talked about the great rating for this past weekend's Georgia-Alabama game. It pulled a 21.7 rating, and didn't show any significant erosion in spite of 'Bama's 31-0 halftime lead. That made me curious ...

Overnight ratings for the first presidential debate, all four broadcast network affiliates in Atlanta combined: peaked at a 21.0 for broadcast, might have had enough cable to match the football game (I don't get the cable overnights locally).

Just kind of amusing to me, in a sad sort of way.

[larrymcg421]

Lots of polling lately. Here are all the ones I see that ended on 9/29-9/30

National

Obama 50-46 (ABC/WaPo)
Obama 49-43 (Pew Research)
Obama 48-41 (AP/GfK)
Obama 48-45 (Ipsos)
Obama 50-43 (Time)
Obama 48-44 (Gallup)
Obama 51-45 (Rasmussen)
Obama 47-42 (Hotline/FD)
Obama 48-46 (GW/Battleground)


Florida

Obama 51-47 (CNN/Time)
Obama 49-46 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 46-42 (Suffolk)
Obama 51-43 (Quinnipiac)


Nevada

Obama 48-47 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 51-47 (CNN/Time)
McCain 49-47 (ARG)


Ohio

Obama 47-45 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 50-42 (Quinnipiac)
McCain 49-48 (SurveyUSA)


Pennsylvania

Obama 54-39 (Quinnipiac)
Obama 48-41 (Morning Call)


Virginia

Obama 51-45 (InAdv/PollPosition)
Obama 53-44 (CNN/Time)


Single polls from other states

GA: McCain 52-44 (SurveyUSA)
IN: McCain 48-45 (SurveyUSA)
MO: Obama 49-48 (CNN/Time)
MS: McCain 52-44 (Rasmussen)
NJ: Obama 52-42 (SurveyUSA)
OK: McCain 64-34 (SurveyUSA)
TX: McCain 52-43 (Rasmussen)
TN: McCain 58-39 (Rasmussen)
WI: Obama 49-40 (Strategic Vision)

[flere-imsaho]

Confirmation that Palin can't, apparently, name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9WduykYpA

[Flasch186]

Quick! theres that color vs. that school thingy!

name one case other than Roe v. Wade?

"I would think any again that could best be dealt with on a more local level maybe i would take issue with but....sigh, y'know as a mayor and then as a governor and even as a vice president if I am so priviledged to serve, to be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."


huh?


nevermind, taken back...it was one she disagreed with when on first listen i thought it was name one, any one.

Sorry....the discombobulation of the english still stands however.

[Big Fo]

Well she was asked to name a case whose outcome she disagreed with, so she couldn't just shout out the first thing that came to mind.

[Vegas Vic]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm watching C-SPAN right now, as the Senate is voting on a US/India bill regarding nuclear inspections, and later they'll be voting on the Financial Markets Bill.

I noticed Obama and Hillary standing off to the side, and it appeared that they were having a lengthy, rather warm conversation with each other. It didn't appear to be contrived by any means. Supposedly, they have a very icy relationship, but she has been vigorously campaigning for him in Florida, so maybe there's not as much animosity between them as we sometimes read about.

[NoMyths]

Confirmation that Palin can't, apparently, name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9WduykYpA

Truly remarkable that the McCain campaign felt that she could be presented as a legitimate Vice Presidential candidate rather than as a cheap vote-grabbing ploy.

Also remarkable how effectively CBS News is letting such a damaging interview go viral day by day, keeping their work in the news. Strong work on their parts.

I'll say this for Palin: a person with a less strong constitution would have probably bowed out of the race by now for their own peace of mind, if not the good of the country.

[Vegas Vic]

I'll say this for Palin: a person with a less strong constitution would have probably bowed out of the race by now for their own peace of mind, if not the good of the country.

If Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle didn't bail out, why in the world would you think that Palin would?

[Flasch186]

Is CBS somewhat wrong though in not just releasing it at once as a whole, i mean i was against editing of answers and while that's not the case here I wonder if it all shouldnt be released so it isnt considered sniping. I get the ratings thing and youre right in that they continue to get the viral ratings but im not sure they keep their credibility in the process if they cared at all anyways.

[NoMyths]

If Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle didn't bail out, why in the world would you think that Palin would?

I don't think she would. A responsible person with her background wouldn't have accepted the nomination in the first place.

[JediKooter]

Confirmation that Palin can't, apparently, name a Supreme Court case aside from Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9WduykYpA

Ouch. That was painful to watch. Someone should explain to her what the word specific means.

She sounds remarkably like this: YouTube - Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww)

[Fritz]

i am astounded the Trout is still around.

[Maple Leafs]

I wonder what's actually going on her head there. I'm assuming that she could at least NAME a newspaper, but who knows. I mean this as a non-faceitious question, what's going on there?

Did her people tell her to never name a specific newspaper? Was she so panicked that her answer would be spun negatively that she was paralyzed with fear? Was she worried about being associated with a "liberal" newspaper?
Here's a decent theory from Ezra Klein:

But on a slightly broader note, you have to appreciate the bind the McCain campaign has put Palin in. By launching an overwhelming attack against "media elite," they effectively walled off leading publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Palin couldn't name them, because to legitimize them would undercut the campaign's rhetoric from recent weeks.

At the same time, the fear is that she's really just a parochial, small town mayor and small state governor who's unready for the national stage. She can't name the Anchorage Daily Post or whatever and risk someone reporting that her primary information source doesn't even have a foreign bureau.

And meanwhile, she's not actually so fluent in the ideas and information infrastructure that she'd think to name a safe elite choice like "The Economist" or wrest some generational cred by pointing towards a news aggregator. Instead, we get "all of them."
If true, it's at least a little more comforting than the only other explanation, which is that she's an idiot.

[Fritz]

early trout reference

Which would be best for the US in terms of international reaction? - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=7527&highlight=trout)

[miked]

I wonder how much of it is arrogance. I don't know if she's arrogant, but when she was being vetted, she had to know that she was grossly unqualified. I mean, did she ever just say to herself, "darn, I've barely been out the country" or "man, I've never dealt with things on a national level this much" or something to that effect. Who knows, just seems like something is missing.

[Big Fo]

Obama is now up 353-185 on RCP's projection. It was a 50-50 race last week.

[Mac Howard]

The one thing that Palin has done well so far was her speech at the Republican convention but, as one commentator (who apparently lectures on politics) said at the time "Given a tele-prompter and three days of tutoring and rehearsal, half my students could have given that performance". It now remains to be seen if the latest tutoring can help her shine in the much more ill-defined environment of a debate.

Add to that Biden's apparent propensity for foot-in-mouth gaffs, then I'm looking forward to this debate almost as much as I did the Man Utd Champions League match earlier this week :)

[Vegas Vic]

Obama is now up 353-185 on RCP's projection. It was a 50-50 race last week.

RCP is the gold standard in predicting presidential elections.

[ace1914]

I don't think Palin needs much help looking bad at this debate tomorrow night, but this just adds to what might be a perfect storm for entertainment (from wiki):

"Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a book called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is being released on January 20, 2009."

How is this allowed? Imagine liberals, that the 2nd debate was going to be moderated by someone who was releasing a McCain book - would you think that was fair? I mean, she has a lot at stake financially in this election, and she's obviously a huge and public Obama fan.

At this point though, I'm just hoping for entertainment.

:lol:

So you telling me McCain and Co. just found this out? If conservatives didn't care then, why do you care now?