Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[flere-imsaho]

Those Big Ten polls that came out today... who did they poll, students? Those are crazy.

It's a shame these are getting ignored. Let me post them again, with editorial comments:

Quinnipiac:
Florida: Obama 49, McCain 44
Ohio: Obama 52, McCain 38
Pennsylvania: Obama 53, McCain 40

Florida's within the realm of reality, and has to be very worrying for McCain. I could believe this as the race being effectively tied and the poll having a slight Democratic lean on top of the MoE being (in this instance) on the Obama side.

The Ohio result is insane. I don't believe it.

The PA result is higher than I'd expect, but PA's been trending Obama for a while now. The gap is probably closer to 10, though, I'd think.

Big Ten:
Illinois: Obama 61, McCain 32
Indiana: Obama 51, McCain 41
Iowa: Obama 52, McCain 39
Ohio: Obama 53, McCain 41
Michigan: Obama 58, McCain 36
Minnesota: Obama 57, McCain 38
Pennsylvania: Obama 52, McCain 41
Wisconsin: Obama 53, McCain 40

No surprise with Illinois.

No way Indiana is like that. I wonder if they only polled the NW corner. :D

Iowa sounds about right, as Obama's been dominating there since the start of the primaries.

I don't believe the Ohio numbers, but I do think the PA numbers are OK.

The MI, MN and WI numbers must coincide with the opening of hunting season and everyone with a gun being away from their phone. :D

CNN/TIME:
Nevada: Obama 51, McCain 46
North Carolina: Obama 51, McCain 47
Ohio: Obama 50, McCain 46
Virginia: Obama 54, McCain 44

Nevada I could see. NC should be tighter, but I could see it being a tossup at this point. Ohio is more where I'd expect the numbers to be (i.e. near the MoE). Virginia, again, is crazy. I can't imagine Virginia is more than +3/+4 Obama right now.

[Butter_of_69]

Let's leave MBBF alone about the "obvious sexism" of the clothes issue, and ask him if he still thinks Zogby's super duper partisan weighting makes it the most accurate poll?

I'm pretty sure McCain and Palin are being "PS3'd"... that is similar to swiftboating, but it involves inflated poll/sales numbers of the opponents and other, more complicated measures that I can't discuss at this time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Actually, most of the McCain's houses were bought (and are owned) by a corporation trust set up for this purpose. Funding of the trust most likely comes directly from Cindy's inherited money and/or her stake in the beer distributorship. I'm going to assume this was done for tax purposes.

Again, you're missing the point. This is about image and hypocrisy. If you're going to campaign as the down-home common man/woman, you compromise this image by blowing $150,000 at Saks & Neiman.

First point is spot-on and is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to net worth. Anyone who actually believes the net figures reported by these campaigns is a fool at best. These numbers are heavily manipulated.

In regards to your second point, it would seem that the Obama method of fundraising would provide similar quandries in regards to both changing the campaign finance laws and whether the common person is being priced out of any opportunity to run for office. Should we be surprised that McCain, Obama, and Biden all spent thousands of dollars on wardrobes and that Palin had no other choice if she wanted to play with the big wigs when we realize the amount of money funneled through the campaign process?

With campaigns now running on half-billion dollar budgets, are the campaign finance laws useless in their attempt to allow the common man to have a chance to run for this kind of office?

[Tigercat]

You have to imagine Franken is loving MN polls like that. He will need Obama to pull that race out for him, IMO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Let's leave MBBF alone about the "obvious sexism" of the clothes issue, and ask him if he still thinks Zogby's super duper partisan weighting makes it the most accurate poll?

Why would I change my argument regarding polling methods? Much like Senator Biden, I believe that past results fortell future results. I haven't varied from that stance. I've certainly never called it 'super duper' either.

[molson]

If Biden's net worth is under $400,000 he has a serious gambling and/or drug addiction.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm pretty sure McCain and Palin are being "PS3'd"... that is similar to swiftboating, but it involves inflated poll/sales numbers of the opponents and other, more complicated measures that I can't discuss at this time.

It's always easier to use that kind of meaningless stance that has nothing to do with the discussion than actually debating the point with some form of logic. I understand that all this thinking can be overwhelming to some.

[bignej]

McCain (and his wife) paid for their own houses, which are such a big deal for whatever reason.

I agree that this shouldn't have been an issue


McCain, Obama, and Biden are millionares. Palin is not. When comparing Obama to McCain, (some) liberals consider it a selling point that Obama has less money. Yet Palin is clearly the closest to the middle class of all 4, and isn't in a position to dress like a VP candidate on her own dime.
So even if the expense of the wardrobes are comparable, only Palin should be subject to critisism because she's the poorest?

Like I asked earlier, has anyone or anyone they know been able to tell a difference at all since she spent all of this money? Its not like the woman didn't have clothes. Id be pretty sure most republicans wouldn't want their donations being spent of shopping sprees. Does being the poorest(while nowhere close to poor) mean you should be given $150,000 for clothes. I say she looked nice before and I believe that amount is what her family makes in a year. And by the way, Biden's income is his senate salary and hes not a millionaire


There's an email forward going around asking people to have an open mind about stuff like this. What if Obama brought his family on stage at the convention and still asked for privacy in their daily lives - would you criticize him? What if the Obama chose a younger, less rich VP that they dressed up in fancy suits - would you have a problem with that?

He did choose a less rich VP. The only reason its an issue is the hypocrisy of it. She is against wasteful spending but wastefully spends.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You think the common man has a chance to run for this kind of office?

Really?

Can you forsee some series of events where Truman Jr. even competes in the primary, let alone in the election? I sure can't. But then again, I'm pretty cynical.

No, I agree with you. The finance laws were originally intended to be a way for people to compete in an election in that the government would give you $XXX to run your campaign if you demonstrated a certain level of support. Given the level of money going through campaigns at this point, I don't see any further reason for public financing. That need has passed. I'm guessing you'd agree.

[cartman]

It's always easier to use that kind of meaningless stance that has nothing to do with the discussion than actually debating the point with some form of logic. I understand that all this thinking can be overwhelming to some.

If Biden's net worth is under $400,000 he has a serious gambling and/or drug addiction.

lol

[flere-imsaho]

I just don't get this part - so you think the small town/governor thing is just an image? Isn't that why she's not qualified?

First of all I, personally, don't care.

Secondly, I'm commenting on the question of why this is a big media issue right now. It's a big media issue because Palin has presented herself as an average American, hockey mom, aw-shucks, etc.... Then she blows $150,000 on clothes. If you don't think that's going to get people in general and the media in particular to go ??? and :rant: then I don't know what to tell you.

Thirdly, I've defended her purchase of clothes in one of the initial posts on this topic. Sure, $150,000 seems a little excessive, and it could certainly have been handled better, but it is, to me, understandable given her very particular situation.

But the key thing is image, tied to the way this was handled. It's especially bad to throw around $150,000 on clothes during a very serious economic downturn. It's especially bad to throw around $150,000 on clothes when presenting yourself as an average American. It's even worse to have a good part of that $150,000 not even be on clothes, but on accessories.

She's a small town governor of questionable qualifications who's wearing nice clothes. GET THE FUCK OVER IT. A nicer wardrobe doesn't suddenly change her background (though some in the GOP probably wish it would).

Hey, don't tell me - I agree 100%. Tell it to part of her GOP base who are in the process of closing down their small businesses or just lost their jobs and are waking up to this news across the frontpages of every newspaper in the nation.

[Arles]

The media doesn't report on those.

So it appears more sexist than politically-biased. Clinton MIGHT have faced the same kind of crap if she won the nomination, we'll never know.
I'll tell you exactly what would have happened. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have made fun of Clinton for spending all that money on clothes and the same people criticizing Palin would be in here telling us how Limbaugh is attacking Clinton on a non-issue and being sexist (and they would be right).

You still have to report who the money goes to so you wouldn't be able to hide it.
Not at all. He just has to report it as a "speaking engagement expense" and everything is fine legally. Of course, you would need the media to actually do some investigative journalism and see that the "speaking engagement expense" was actually a wardrobe for that event. But, it seems that level of scrutiny is only allowed for Palin.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

lol

I'm not shocked that you missed the point.

[molson]

I'll tell you exactly what would have happened. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have made fun of Clinton for spending all that money on clothes and the same people criticizing Palin would be in here telling us how Limbaugh is attacking Clinton on a non-issue and being sexist (and they would be right).



I definitely agree with that.

[flere-imsaho]

In regards to your second point, it would seem that the Obama method of fundraising would provide similar quandries in regards to both changing the campaign finance laws and whether the common person is being priced out of any opportunity to run for office.

Actually, I'd argue that the Obama method of fundraising could make it more possible for the "common person" to run for office. Obama's raised the vast majority of his money by leveraging the internet to aggregate money from hundreds of thousands of small donors, all with very little overhead.

Contrast this to a typical fundraising apparatus, which requires the candidate to know (or be introduced to) wealthy "bundlers" who can convince their wealthy friends to pump their affinity circles for max-donation bundles to the candidate, his/her party, and various related PACs.

Don't get me wrong. Being independently wealthy still helps a ton. Knowing the right people helps a ton. Being sponsored by your party apparatus still helps a ton. But one of the big lessons from the Obama campaign will be about fundraising in this manner.

[Young Drachma]

They're all millionaires.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/palins-net-worth-exceeds-1-mil.html

Palin and Biden both have properties that would put them over the threshold, Biden worth more than Palin, but the Palin's have a net worth over a milly.

It's not a big deal, in the sense that, them buying her new clothes is akin to a clothing allowance like you'd get on a job. The number might seem exorbitant, but in an era where they're taking photos of you like crazy, where she probably had little time to pack and she's traveling to sometimes 3-5 places a day for appearances and multiple events in different climates and such alike, it was important for her to be well equipped.

She hasn't been on the national stage that long and it was the RNC paying for it, not taxpayers. I don't see what the big deal is and I think that it's the least they can do, because on balance, whether she's a dolt or not, the role of VP isn't completely an act of selfishness and it's the least they can do for disrupting her life.

Regardless of what we think of her decision to choose to do it, I doubt many of us would be able to resist the urge to do it, had someone chosen us..unless we're just not wired that way and of course, we're talking about a state governor who otherwise would have not been in this situation again (she's no Obama and you think she could hold up for 2 more years while waiting for an election cycle and run a national campaign on her own? Uh, no.)

This is her chance, she's taken it and they had to make her look like someone people would like and aspire to be. Not an everywoman in the true sense, but simply a character.

[cartman]

Well, at least her wardrobe budget will be eligible for a tax break under Obama's plan, since it was less than $250K!

:D

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Actually, I'd argue that the Obama method of fundraising could make it more possible for the "common person" to run for office. Obama's raised the vast majority of his money by leveraging the internet to aggregate money from hundreds of thousands of small donors, all with very little overhead.

Contrast this to a typical fundraising apparatus, which requires the candidate to know (or be introduced to) wealthy "bundlers" who can convince their wealthy friends to pump their affinity circles for max-donation bundles to the candidate, his/her party, and various related PACs.

Don't get me wrong. Being independently wealthy still helps a ton. Knowing the right people helps a ton. Being sponsored by your party apparatus still helps a ton. But one of the big lessons from the Obama campaign will be about fundraising in this manner.

I'd be very happy with that result if it ended up that way. You could very well be right in that the small donation level allowed pushes an odd sort of equality amongst the campaigns.

I just find the public financing laws to be horribly useless at this point. There's no reason that it should even be an option. I'd prefer the 'free market' fundraising option that you present.

[Arles]

Story on Politico about this:

Politico reported Tuesday that the Republican National Committee has popped for more than $150,000 worth of clothes and accessories for Palin and her family since John McCain tapped her as his VP pick in late August.

It’s a huge number — more than Palin's $108,000 annual salary as Alaska's governor — and news of it has brought a firestorm of criticism from Democrats who say it exposes Palin as a fraud, Republicans who wonder why their campaign contributions went for fashion, pundits who wring their hands about Neiman Marcus tastes in a Wal-Mart economy and legal experts who say the clothes might be treated as taxable income when the Palins file their next 1040.

The only ones not complaining: people who do this sort of thing for a living.

“She is dressing appropriately for the job she is going after,” said Lauren Rothman, a Washington stylist and the principal in the fashion consulting firm Styleauteur.

Palin — and those responsible for her image — faced a unique challenge in the early days of the McCain-Palin ticket: How do you introduce a virtual unknown — a self-proclaimed “hockey mom” — as both a down-to-earth girl next door and a “maverick” prepared to become the leader of the free world?

Betsy Fisher, the owner of the eponymous clothing store in Dupont Circle, says Palin and her people managed to straddle the line. “She does not look like she is wearing particularly expensive clothes,” Fisher said. “She looks like you could be her, too.”

Los Angeles-based image consultant Patsy Cisneros, a part owner of Political Icon, which works with candidates running for higher office, said Palin’s transformation was done well on a short timeline.

“She did come on the scene as governor for Alaska and looked appropriate as governor,” Cisneros said. Now, as the election nears and the possibility of the vice presidency looms, “She is being seen not just locally but globally, and she needs to represent our country. She has to look appropriate for that.”

And as for the Palin family makeover being charged to the campaign, Cisneros said it isn’t unusual. “We’ve worked with candidates before who have money to spend — some of it was their own, and some of it was from the party. It was put in under so many different ways. You would be surprised what money gets spent.”

Colleen Abrie, a “head-to-toe stylist” and image consultant in the San Francisco bay area, said that it is “important to note that you are talking about branding a person who you are launching into the public eye.”

“It is a good thing she has all that Armani, she needs all the points in her favor that she can get,” Abrie said. “If you are looking the part, you are halfway there.”

In a piece predating the current controversy, Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan called Palin’s VP style “exceptionally ordinary,” with “no detail” announcing that she’s in charge or wants to be.

“In the narrow confines of political style,” Givhan wrote last month, “the accepted rule is to dress in a manner that implies empathy for one's constituency — so don't wear anything too expensive — but also conveys authority. Palin has embraced the former and utterly ignored the latter.”
So, basically, the media ripped her for her plain fashion early on. Then, when she improved her wardrobe, she got ripped for spending too much money.

As to the question of whether a republican donor would want their money going towards her wardrobe, I (as a republican donor) have no problem with it. Given the ineffective advertising, poor speaking engagements and inept campaign McCain has been running, making Palin look better when she meets people may be the best expense he's taken on this election. At this point, McCain needs every vote he can muster including the "Damn, your VP is hot" vote.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Welcome back, Arles.

Is it a partisan liberal media elite conspiracy when Malkin herself agrees with a lot of the points made here?

Michelle Malkin » Heckuva job, RNC (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/22/heckuva-job-rnc/)

I think that this is a stupid topic for discussion, but the fact is that those on the right seem to be avoiding the real question. Not whether its fair, or right, or anything like that. Not whether there's a double standard. The point made by (some) liberals here is that it's bad PR for them to be doing this sort of thing, based on how they were selling Palin to the media and public.

1. I once agreed with one of Maureen Dowd's opinions. That doesn't mean that we were both right only in that instance.

2. When bad PR and passive sexism don't intersect, we'll have an even-handed discussion. If all things were equal, I'd agree that it's bad PR, but all things are not equal.

[miami_fan]

Is it really a big story in the media? I will admit that I don't watch cable (or local anymore) news, but a quick perusal of cnn, msnbc, and foxnews doesn't show a story on any of their front pages. Of course, I saw something yesterday, but is it true that this story is being "pushed" or is it that it filled some writer's quota last afternoon?

As for this thread, what passes for important politically in this thread never ceases to amaze.

OFT!

[cartman]

So, basically, the media ripped her for her plain fashion early on.

???

An example of this?

[lordscarlet]

With all due respect, you're a naive fool. I have a friend that is a lobbyist for Northrop Grumman in DC and knows how the political machine works. The amount of money spent on clothes by some of these big players is outrageous (both male and female). I'm surprised that Pelosi or Clinton's wardrobe hasn't been similarly catalogued (by surprised, I mean not surprised at all).

Please take a look at the article which clearly states that Obama pays $1,500 for his suits. So, with all due respect, your are a gullible fool.

[GrantDawg]

But if it were a straight-up popular vote, everyone would still have a say in the final results, right? One vote is just that, one vote.

I'm assuming that given the electoral college system that you have, you've got horrible voter turnout all over the country.


We have a horrible turn-out in this country because we are lazy, but the Presidential election (which is the only place this electoral college is used) is actually the highest turn-out election we have. I know on the surface it doesn't make very much sense, but if you read American history and the philosophy behind it, it was/is a very good system. Originally it was to protect the farm/rural states from not having a voice in who was elected. Now it insures that a canidate doesn't just serve New York/LA. It could probably use updating, but a straight popular vote election would not be the best system. It is still a lot more straight forward system than a Parliamentary system.

[Arles]

Welcome back, Arles.

Is it a partisan liberal media elite conspiracy when Malkin herself agrees with a lot of the points made here?
So, Michelle Malkin is now your standard for accuracy? I'll remember that in future discussions.

I was looking at the issue from my own perspective and my own perspective is that if Hillary Clinton spent a lot of money on clothes - she would be roasted by republican commentators like Limbaugh and defended by the same people in this thread criticizing Palin. If you disagree, that's your right. I just don't think it's intellectually honest to do so.

I think that this is a stupid topic for discussion, but the fact is that those on the right seem to be avoiding the real question. Not whether its fair, or right, or anything like that. Not whether there's a double standard. The point made by (some) liberals here is that it's bad PR for them to be doing this sort of thing, based on how they were selling Palin to the media and public.
The right faced a very difficult situation. When she came on, she was viewed as unpolished, redneck and a governor from a hick state. So, they decided to dress her up and make her look more polished. Many in the fashion world think that was the right decision. IMO, the RNC/McCain campaigned did what they have done this entire election - buckle to the pressure of the media elites and lose their message in hopes of "getting along".

I just don't see how in the arena of hundreds of million dollar campaigns, spending some money to improve Palin's appearance is all hypocritical. By that logic, taking a more expensive chartered flight or speaking at a nice hotel or ordering an expensive food item is just as hypocritical. And, I doubt we will see stories lamenting all the money Obama has "wasted" staying at hotels and flying in his campaign jet everywhere.

[molson]

I just don't see how in the arena of hundreds of million dollar campaigns, spending some money to improve Palin's appearance is all hypocritical. By that logic, taking a more expensive chartered flight or speaking at a nice hotel or ordering an expensive food item is just as hypocritical. And, I doubt we will see stories lamenting all the money Obama has "wasted" staying at hotels and flying in his campaign jet everywhere.

$150k is such a drop in the bucket.

The whole campaign's a huge waste, really. Total combined campaign costs for both parties will pass the $1 Billion mark this month (the majority of that is Obama's). Is every penny of that spent efficiently with the exception of Palin's wardrobe?

How much $ has Obama spend total to get here today, and how does that not contradict his stated values?

[Arles]

???

An example of this?

Posted above
In a piece predating the current controversy, Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan called Palin’s VP style “exceptionally ordinary,” with “no detail” announcing that she’s in charge or wants to be.

“In the narrow confines of political style,” Givhan wrote last month, “the accepted rule is to dress in a manner that implies empathy for one's constituency — so don't wear anything too expensive — but also conveys authority. Palin has embraced the former and utterly ignored the latter.”

[cartman]

So one fashion write equals the media???

[Arles]

Well said.
Your selected parsing above really added a lot to the discussion. Glad you are a part of it!

Since I don't really care about this issue, and my desire to argue about nothing has been quenched, I'm not sure there's much more to say.
Yet you then say (earning you the "liar" tag from Flasch):

If you can't see how propping up Palin as a hockey-mom, Joe Six-pack lovin', just like the gal next door with one hand and draping her in Saks Fifth Avenue and designer purses with the other is a risky move, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
By that logic, one can't see how Obama is going to relate to the middle class and bring change to Washington while he's flying around in a custom Gulfstream jet, staying in expensive hotels, dining on expensive meals and spending money like a drunken sailor on the campaign trail.

But, this is who candidates are. They have to spend a lot of money on things many of us wouldn't understand (personal jets, 5-star hotels, top restaurants, wardrobes). What's interesting to me is that Obama's spending on jets/hotels/food isn't a big deal (even though it dwarfs 150K), yet Palin's 150K clothing is a huge issue. I guess Obama is a huge hypocrite for trying to relate with the "little guy" in his speeches, then going on board his personal gulfstream jet in route to a ritzy hotel.

[cartman]

There is a fundamental difference between saying you can "relate to" something than saying you "are" something.

[molson]

There is a fundamental difference between saying you can "relate to" something than saying you "are" something.

So you don't think Palin is who she says she is? That doesn't seem debatable. Nobody's yet explained how fancy clothes changes her background, or how anyone would even think that. Liberals in this thread claim that this is "bad PR", yet no conservatives here have a problem with the spending. Classic spin - you're telling the other side what they're supposed to care about. If it was a PR issues I'd expect the backlash to be from the right, though all/most of the criticism is coming from the left.

Whether Obama really relates to the middle class (rather than just panders for their votes) is an open question, but he certainly doesn't support the former with his actions.

[cartman]

So you don't think Palin is who she says she is? That doesn't seem debatable. Nobody's yet explained how fancy clothes changes her background, or how anyone would even think that. Liberals in this thread claim that this is "bad PR", yet no conservatives here have a problem with the spending. Classic spin - you're telling the other side what they're supposed to care about.

Whether Obama really relates to the middle class (rather than just panders for their votes) is an open question, but he certainly doesn't support the former with his actions.

I didn't say that at all. I was pointing out that people were using the two terms interchangeably, and they have different basic meanings.

[flere-imsaho]

What, no comments on the polls, people?

[molson]

What, no comments on the polls, people?

I've given up on their reliability (or am fatigued from discussions of their reliability) Just waiting for election day now.

I'm locked into "Obama's a strong favorite, McCain winning would be a huge upset" for the duration.

I've had the sense from the beginning (with one or two blips), that Obama would pull away at the very end and make this a landslide.

[cartman]

What, no comments on the polls, people?

Looks like the effects of a "Powell Bounce" from independents.

[Arles]

I've given up on their reliability (or am fatigued from discussions of their reliability) Just waiting for election day now.

I'm locked into "Obama's a strong favorite, McCain winning would be a huge upset" for the duration.

I've had the sense from the beginning (with one or two blips), that Obama would pull away at the very end and make this a landslide.
What he said. Obama's looking to have a strong showing on election day and I don't see much changing that.

[Fidatelo]

I think there are over 100 posts devoted to the topic of Sarah Palin's clothing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Please take a look at the article which clearly states that Obama pays $1,500 for his suits. So, with all due respect, your are a gullible fool.

Ah, yes. One purchase was listed at one store, and that's the end of the story? Good try, but you'd be laughed out of this conversation if you tried to present this as fact during a political conversation in Washington D.C. The common man argument and Obama hold little water.

FWIW.....I don't begrudge him the opportunity to purchase fine clothing and other luxury items. But to argue that he somehow owns an entire wardrobe of 5 suits he purchased for $1,500/suit is intellectually dishonest and lacking in and real substance.

[digamma]

Posted above

The Neiman bill from Minneapolis would have been around the convention time and would likely predate the "last month" of the Ghivan quote.

So perhaps, the better criticism of Ghivan is that he/she is a fashion hack who doesn't recognize quality linens and fine tailoring.

[lordscarlet]

Ah, yes. One purchase was listed at one store, and that's the end of the story? Good try, but you'd be laughed out of this conversation if you tried to present this as fact during a political conversation in Washington D.C. The common man argument and Obama hold little water.

FWIW.....I don't begrudge him the opportunity to purchase fine clothing and other luxury items. But to argue that he somehow owns an entire wardrobe of 5 suits he purchased for $1,500/suit is intellectually dishonest and lacking in and real substance.

If only I knew what a political conversation in Washington, D.C. was like...

And, if you read what I wrote, that is not what I claimed.

[GrantDawg]

I agree that this shouldn't have been an issue

Like I asked earlier, has anyone or anyone they know been able to tell a difference at all since she spent all of this money? Its not like the woman didn't have clothes. Id be pretty sure most republicans wouldn't want their donations being spent of shopping sprees. Does being the poorest(while nowhere close to poor) mean you should be given $150,000 for clothes. I say she looked nice before and I believe that amount is what her family makes in a year. And by the way, Biden's income is his senate salary and hes not a millionaire

He did choose a less rich VP. The only reason its an issue is the hypocrisy of it. She is against wasteful spending but wastefully spends.


Yes, I have noticed the difference. I have noticed the media not killing her for dressing poorly and wearing the same outfits repeatedly. There is no doubt in my mind that she was going to be in a catch-22 on this. She couldn't afford to cloth herself (or the kids for that matter) in a way that would not draw criticism ("Her JC Penney style" type of snide remarks), and for the campaign to cloth her was going to draw criticism of too much money spent. Absolutely no win.

To the point that she could have had her clothes donated, by whom exactly? That major conservative designer, oh what is his name, oh yeah Mr. Doesn't F-ing exist. Sears? JC Penney? Macy's? And alienate their shoppers by endorsing a canidate?

I can guarentee Michelle Obama has a wardrobe just as expensive, but her husband is rich and they can buy it themselves. Cindy McCain probably has pieces of jewlery worth more than that, and so does Hillary Clinton.

Oh, and for the "donate to charity" part. You do get they meant they will sell the clothing and donate the money, right? They aren't giving poor people expensive clothing and saying "enjoy that in the alley."

This stuff is just so stupid it is really getting under my skin, and I'm not even a Palin supporter.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

They aren't giving poor people expensive clothing and saying "enjoy that in the alley."

That quote is all kinds of funny. :D

[molson]

That quote is all kinds of funny. :D

I think it would be funny if all the homeless people in Alaska were dressed like Sarah Palin after the election.

[GrantDawg]

So one fashion write equals the media???


Arles is supposed to cataloge every fashion writer that might have written about this. Just take a look at this pic:

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1asprnc004.jpg

Does she look very presidential? Do you really think that look would keep her in common with the normal person, or have people go "wow, that is one ugly outfit."

[Big Fo]

So one fashion write equals the media???

That's a standard argument on here it seems.

One article = pervasive media bias

One Obama or McCain supporter or campaign surrogate = all their supporters

One FOFC poster planning to vote for _____ = all FOFC posters planning to vote for ______

[JPhillips]

I don't have a problem with a new wardrobe and with the exception of possible tax implications I don't really care that the RNC bought it. My issue lies more with the media who ran like hell with trivial stories on Edwards hair and Clinton's pantsuits. In a perfect world I'd prefer that none of this made news, but if "fashion scandals" are going to be an issue for Dems it should be covered with Republicans as well.

[Flasch186]

BTW, I just wanted to point out that Im much much much more critical of Edwards haircut since I have a point of reference on that and know he paid way too much. I have no earthly idea if Palin overpaid for her new warddrobe and as a matter of fact, unlike hair, if the warddrobe last for 5 years it's probably a good deal....maybe? I honestly dont know. How can I? I havnt looked at clothes for even my own gender in a long long time and when I did I was shocked at the outrageous prices. Perhaps, though, that wasnt outrageous prices for clothing. Maybe what she got, especially if she is our next VP is well within the range of what a woman would pay for that amount of clothing. I just hope it lasts a long time because each year it's used the amount paid on the front end is worth more and more in value.

[GrantDawg]

BTW, I just wanted to point out that Im much much much more critical of Edwards haircut since I have a point of reference on that and know he paid way too much. I have no earthly idea if Palin overpaid for her new warddrobe and as a matter of fact, unlike hair, if the warddrobe last for 5 years it's probably a good deal....maybe? I honestly dont know. How can I? I havnt looked at clothes for even my own gender in a long long time and when I did I was shocked at the outrageous prices. Perhaps, though, that wasnt outrageous prices for clothing. Maybe what she got, especially if she is our next VP is well within the range of what a woman would pay for that amount of clothing. I just hope it lasts a long time because each year it's used the amount paid on the front end is worth more and more in value.

Well, I believe from what they have said she is not keeping anything. This is more like the RNC owns the wardrobe that is dressing Palin, and at the end of the election they are taking it back to sell for charity (or "to charity" if you are Micheal Scott).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I havnt looked at clothes for even my own gender in a long long time.

Without question, this deserves its own thread. Pix plz k thx. ;)

[CamEdwards]

Regarding Palin's "patriotic" comments... NRO has an interesting article up today by James Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland.

Sarah Palin Is Correct (Again) by James G. Gimpel on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzZkZDM5ZDcwMWJjMDA5NmVlYTgyNWZjYWRjMTNjYzg=)


...we can turn to one of the few recent non-partisan surveys on the matter, the American National Election Study from the University of Michigan. It’s produced every election year, and the most recent data is from 2004.

This installment asked two pertinent questions:

1. How strong is your love for your country? . . . EXTREMELY strong, VERY strong, SOMEWHAT strong, or NOT VERY strong?

2. Is being an American EXTREMELY important, VERY important, SOMEWHAT important, NOT TOO important, or NOT AT ALL important to you personally?

If we scrutinize the responses from large cities, suburbs, and small towns, the small towns are far more patriotic. Nearly three in every four (73.4 percent) respondents from counties of fewer than 25,000 people expressed that their love for their country was extremely strong, compared to only half of those in counties with more than 300,000 inhabitants. In the nation’s largest population centers, those expressing “extremely strong” love for country stood at only 46 percent. And over two-thirds of respondents from small counties reported that it is ”extremely important” to be American, compared to about half of big-city folk.

I find this interesting, because that seems to be a pretty large disparity between small towns and big cities. Yet I'm sure that most people in this country (more than 50% in big cities for instance) would say that they're "patriotic".

I guess I'm wondering if there's another definition of "patriotic" out there that A) doesn't have to do with love of country and B) doesn't have to do with attaching importance on being an American? If so, I wonder how common that other definition of patriotism is in this country.

I realize this is only tangentially related to the election, but I still find it fascinating.

[SirFozzie]

The clothing thing is worth a quick chuckle and a comment about "lipstick on a pitbull"... but to me, it's a non issue.

The Big 10 polls.. just... if I believed they were true, I'd say it was the mortal blow to the McCain Campaign. I don't, though. It's just way way too positive for Obama to be accurate. It's ------------------------> this far away from other polls. This has the effect of making me not believe it. If I saw other polls even halfway between the mean and this, I'd at least WANT to believe it.

BTW, here's what I thought about PA. Right now, McCain needs a game changer. Needs to take away momentum. But there's not really ways he can do that, traditionally. His opponent has like a 5-1 edge on money on hand, so can drown him out in ads. The base (the 527's) don't look to be having a Swift Boat ready at hand. He can't go negative, because, the public perceives him as already being too negative already, and Obama can drown out anything he tries.

So, his polling indicates that PA may be 3-4 points closer then what's reported. So he announces a surge, and throws everything he's got at the PA situation. IF, as his polling indicates, things start to tighten, well, you've got your story for the last two weeks, which is "McCain's surging! Captain Comeback is at it again. Can Obama hold on?".

The best advertising is the ones the media does for you.

It doesn't seem to be working yet.

[sterlingice]

Without question, this deserves its own thread. Pix plz k thx. ;)

I beg to differ. No pix plz. k, thx. ;)

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The clothing thing is worth a quick chuckle and a comment about "lipstick on a pitbull"... but to me, it's a non issue.

The Big 10 polls.. just... if I believed they were true, I'd say it was the mortal blow to the McCain Campaign. I don't, though. It's just way way too positive for Obama to be accurate. It's ------------------------> this far away from other polls. This has the effect of making me not believe it. If I saw other polls even halfway between the mean and this, I'd at least WANT to believe it.

BTW, here's what I thought about PA. Right now, McCain needs a game changer. Needs to take away momentum. But there's not really ways he can do that, traditionally. His opponent has like a 5-1 edge on money on hand, so can drown him out in ads. The base (the 527's) don't look to be having a Swift Boat ready at hand. He can't go negative, because, the public perceives him as already being too negative already, and Obama can drown out anything he tries.

So, his polling indicates that PA may be 3-4 points closer then what's reported. So he announces a surge, and throws everything he's got at the PA situation. IF, as his polling indicates, things start to tighten, well, you've got your story for the last two weeks, which is "McCain's surging! Captain Comeback is at it again. Can Obama hold on?".

The best advertising is the ones the media does for you.

It doesn't seem to be working yet.

Honestly, it appears that Murtha may be the one trigger in Pennsylvania that could give McCain that boost. Not only is Murtha's political life apparantly in danger after his 'redneck' comment, it could result in a surge of Republican voters in western Pennsylvania that could put the presidential race back into play, especially given that the Obama campaign feels that PA is only a 2 point race as of a couple of days ago......

Murtha Race Tightens After 'Racist,' 'Redneck' Remarks - FOXNews.com Elections (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/murtha-race-tightens-racist-redneck-remarks/)

[path12]

Regarding Palin's "patriotic" comments... NRO has an interesting article up today by James Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland.

Sarah Palin Is Correct (Again) by James G. Gimpel on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzZkZDM5ZDcwMWJjMDA5NmVlYTgyNWZjYWRjMTNjYzg=)


I find this interesting, because that seems to be a pretty large disparity between small towns and big cities. Yet I'm sure that most people in this country (more than 50% in big cities for instance) would say that they're "patriotic".

I guess I'm wondering if there's another definition of "patriotic" out there that A) doesn't have to do with love of country and B) doesn't have to do with attaching importance on being an American? If so, I wonder how common that other definition of patriotism is in this country.

I realize this is only tangentially related to the election, but I still find it fascinating.

I find this interesting also. I'd like to know if those numbers start to even out if you combine the "extremely" and "very" strong reponses......I consider myself patriotic and love my country, but I think I'd have answered those questions with the "very" strong option just because of the phrasing -- and an aversion to align myself with extremes of any sort.

[SirFozzie]

The problem is, MBBF: Other than the supposedly leaked Obamapolls, no one's showing any movement at all, it's still +10 Obama, it's like the opposite of the Big 10 polls I talked about above. It's an outlier.

There's even one today, O51/M41.

[Young Drachma]

Anyone else wondering what Barry's half hour commercial will feature?

[Butter_of_69]

But to argue that he somehow owns an entire wardrobe of 5 suits he purchased for $1,500/suit is intellectually dishonest and lacking in and real substance.

Lo, the king of intellectual dishonesty speaks!

Your majesty.... :bowdown:

[lordscarlet]

Despite the polls, I still think it is anybody's game. I think 2004 taught us that something in the polls isn't quite as accurate is it may have once been. I will still be on the edge of my seat on election night (and by "seat" I of course mean "bar stool").

[Dr. Sak]

Anyone else wondering what Barry's half hour commercial will feature?

I was hoping it would be a parade down the main street of Gotham City where he would drop $1,000,000 to the crowd in a way to spread the wealth around...wait...that was a different mad man.

[cartman]

I was hoping it would be a parade down the main street of Gotham City where he would drop $1,000,000 to the crowd in a way to spread the wealth around...wait...that was a different mad man.

Yeah, that was Bernanke going down Wall Street with $700 billion.

:D

[CamEdwards]

Anyone else wondering what Barry's half hour commercial will feature?

It'd be really amusing if he started pulling at his face, slowly revealing himself to be Ross Perot.

"Okay, people, now that I've got your attention, why don't you take a look at these charts with me for a half hour."

[GrantDawg]

It'd be really amusing if he started pulling at his face, slowly revealing himself to be Ross Perot.

"Okay, people, now that I've got your attention, why don't you take a look at these charts with me for a half hour."


Actually, I wish he'd come out with his wife in spangley outfits and start singing "I'm a little bit Country, I'm a little bit Rock and Roll."

[JPhillips]

They've got the same ears.

edit: Barack and Ross, that is

[flere-imsaho]

Anyone else wondering what Barry's half hour commercial will feature?

I shouldn't say this, but let's just say I'm in negotiations to "fully animate" my stick figure cartoons for a different subject matter, and spread to over 30 minutes....

[Fighter of Foo]

I was looking at the issue from my own perspective and my own perspective is that if Hillary Clinton spent a lot of money on clothes - she would be roasted by republican commentators like Limbaugh and defended by the same people in this thread criticizing Palin.


So you assume everyone who would criticize Palin is intellectually dishonest?

[Arles]

Despite the polls, I still think it is anybody's game. I think 2004 taught us that something in the polls isn't quite as accurate is it may have once been. I will still be on the edge of my seat on election night (and by "seat" I of course mean "bar stool").
The only thing that could change the results is if these heavily democrat samples that most polls are using end up overstating the democrat-republican turnout advantage. I still think that's a possibility, but I'm not sure it's enough to make a difference on election day. That said, I do expect these 8-10 point Obama leads to end up being 2-3 point margins.

[GrantDawg]

The only thing that could change the results is if these heavily democrat samples that most polls are using end up overstating the democrat-republican turnout advantage. I still think that's a possibility, but I'm not sure it's enough to make a difference on election day. That said, I do expect these 8-10 point Obama leads to end up being 2-3 point margins.


Probably so. He will not win by 8 percent. But he might hit a home-run in the electoral college. Not a Reagan level home-run, but bigger than the last several.

[SirFozzie]

Something interesting someone pointed out at 538...

In 2004, George W. Bush won a narrow election over John Kerry.

In 2008, John McCain is polling behind Bush's numbers in all fifty states.

[Radii]

The only thing that could change the results is if these heavily democrat samples that most polls are using end up overstating the democrat-republican turnout advantage. I still think that's a possibility, but I'm not sure it's enough to make a difference on election day. That said, I do expect these 8-10 point Obama leads to end up being 2-3 point margins.

I agree. I still will be surprised if Obama wins North Carolina at this point, despite the polling numbers.

[Arles]

Interesting strategy by Obama to point to how McCain (you know, the guy who is just like W Bush) voted against Bush's tax cut as a support of Obama's strategy. While it may give him a little cover in rolling those tax cuts back, it goes in the face of his "McCain is George Bush" message.

[Big Fo]

Interesting strategy by Obama to point to how McCain (you know, the guy who is just like W Bush) voted against Bush's tax cut as a support of Obama's strategy. While it may give him a little cover in rolling those tax cuts back, it goes in the face of his "McCain is George Bush" message.

The point is that 2000 McCain was against the Bush tax cuts but 2008 McCain is Dubya part II.

[Tigercat]

Interesting strategy by Obama to point to how McCain (you know, the guy who is just like W Bush) voted against Bush's tax cut as a support of Obama's strategy. While it may give him a little cover in rolling those tax cuts back, it goes in the face of his "McCain is George Bush" message.

I think that's just a short term response to the McCain's new Bush talking points. They are still airing those McCain-Bush connection ads, with McCain himself saying he voted with Bush "More than 90% of the time, more than most Republicans." As long as Obama keeps airing that clip, it will be hard for McCain to really distance himself.

[Flasch186]

That really is a very effective ad.

[larrymcg421]

The only thing that could change the results is if these heavily democrat samples that most polls are using end up overstating the democrat-republican turnout advantage. I still think that's a possibility, but I'm not sure it's enough to make a difference on election day. That said, I do expect these 8-10 point Obama leads to end up being 2-3 point margins.

Zogby is using the 2004 weightings and has a +12 Obama advantage.

[Neon_Chaos]

I check out Zogby, and wow. McCain's campaign is taking a nosedive. -2 only 4 days ago, and he's down by 12 points now.

[albionmoonlight]

I agree. I still will be surprised if Obama wins North Carolina at this point, despite the polling numbers.

Yup. It could happen. But this is culturally a McCain state.

If Obama wins, it will be in large part b/c McCain took NC for granted for so long.

[bignej]

McCain says c*nt on TV
YouTube - Did John McCain just say the "C" word on live TV? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX1ImnGQYcE)

Obviously adds nothing to the conversation but worth a laugh

[Mac Howard]

I guess I'm wondering if there's another definition of "patriotic" out there that A) doesn't have to do with love of country and B) doesn't have to do with attaching importance on being an American? If so, I wonder how common that other definition of patriotism is in this country.

Samuel Johnson, of course, described patriotism as the last resort/refuge of a scoundrel. But then I think he was referring to a politician who had lost all the arguments, had nowhere else to go and so claimed to be the patriot.

Oh, but wait ................. ;)

[sterlingice]

It'd be really amusing if he started pulling at his face, slowly revealing himself to be Ross Perot.

"Okay, people, now that I've got your attention, why don't you take a look at these charts with me for a half hour."

:D

As I've said a few times, one of the great "what ifs" in my relatively short lifetime was Ross Perot as President.

SI

[cartman]

Looks like the $150K clothing purchase for Palin might have run afoul of McCain-Feingold, specifically sections 313 and 323:

GovTrack: H.R. 2356 [107th]: Text of Legislation, Enrolled Bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2356)

SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
(a) PERMITTED USES-

...
(b) PROHIBITED USE-

(1) IN GENERAL- A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal use.

(2) CONVERSION- For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including--

(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
(B) a clothing purchase;
(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
(D) a country club membership;
(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
(F) a household food item;
(G) a tuition payment;
(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and
(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.'

.
.
.
Sec. 323
'(a) NATIONAL COMMITTEES-

'(1) IN GENERAL- A national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.

'(2) APPLICABILITY- The prohibition established by paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any officer or agent acting on behalf of such a national committee, and any entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such a national committee.

[DaddyTorgo]

Looks like the $150K clothing purchase for Palin might have run afoul of McCain-Feingold, specifically sections 313 and 323:

GovTrack: H.R. 2356 [107th]: Text of Legislation, Enrolled Bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2356)

lol that's pretty ironic

[molson]

Looks like the $150K clothing purchase for Palin might have run afoul of McCain-Feingold, specifically sections 313 and 323:

GovTrack: H.R. 2356 [107th]: Text of Legislation, Enrolled Bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2356)

You're another liar in the thread (by the liberal definition of that word), I'll add you to the list.

"a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office"

So such expense would be considered personal use if that use would have existed whether or not Palin was running for VP. But clearly, the clothes are only being purchased because she IS running for VP, so this doesn't break the rule you cited.

Desperate spin. But your guy's winning! Why you do you have to resort to lies?

[cartman]

You're another liar in the thread (by the liberal definition of that word), I'll add you to the list.

"a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office"

So such expense would be considered personal use if that use would have existed whether or not Palin was running for VP. But clearly, the clothes are only being purchased because she IS running for VP, so this doesn't break the rule you cited.

But look at Section 323, which forbids a national committee of a political party from contributing things prohibited by the act. One of which is a clothing purchase.

You said you were a prosecutor, so the legal definition couldn't have escaped you.

[molson]

But look at Section 323, which forbids a national committee of a political party from contributing things prohibited by the act. One of which is a clothing purchase.



It's not prohibited by the act.

ALL clothing purchases are not prohibited. Only those that are "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office"

Buying clothes for the campaign trail doesn't count, unless there's some other rule that bans that entirely.

The rule reads (2), including (A-I). So start with (2), that doesn't include her clothes purchased for campaign purposes. You can't then crowbar in (B), with is used to illustrate an non-exclusive example. If they're buying her shit to wear out on the town, we have a problem.

[Neon_Chaos]

You're another liar in the thread (by the liberal definition of that word), I'll add you to the list.

"a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office"

So such expense would be considered personal use if that use would have existed whether or not Palin was running for VP. But clearly, the clothes are only being purchased because she IS running for VP, so this doesn't break the rule you cited.

Desperate spin. But your guy's winning! Why you do you have to resort to lies?

So now we need to find out if her kids got bags and shit!

[cartman]

It's not prohibited by the act.

ALL clothing purchases are not prohibited. Only those that are "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office"

Buying clothes for the campaign trail doesn't count, unless there's some other rule that bans that entirely.

Even though the act specifically spells out a clothing purchase, you are stating that it is not subject to the stated "limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act."?

[cartman]

Dola,

Even if the stuff is sold at auction after the election, it would seem that the use of the clothing would be considered a taxable benefit during the time it was used.

[Arles]

Even though the act specifically spells out a clothing purchase, you are stating that it is not subject to the stated "limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act."?
Molson is dead on here. In order for it to violate campaign finance reform laws, you would need to prove that Palin has a history of buying 150K of clothes outside of the campaign and she would have done this even if she was not running for office. That's why it lists things like mortgages, car payments and tuition as examples.

By your logic, any purchase of a household food item (like, say, a salt shaker) used on Obama's campaign jet would be a violation. They key to the law is being able to prove that the person would have the item even if they weren't running for office. Given Palin's pictures, 100K salary and prior wardrobe, you would have a hard time convincing a judge that she would be wearing $5000 Armani suits if she were still governor of Alaska (and the purchase has no relevance to her running as VP).

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Palin wouldn't be spending big bucks like that if she wasn't running for VP. Seems like much ado about nothing. Then again, this whole clothes thing is much ado about nothing.

SI

[JPhillips]

I think Molson is right on the letter of the law, but I also don't doubt that McCain is violating the spirit of the law. Coming up with creative exploits to his own campaign finance law has been a specialty this year.

[John Galt]

It's not prohibited by the act.

ALL clothing purchases are not prohibited. Only those that are "used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office"

Buying clothes for the campaign trail doesn't count, unless there's some other rule that bans that entirely.

Calling someone else a "liar" seems a bit extreme when I think this is a very close call upon reading the statute. I know absolutely nothing of the legislative history of the statute (which is certainly relevant), but a textual reading means that Palin and the RNC have some explaining to do.

You are clearly correct that the statute does not per se bar clothing purchases. However, your interpretation is nonsense that if a candidate asserts a connection to the campaign (which is all that I can gather from your posts as to what you think the statute means), then there is no violation. Notably, the listing of categories in (A) - (I) includes some items which are listed in a dissimilar manner. Specifically, "(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense" distinguishes automobile purchases that serve a campaign function and those that don't. Subsections (E) and (H) are similarly drafted. Your interpretation makes the "noncampaign-related" language superfluous since you treat "(B) a clothing purchase" as meaning "(B) a noncampaign-related clothing purchase." A basic rule of statutory construction, thus, disfavors your interpretation. A more logical reading is that certain items are presumed to be noncampaign-related (like country club fees), while other items must be properly distinguished on a case-by-case basis (like travel expenses). Clothing items fall into the former category. Importantly, the statute bars conversion of campaign-related items to personal use, so if she keeps the clothes (which I address below), that is a definite no-no.

That interpretation is also favored by the likely policy goals of the statute. It is too easy to simply label clothing as "for the campaign" as long as it is worn at some point during the campaign season (not even in public). Such an exception would swallow the rule. Counting against Palin is the incredible expense of the items she purchased. Without knowing the details, there would need to be an itemized assessment of the clothing that she bought.

However, I think that Palin and the RNC might escape the confines of the statute if they stay true to their promise to donate the clothes to charity. In such case, it would seem clear that the items were only used for campaign purposes (assuming they are worn by her at some point). Still, it is not an easy or obvious interpretation. I think a court would spend some time going through what I imagine is ample legislative history.

Ultimately, I think the issue is a distraction, but the irony of her testing the bounds of McCain's most significant legislative accomplishment is pretty rich.

[cartman]

Molson is dead on here. In order for it to violate campaign finance reform laws, you would need to prove that Palin has a history of buying 150K of clothes outside of the campaign and she would have done this even if she was not running for office. That's why it lists things like mortgages, car payments and tuition as examples.

By your logic, any purchase of a household food item (like, say, a salt shaker) used on Obama's campaign jet would be a violation. They key to the law is being able to prove that the person would have the item even if they weren't running for office. Given Palin's pictures, 100K salary and prior wardrobe, you would have a hard time convincing a judge that she would be wearing $5000 Armani suits if she were still governor of Alaska (and the purchase has no relevance to her running as VP).

Are you saying that Palin has a history of buying $150K worth of clothes at a time? I think that would be pretty easy to prove that is not the case.

As for the Obama example, it apparently would fall under the statute. However (I might be mistaken, wouldn't be the first time) since he is not taking any FEC money, those parts of McCain-Feingold don't apply to his campaign.

[cartman]

Dola,

Thinking more about it, the salt shaker scenario wouldn't apply in any event, more than likely. I had forgotten about legal theory of "de minimis", which exempts small items from being reported or tracked due to the out of proportion administrative burden they would bring.

[SirFozzie]

are we still banging on this? Sheesh. Does it really matter? (I agree more with Arlie then others on this, it's worth a laugh as I said, but anyone who seriously wants to prosecute this as a McCain-Feingold violation needs their head examined)

[Neon_Chaos]

Did some number crunching. $150,000 could feed a family of five in the Philippines for 28 years. :eek:

[Fidatelo]

I think the Palin-clothing talk should be moved to it's own forum a la werewolf.

[larrymcg421]

I wonder what McCain thinks of this...

Join Rudy 2012 (http://joinrudy2012.com/)

[Shkspr]

Did some number crunching. $150,000 could feed a family of five in the Philippines for 28 years. :eek:

It's only 24 if you tip properly, you cheapskate. :)

[SirFozzie]

Ugh. My personal feelings on same-sex marriage aside, this is just absolutely fucking slimy.

The people behind Proposition 8 out in California, which would eliminate the rights of gay couples to marry, are going to companies who donate to the folks who are opposed to the proposition (the company who speaks in this article supports it, over a quarter of their workers are gay), and DEMANDING that they donate at least the same amount to them or risk being published as a "Company that does not support traditional marriage"

The certified letter reads: "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.”

The letter was signed by Ron Prentice, the campaign chairman for Yes on Prop 8; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com.

The people have admitted that they sent it, and they stand behind it. They call it "just trying to hold their ground in a passionate race."

Call it what it is. Blackmail. Pure and simple.
News 8 :: KFMB Stations, San Diego, California (http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.144185.html)

[sterlingice]

Wow. A-holes of the world unite!

SI

[KWhit]

I think that's just a short term response to the McCain's new Bush talking points. They are still airing those McCain-Bush connection ads, with McCain himself saying he voted with Bush "More than 90% of the time, more than most Republicans." As long as Obama keeps airing that clip, it will be hard for McCain to really distance himself.

That ad is great. McCain saying those words is classic, especially with the ad being released right after his "I am not George Bush" comment at the debate.

[KWhit]

Samuel Johnson, of course, described patriotism as the last resort/refuge of a scoundrel. But then I think he was referring to a politician who had lost all the arguments, had nowhere else to go and so claimed to be the patriot.

Oh, but wait ................. ;)

:D

The "You hate America" argument from the right is really getting tiresome.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow. A-holes of the world unite!

SI

I saw a TV commercial being used in California in regards to that ballot issue. They had a small child coming back from school. She walked up to her mom and asked her mom to guess what she learned in school today. I kid you not, the girl in the commercial said, "We had story time and I learned that a prince can marry another prince and that I could marry a princess!!!"

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but that's fearmongering to the point of absurdity IMO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The "You hate America" argument from the right is really getting tiresome.

As is the 'why you should hate America' arguments from the left.

I think both are silly at best, but for one side to fail to admit that there are just as many idiots saying just the opposite is intentional oversight to the Nth degree.

[Kodos]

I agree. I can't walk down the street without some liberal telling me why I should hate America.

[GrantDawg]

As is the 'why you should hate America' arguments from the left.

I think both are silly at best, but for one side to fail to admit that there are just as many idiots saying just the opposite is intentional oversight to the Nth degree.


Do you really believe that main-stream liberals are arguing for hating America? Seriously? Both sides point out flaws and mistakes that have been made or can be made by our country, but only the fringe of either side really gets into "hating" America.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Do you really believe that main-stream liberals are arguing for hating America? Seriously? Both sides point out flaws and mistakes that have been made or can be made by our country, but only the fringe of either side really gets into "hating" America.

No, I don't. I agree that the fringe on both sides are the only ones issuing the hate arguments. In this situation, you agree with me that KWhit's characterization of the mainstream on either side being the one making these kinds of statements is simply inaccurate. It's a generalization that has no basis in fact.

[Big Fo]

As is the 'why you should hate America' arguments from the left.


Jesus wept

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Jesus wept

I believe that Jesus was a really nice guy and little more, so you're talking to the wrong person here. I'm a heathen conservative.

[GrantDawg]

No, I don't. I agree that the fringe on both sides are the only ones issuing the hate arguments. In this situation, you agree with me that KWhit's characterization of the mainstream on either side being the one making these kinds of statements is simply inaccurate. It's a generalization that has no basis in fact.


Sure.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Is there a difference, MBBF, between being "anti-American" and "hating America?" Does the Republican Party have fringe members who are in Congress?

I think that the Republican party has more idiots, especially in the House of Representatives, than the Democrats. The district method of election in the House leads to a lot of Representatives elected on a platform heavily driven by moral/religious issues that have more basis in the Bible than in reality. I've got no problem with people who are devoutly religious, unless they do that to the point where they're voting based on what they believe morality is rather than what makes the most sense. The Bible should not be considered the only voice of reason in the world.

Similarly, there are some wacky reps from some inner city urban districts who have no business being elected. They are usually elected based on party more than any actual ability to be a U.S. Rep, much like the Republicans in the rural areas.

I challenge some of you to sit down and watch a House Committee meeting on C-Span and listen to some of the questions and issues being posed by some of these Representatives. After a couple of hours, you'll quickly begin to wonder who in the hell would even vote for some of these people.

[KWhit]

No, I don't. I agree that the fringe on both sides are the only ones issuing the hate arguments. In this situation, you agree with me that KWhit's characterization of the mainstream on either side being the one making these kinds of statements is simply inaccurate. It's a generalization that has no basis in fact.

The fringe? The Republican candidates themselves are the ones playing up the "real America" angle. And at least one Republican representative is in hot water about saying that liberals hate America and then lying about saying it. I guess Republican Representatives are the fringe now?


And I have no idea what you are talking about with the assertion that liberals argue why you should hate America.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

McCain says c*nt on TV
YouTube - Did John McCain just say the "C" word on live TV? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX1ImnGQYcE)

Obviously adds nothing to the conversation but worth a laugh

Definitely worth a laugh... I wonder if he was thinking of his potential VP...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is most definitely a very valid point. I guess where the difference for me, whether its fair or not, is that these people are saying these things in the middle of a campaign, sometimes at events just minutes before McCain/Palin take the stage.

Did Cynthia McKinney ever introduce Gore/Kerry at a Democratic event? I suppose she's about as out there as possible. I see Democratic whackos often saying foot-in-mouth things about Republican leaders/candidates, but am hard pressed to remember something akin to calling those voting for Obama "anti-American." Though it would not surprise me in the least if this were solely a perception, and not the reality.

Yes, it's mostly perception. As KWhit demonstrated above, it's easy to go out and find the idiot that supports your assertion, but an overall view creates a much more even-handed view of the situation. As you correctly point out, the people introducing McCain or Obama are often State or House Reps who end up saying something to fire up their local base. The only problem is that locally directed rhetoric falls flat on its face when exposed to a national audience. They feel it's their moment in the spotlight and they often go overboard to a large degree hoping to make a big splash amongst the locals.

The scrutiny of each campaign stop thanks to the Internet and influx of 24 hour news channels only provides more examples of stupidity for people who would like to paint only one side of the argument. We could spend weeks finding all of the stupid things that State and U.S. Reps have said during this campaign. It shouldn't be all that shocking to regularly see this kind of thing unless you're deeply partisan and can't see the forest through the trees.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Definitely worth a laugh... I wonder if he was thinking of his potential VP...

Did you seriously think that your above comment was appropriate under any circumstances?

And people wonder whether sexism (or racism for that matter) exists in this race. More proof that ignorance, not common sense and respect, governs our society...........

[Big Fo]

George W. Bush endorses John McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/will-ferrell-back-as-bush_n_137399.html) (last night's SNL Weekend Update)

Pretty funny, especially near the end at Will Ferrell's "picture this face" with Tina Fey almost cracking up.

[Big Fo]

Say what you want to about Republicans, it's heartwarming how they've become such crusaders against perceived sexism this election season (or at least after Hillary lost). Maybe one day they'll get over the whole racism thing.

[GrantDawg]

George W. Bush endorses John McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/will-ferrell-back-as-bush_n_137399.html) (last night's SNL Weekend Update)

Pretty funny, especially near the end at Will Ferrell's "picture this face" with Tina Fey almost cracking up.


SNL was on fire last night.

[larrymcg421]

Sarah Palin herself said female candidates shouldn't whine about sexism. She said, "Man, that doesn't do us any good."

And MBBF's statement about liberals arguing you should hate America is bizaare. I've never heard any liberal argue such a thing.

[bignej]

Criticizing America in any way means you hate it

[KWhit]

Yes, it's mostly perception. As KWhit demonstrated above, it's easy to go out and find the idiot that supports your assertion, but an overall view creates a much more even-handed view of the situation.

I guess one of those idiots is Sarah Palin then with her 'real America' and 'Pro-America' talk?

Yes, they are VERY easy to find on the Right.

[JPhillips]

Criticizing those who say you hate America means you hate America.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Did you seriously think that your above comment was appropriate under any circumstances?

And people wonder whether sexism (or racism for that matter) exists in this race. More proof that ignorance, not common sense and respect, governs our society...........

Well, he could have been thinking about Barack Obama, and the fact that he may not even be a US citizen, much less a native born one.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Sarah Palin herself said female candidates shouldn't whine about sexism. She said, "Man, that doesn't do us any good."

And MBBF's statement about liberals arguing you should hate America is bizaare. I've never heard any liberal argue such a thing.

Obviously, that's the only thing she can say. If she complains, we'll get responses like M!!! GO BLUE!!! where they call her one of several various names for raising a stink. She's in a no-win situation and most women are well-aware of her plight in that regard.

Sure, no liberal says 'you should hate America', but there are plenty of fringe left that would be more than happy to point out just how lousy this country is without any consideration of the positives that same country provides.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I would also say that calling someone a cunt doesn't make you sexist.

Under what circumstance of a respectable person does that ever ring appropriate? It's not ever appropriate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Criticizing those who say you hate America means you hate America.

Making points with no basis in logic means that you have no logic.

[Fidatelo]

I think the entire selection of Palin was sexism. They hopped to get a bunch of disaffected Hillary supporters by tossing out a female VP. They basically figured that women would vote for anything with a vagina, and not actually on issues (like the fact that Palin and Hillary have very different stances on many major issues).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I guess one of those idiots is Sarah Palin then with her 'real America' and 'Pro-America' talk?

Yes, they are VERY easy to find on the Right.

She's pandering to the base of idiots that I describe previously. Should this surprise you? Obama uses similar rhetoric in regards to class warfare when stirring up the far left that he feels more comforable with. If you can't see that, it's only because you agree with the leftist policies that Obama advocates. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but turning a blind eye to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[larrymcg421]

Obviously, that's the only thing she can say. If she complains, we'll get responses like M!!! GO BLUE!!! where they call her one of several various names for raising a stink. She's in a no-win situation and most women are well-aware of her plight in that regard.

Except she said that before she was a VP candidate. She said that in criticism of Hilary Clinton during her Presidential run.

[sterlingice]

George W. Bush endorses John McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/will-ferrell-back-as-bush_n_137399.html) (last night's SNL Weekend Update)

Pretty funny, especially near the end at Will Ferrell's "picture this face" with Tina Fey almost cracking up.

My favorite lines were "the race between the hot lady and the Tiger Woods guy" and the "So nice to meet you Mr President, I've seen you on tv"

SI

[lordscarlet]

She's pandering to the base of idiots that I describe previously. Should this surprise you? Obama uses similar rhetoric in regards to class warfare when stirring up the far left that he feels more comforable with. If you can't see that, it's only because you agree with the leftist policies that Obama advocates. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but turning a blind eye to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

For someone that is apparently blind to this problem, what exactly has Obama said to state or imply that (my words) "America Sucks"?

[GrantDawg]

I think the entire selection of Palin was sexism. They hopped to get a bunch of disaffected Hillary supporters by tossing out a female VP. They basically figured that women would vote for anything with a vagina, and not actually on issues (like the fact that Palin and Hillary have very different stances on many major issues).


Not really. I don't think they were deliusional enough to think she'd sell to the Hillary Clinton supporters. She was a token to the far right. There was at least an element of how "open minded" conservatives can be by choosing a woman.

[KWhit]

She's pandering to the base of idiots that I describe previously. Should this surprise you? Obama uses similar rhetoric in regards to class warfare when stirring up the far left that he feels more comforable with. If you can't see that, it's only because you agree with the leftist policies that Obama advocates. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but turning a blind eye to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I love how you twist things with every post.

I said the right's arguments that Dems/liberals hate America were getting tiresome. You then criticize me and say that only the fringe make those arguments. I bring up the fact that the actual Republican candidate for VP has made those arguments.

You ignore that and say that it's okay because she's pandering to idiots. And then you make some vague comparison to Obama and class warfare to "prove" that the left does it too.

[Big Fo]

I disagree with the assertion that adjusting the tax rates back to Clinton-era levels constitutes "class warfare."

[cartman]

That is MBBF's MO. Either ignore getting called out on something, or change/twist the definition of what he says.

He also makes the mistake of often trying to paint the opposing side in absolute terms. Just from the past couple of pages he's written:

If you can't see that, it's only because you agree with the leftist policies that Obama advocates
Making points with no basis in logic means that you have no logic.
I really don't have a dog in this fight, but that's fearmongering to the point of absurdity IMO.
I think both are silly at best, but for one side to fail to admit that there are just as many idiots saying just the opposite is intentional oversight to the Nth degree.
It's a generalization that has no basis in fact.
It shouldn't be all that shocking to regularly see this kind of thing unless you're deeply partisan and can't see the forest through the trees.

When you have to try and bolster your positions by continually trying to completely marginalize or discredit another viewpoint, that usually points to an weakness in the thought process developing your viewpoint.

[albionmoonlight]

If I call Bush a dick, is that sexism?
It's wrong. Cheney is the Dick. :)

[molson]

Calling someone else a "liar" seems a bit extreme


Yes, that was my point, I say that in parody of (some) liberals, who throw out the world "lie" extremely, well, liberally.

I don't really think he's a liar.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That is MBBF's MO. Either ignore getting called out on something, or change/twist the definition of what he says.

He also makes the mistake of often trying to paint the opposing side in absolute terms. Just from the past couple of pages he's written:

When you have to try and bolster your positions by continually trying to completely marginalize or discredit another viewpoint, that usually points to an weakness in the thought process developing your viewpoint.

I agree. The fact that your contribution to most threads is merely to personally attack me or my position is very telling.

[cartman]

I agree. The fact that your contribution to most threads is merely to personally attack me or my position is very telling.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I love how you twist things with every post.

I said the right's arguments that Dems/liberals hate America were getting tiresome. You then criticize me and say that only the fringe make those arguments. I bring up the fact that the actual Republican candidate for VP has made those arguments.

You ignore that and say that it's okay because she's pandering to idiots. And then you make some vague comparison to Obama and class warfare to "prove" that the left does it too.

You're talking to the wrong person here. I support McCain, but I'll be perfectly honest that Palin has some fringe policies that I disagree with. I didn't defend Palin at all in regards to this situation you present.

As far as Obama goes, he's more than happy to support a class warfare position supported by the far left. I find his stance in that regard to be just as extreme as he wants everyone to believe that he's going to spend a large budget on social programs and wealth redistribution and expect the problems he's talking about to magically disappear. The problem is that his financial and social policies are an irresponsible band-aid that do little to fix the root issue. My only hope is that if he becomes president that he doesn't spend us into oblivion only to find out what most people already know won't work.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Thank you for proving my point.

And you as well.

[CamEdwards]

For someone that is apparently blind to this problem, what exactly has Obama said to state or imply that (my words) "America Sucks"?

Well, if you read his acceptance speech, there's a lot of America sucks, but it's got a caveat of "America has sucked under George Bush".

The one thing that he's said that I would consider an "America sucks" message is his statements about the need to "fundamentally change this country". If he had restricted it to Washington, or politics, or government, it wouldn't annoy me as much. But to me, when you say that something needs fundamental change, it means it's fundamentally not working.

And if you want to expand it to those close to Obama, don't forget Michelle's "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" remarks.

[cartman]

Well, if you read his acceptance speech, there's a lot of America sucks, but it's got a caveat of "America has sucked under George Bush".


Here's a link to the speech.
Text: Barack Obama's speech - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=15733538)

I see references that can be construed as "the current situation sucks", but nothing that intones America itself sucks.

[KWhit]

You're talking to the wrong person here. I support McCain, but I'll be perfectly honest that Palin has some fringe policies that I disagree with. I didn't defend Palin at all in regards to this situation you present.

Then earlier when I posted this:

The "You hate America" argument from the right is really getting tiresome.

You could have just said, "You're right."

:)

[molson]

Did some number crunching. $150,000 could feed a family of five in the Philippines for 28 years. :eek:

Obama has spent about $400 million on his campaign. That would feed a family of five in the Philippines for more than 2,500 years.

I don't know how much of that is the TV ads I constantly see in Idaho, but that's a far bigger waste of money than clothes.

[lungs]

Obama hates America so much that he wants to be its President.

[bignej]

Well, if you read his acceptance speech, there's a lot of America sucks, but it's got a caveat of "America has sucked under George Bush".

The one thing that he's said that I would consider an "America sucks" message is his statements about the need to "fundamentally change this country". If he had restricted it to Washington, or politics, or government, it wouldn't annoy me as much. But to me, when you say that something needs fundamental change, it means it's fundamentally not working.

And if you want to expand it to those close to Obama, don't forget Michelle's "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" remarks.


I love the Cleveland Browns but they are fundamentally not working.

You can say something is not working and it has no connection to your patriotism. Patriotism is not unlike rooting for your favorite sports team. You can disagree with their decisions but, win or lose, still root for them. People assume that the Obamas were somehow rooting against America. Watching some of these rascist campaign trail videos could make someone ashamed.

[miked]

Well, if you read his acceptance speech, there's a lot of America sucks, but it's got a caveat of "America has sucked under George Bush".

The one thing that he's said that I would consider an "America sucks" message is his statements about the need to "fundamentally change this country". If he had restricted it to Washington, or politics, or government, it wouldn't annoy me as much. But to me, when you say that something needs fundamental change, it means it's fundamentally not working.

And if you want to expand it to those close to Obama, don't forget Michelle's "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" remarks.

I hear Iraq has an opening for a governmental spokesperson :)

Saying you need to fundamentally change something isn't necessarily America sucks. It could just as easily be viewed as our country is great but headed in the wrong direction.

[Fighter of Foo]

I hate the fact that we've tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. That needs to be fundamentally changed.

Call it whatever the fuck you want.

[Noop]

It's official this election has gone into the gutter.

[CamEdwards]

to each his own, I guess.

[Big Fo]

It's official this election has gone into the gutter.

Just a week and a half left of spin before the tears and meltdowns come. Can't wait.

[GrantDawg]

I know this is probably the wrong time since we are bashing away at each other, but I just want to say again how much I like this board. I started this thread hoping it would lead to some interesting discussion about the coming race, and because I know there are such diverging view-points on this board I always get a chance to see arguments coming from a different perspective. As much as people might get mad, bitch, moan and down right mean sometimes, when I look at the utter crap most political discussion threads become pretty quickly on the internet, I'm pretty proud of this board. We get about as ugly as the politicians do, but there are kernels here in there of some really good, thought out opinions.

Thank you guys. Keep it up.

[lungs]

I know this is probably the wrong time since we are bashing away at each other, but I just want to say again how much I like this board. I started this thread hoping it would lead to some interesting discussion about the coming race, and because I know there are such diverging view-points on this board I always get a chance to see arguments coming from a different perspective. As much as people might get mad, bitch, moan and down right mean sometimes, when I look at the utter crap most political discussion threads become pretty quickly on the internet, I'm pretty proud of this board. We get about as ugly as the politicians do, but there are kernels here in there of some really good, thought out opinions.

Thank you guys. Keep it up.

Quoted for truth. I've added absolutely nothing to this thread but have found it to be the only election thread I've found to be tolerable anywhere on teh internetz.

[Tigercat]

and wealth redistribution and expect the problems he's talking about to magically disappear.


Don't pretend that you are part of some sort of unbiased middle and then pull this statement out. If you really believe this you are no better than anyone on the right to far right who call Obama a socialist primarily on the back of one impromptu response to a question on the campaign trail.

Obama's proposals are hardly any different than the Clinton's in 1992. Same tax levels proposed under Clinton, proposing universal health care, ect. Yet the Clinton's didn't get the same type of rhetoric, they weren't called wealth re-distributors and socialists like Obama is. It's hard to pretend to be critical of the far right when you buy into its rhetoric of the day.

[Subby]

Thank you guys. Keep it up.
Absolutely. At the very least it does a good job of spotlighting FOFCers that are probably mentally ill.

[AENeuman]

Man, I'm going to miss this thread. This thread makes me feel like I'm watching someone set a cat on fire in order to get rid of its fleas.

Anyways, one of my students in my high school economics class brought up a question:
At what income tax % can a country be considered socialist? we were talking about obama's top 5% increase, which seems to me to be about a 4-5% increase. is there a threshold that this increase passes?

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting stuff:

Obama only talks good game on gender pay equity (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378772_murdockonline12.html)


Obama's commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.
A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.
The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.
Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.


Obama's criticism notwithstanding, McCain's payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.
McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain.
How could this be?
One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women -- much more than men -- for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

[Noop]

Absolutely. At the very least it does a good job of spotlighting FOFCers that are probably mentally ill.

:lol:

[lordscarlet]

You're talking to the wrong person here. I support McCain, but I'll be perfectly honest that Palin has some fringe policies that I disagree with. I didn't defend Palin at all in regards to this situation you present.

As far as Obama goes, he's more than happy to support a class warfare position supported by the far left. I find his stance in that regard to be just as extreme as he wants everyone to believe that he's going to spend a large budget on social programs and wealth redistribution and expect the problems he's talking about to magically disappear. The problem is that his financial and social policies are an irresponsible band-aid that do little to fix the root issue. My only hope is that if he becomes president that he doesn't spend us into oblivion only to find out what most people already know won't work.

Since you are in teh large minority here, could you explain to us how McCain's social and financial policies are responsible, as opposed to Obama's irresponsible ones? I see these accusations thrown around, but I do not know the reasoning behind the statements.

Well, if you read his acceptance speech, there's a lot of America sucks, but it's got a caveat of "America has sucked under George Bush".

The one thing that he's said that I would consider an "America sucks" message is his statements about the need to "fundamentally change this country". If he had restricted it to Washington, or politics, or government, it wouldn't annoy me as much. But to me, when you say that something needs fundamental change, it means it's fundamentally not working.

And if you want to expand it to those close to Obama, don't forget Michelle's "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" remarks.

As other people have said, I don't agree with those statements saying that "America Sucks", but I completely accept your reasoning. I'm sure plenty of people think that Palin is merely saying, "you guys are great," not "the other guys suck." So, what I'm saying is, thank you for giving an actual example that at least represents some form of reasoning. :)

[cartman]

Man, I'm going to miss this thread. This thread makes me feel like I'm watching someone set a cat on fire in order to get rid of its fleas.

Anyways, one of my students in my high school economics class brought up a question:
At what income tax % can a country be considered socialist? we were talking about obama's top 5% increase, which seems to me to be about a 4-5% increase. is there a threshold that this increase passes?

The income tax rate isn't really a good barometer for determining socialist/not socialist. The level of government control over the production and distribution of the produced goods is a much better barometer. Of course, if the income tax rate was 100%, then it is a moot point. :) But at the other end of the spectrum, you can have socialism at 0% income tax rate. Look at some of the oil oligarchies, where the state provides everything. Those are socialist places, and they have very low tax rates.

[Tigercat]

Man, I'm going to miss this thread. This thread makes me feel like I'm watching someone set a cat on fire in order to get rid of its fleas.

Anyways, one of my students in my high school economics class brought up a question:
At what income tax % can a country be considered socialist? we were talking about obama's top 5% increase, which seems to me to be about a 4-5% increase. is there a threshold that this increase passes?

That's the problem, it isn't being used as anything close to intelligent discourse. Socialist and Socialism are the new conservative swear words against the left. Never mind that with tax rates Obama is seeking to move back to the tax policies of Clinton. Liberal doesn't have the same bite anymore, so attack politics moved on.

[CamEdwards]

Since you are in teh large minority here, could you explain to us how McCain's social and financial policies are responsible, as opposed to Obama's irresponsible ones? I see these accusations thrown around, but I do not know the reasoning behind the statements.



As other people have said, I don't agree with those statements saying that "America Sucks", but I completely accept your reasoning. I'm sure plenty of people think that Palin is merely saying, "you guys are great," not "the other guys suck." So, what I'm saying is, thank you for giving an actual example that at least represents some form of reasoning. :)

My pleasure.

[JPhillips]

Why does John McCain think America sucks?

As American families bear the brunt of an economic crisis caused by the corruption and greed of Washington and Wall Street

leadership that will fix a broken Washington and return the nation to the path of a more secure, prosperous and just society.

America’s families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures and a weak economy.

We're worse off than we were four years ago.

There is a social contract between capitalism and the citizen. That has been broken by these Wall Street executives

The next president will have to work extra hard to unite our friends and divide our foes. Sadly the opposite has occurred in recent years

[Buccaneer]

Saying you need to fundamentally change something isn't necessarily America sucks. It could just as easily be viewed as our country is great but headed in the wrong direction.

I agree with you. However one of the points of contention for some of us is that while a change will likely head in a different direction, that does not mean that it still won't be the wrong direction.

[miked]

I agree with you. However one of the points of contention for some of us is that while a change will likely head in a different direction, that does not mean that it still won't be the wrong direction.

:)

100% agreed. Anybody who is sure Obama will lead us in the right direction is just as far off (in my opinion). It's just about who to give the chance to at this point and whose basic tenets you agree with (in my opinion).

[lordscarlet]

I wanted to find a nice bar chart or something, but what I found was this: History of Federal Individual Income Tax Rates (http://winke.com/wts/wts./histusrt.htm)

I'm not sure what it means, I will leave that to the rest of you that know more about the history and politics, because I don't know how the rates correlate to economic successes and failures (I suppose I could probably find that data as well, but I think people here know it without looking).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Since you are in teh large minority here, could you explain to us how McCain's social and financial policies are responsible, as opposed to Obama's irresponsible ones? I see these accusations thrown around, but I do not know the reasoning behind the statements.

Good to see someone ask rather than assume. As you rightly point out, the assumption is made that because I oppose many of Obama's policies, that I must think that a McCain administration would handle it well. While I will likely vote for McCain based on my belief that he'd be a better foreign policy president and the fact that I prefer his tax cut across all levels, I think some of his economic policies are outrageous. Top of my list is health insurance. McCain's plan is a great way to screw up a health care system that's already plenty screwed up. I also heavily disagree with the mortgage buyout that he's proposing for bad loans.

My guess is that most voters likely won't have to worry about it anyway. Considering the current financial situation, I doubt that either candidate will be able to make any substantial health care changes and McCain's mortgage buyout doesn't have a chance in hell of passing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I agree with you. However one of the points of contention for some of us is that while a change will likely head in a different direction, that does not mean that it still won't be the wrong direction.

:+1:

I'll be overjoyed if either of these candidates make 20% of the impact that they claim they'll be able to make in 4 short years, especially given the financial troubles.

[CamEdwards]

So that chick in Pittsburgh admits making up the story about being attacked.

http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html


Police tell KDKA that a campaign volunteer has now confessed to making up a story that a mugger attacked her and cut the letter B in her face after seeing her McCain bumper sticker.

Ashley Todd, 20, of Texas, initially told police that she was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield and that the suspect became enraged and started beating her after seeing her GOP sticker on her car.

Police investigating the alleged attack, however, began to notice some inconsistencies in her story and administered a polygraph test.

Authorities, however, declined to release the results of that test.

Investigators did say that they received photos from the ATM machine and "the photographs were verified as not being the victim making the transaction."

This afternoon, a Pittsburgh police commander told KDKA Investigator Marty Griffin that Todd confessed to making up the story.

The commander added that Todd will face charges; but police have not commented on what those charges will be.

Authorities are expected to release more details at a news conference this afternoon.

According to police, investigators working on the interview process detected several inconsistencies in Todd's story that differed from statements made in the original police report.

Pittsburgh Police Public Information Officer Diane Richard released a statement earlier today, saying: "Because of the inconsistencies in her statements, Ms. Todd was asked to submit to a polygraph examination which she agreed to do."

No photos of Todd are being released by Pittsburgh Police at this time.

Frankly, I'm glad she's facing charges, and I hope they don't allow her to plea bargain. This is exactly the kind of bullshit that drives me crazy. Her dishonesty will end up reflecting badly on College Republicans and I'm sure, to a certain extent the McCain campaign. What a twit.

[lordscarlet]

Good to see someone ask rather than assume. As you rightly point out, the assumption is made that because I oppose many of Obama's policies, that I must think that a McCain administration would handle it well. While I will likely vote for McCain based on my belief that he'd be a better foreign policy president and the fact that I prefer his tax cut across all levels, I think some of his economic policies are outrageous. Top of my list is health insurance. McCain's plan is a great way to screw up a health care system that's already plenty screwed up. I also heavily disagree with the mortgage buyout that he's proposing for bad loans.

My guess is that most voters likely won't have to worry about it anyway. Considering the current financial situation, I doubt that either candidate will be able to make any substantial health care changes and McCain's mortgage buyout doesn't have a chance in hell of passing.

At least you don't support taxing health benefits. :)

Thanks for the answer. I think everyone on here gets foggy on the fact that supporting one candidate over another does not mean that you support them on every issue. I would say this board (and, if the rest of America thought about it, I think it would be very widespread) is largely in the "we need more parties" camp. I would actually say I am more in a Libertarian camp, but social issues are more important to me than fiscal issues, thus I lean Democrat. Most people I know that feel they follow Libertarian values are more concerned with fiscal issues than they are social issues, so they lean Republican.

Give me a party that supports staying out of social issues (legalize marijuana, allow same sex marriages, allow stem cell research, etc) and a minimal (but not extinct) federal/local government to handle infrastructure and MINOR social programs (unemployment, for instance) and I would be very happy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So that chick in Pittsburgh admits making up the story about being attacked.

http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html


Frankly, I'm glad she's facing charges, and I hope they don't allow her to plea bargain. This is exactly the kind of bullshit that drives me crazy. Her dishonesty will end up reflecting badly on College Republicans and I'm sure, to a certain extent the McCain campaign. What a twit.

"In other words, send us the cure, we've got the sickness already."

-Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof

[JPhillips]

I don't see how it hurts McCain, and it shouldn't hurt the College Republicans. Along with facing criminal charges, I hope she gets some good mental health help. That level of personal destruction isn't at all healthy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At least you don't support taxing health benefits. :)

Quite the opposite. I support a straight tax rate. It can still be stairstepped as it is now or it can be a flat rate. I don't care in that regard. The credits, deductions, tax shelters, etc. are ridiculously out of control. I just want a system where I pay XX% of my salary with no futher calculations.

McCain does not favor that method, so I suppose we disagree about that as well.

[GrantDawg]

At least you don't support taxing health benefits. :)

Thanks for the answer. I think everyone on here gets foggy on the fact that supporting one candidate over another does not mean that you support them on every issue. I would say this board (and, if the rest of America thought about it, I think it would be very widespread) is largely in the "we need more parties" camp. I would actually say I am more in a Libertarian camp, but social issues are more important to me than fiscal issues, thus I lean Democrat. Most people I know that feel they follow Libertarian values are more concerned with fiscal issues than they are social issues, so they lean Republican.

Give me a party that supports staying out of social issues (legalize marijuana, allow same sex marriages, allow stem cell research, etc) and a minimal (but not extinct) federal/local government to handle infrastructure and MINOR social programs (unemployment, for instance) and I would be very happy.


With ya for the most part.

[lordscarlet]

Quite the opposite. I support a straight tax rate. It can still be stairstepped as it is now or it can be a flat rate. I don't care in that regard. The credits, deductions, tax shelters, etc. are ridiculously out of control. I just want a system where I pay XX% of my salary with no futher calculations.

McCain does not favor that method, so I suppose we disagree about that as well.

Well, I think Republicans, as much as they want to lower taxes, would certainly be against removing loopholes. However, maybe the argument that is they want the loopholes there to get closer to a "flat" tax rate. I should really just remain a spectator in these conversations because I don't know/care enough about it to be a valuable contributor regarding tax rates. :)

[miked]

There was an interesting article I read about an IRS study that showed something like 60% of "rich" people underreport their income, and that doesn't even include a lot of these offshore hiding places. Something that people in the middle class are actually "better" about paying their taxes. Sort of defends raising the levels of those over a certain amount since they appear to be cheating more. Not that it matters since I'm not sure what % of tax revenue those different classes account for.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There was an interesting article I read about an IRS study that showed something like 60% of "rich" people underreport their income, and that doesn't even include a lot of these offshore hiding places. Something that people in the middle class are actually "better" about paying their taxes. Sort of defends raising the levels of those over a certain amount since they appear to be cheating more. Not that it matters since I'm not sure what % of tax revenue those different classes account for.

I agree with the point in the study that the wealthy either underreport their income or they have the tools/money to hire people to manipulate their assets to help with tax avoidance.

With that said, that's an argument that the government needs to do a better job of policing the enforcement of the tax code and/or to remove the credits/deductions/shelters that those people use. It is not a reason to raise the level of taxes for those individuals. That approach is a band-aid that does little to solve the inherent problems of the current tax code. My opposition to any deductions/credits/loopholes is that the wealthy are much more likely to exploit those advantages within the law rather than the middle and lower classes. Rarely do the benefits to the middle and lower class outweigh those handed to the wealthy simply because they aren't in a position to capitalize on those rules when compared to the wealthy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, I think Republicans, as much as they want to lower taxes, would certainly be against removing loopholes. However, maybe the argument that is they want the loopholes there to get closer to a "flat" tax rate. I should really just remain a spectator in these conversations because I don't know/care enough about it to be a valuable contributor regarding tax rates. :)

Another excuse they use is all of the tax business like HR Block that will have to find other sources of income along with firing some workers since a major portion of their income will be gone with a simplified tax code. I agree in the months after the change that will cause some pain, but the overall benefit would be much greater over the long haul.

[Fighter of Foo]

There was an interesting article I read about an IRS study that showed something like 60% of "rich" people underreport their income, and that doesn't even include a lot of these offshore hiding places. Something that people in the middle class are actually "better" about paying their taxes. Sort of defends raising the levels of those over a certain amount since they appear to be cheating more. Not that it matters since I'm not sure what % of tax revenue those different classes account for.

This is why the tax rate should be the same for everyone and across all sources of revenue (ie capital gains). The only deduction is for kids.

Of course, making everyone's tax rate 20% would require doing away with our militaristic foreign adventures, which at this point is about as likely as McCain becoming President.

[molson]

Of course, making everyone's tax rate 20% would require doing away with our militaristic foreign adventures, which at this point is about as likely as McCain becoming President.

Could we still bail out wall street executives?

[GrantDawg]

This is why the tax rate should be the same for everyone and across all sources of revenue (ie capital gains). The only deduction is for kids.

Of course, making everyone's tax rate 20% would require doing away with our militaristic foreign adventures, which at this point is about as likely as McCain becoming President.

Eh. Flatter would be fine, but still needs to be somewhat graduated. 15/20/30, or something like that.

[stevew]

Another excuse they use is all of the tax business like HR Block that will have to find other sources of income along with firing some workers since a major portion of their income will be gone with a simplified tax code. I agree in the months after the change that will cause some pain, but the overall benefit would be much greater over the long haul.

Shame that HR Block won't be able to operate as a loan shark then.

[stevew]

Eh. Flatter would be fine, but still needs to be somewhat graduated. 15/20/30, or something like that.

Yeah, kick it in at about 5k per person, and get rid of all the stupid things like EIC, SS tax and medicare tax.

[BrianD]

Eh. Flatter would be fine, but still needs to be somewhat graduated. 15/20/30, or something like that.

Why do we need it to be graduated?

[Butter_of_69]

Take it to another thread, flat taxer.

[GrantDawg]

Why do we need it to be graduated?


Because it will never go to college unless it graduated.

[molson]

Why do we need it to be graduated?

It makes all feel just a little bit better about people that have more money than us.

[lordscarlet]

Another excuse they use is all of the tax business like HR Block that will have to find other sources of income along with firing some workers since a major portion of their income will be gone with a simplified tax code. I agree in the months after the change that will cause some pain, but the overall benefit would be much greater over the long haul.

Yeah, my wife would be out of a job. :) (No, she does not work for HR Block)

[lungs]

Just curious on some of your thoughts as long as we are on the tax subject.

This probably pertains to any business but it is somewhat of a loophole we use on our farm. Before December 31st, we buy as much in inputs for the following year that we possibly can in order to under-report our income from the current year for tax purposes. In essence, we have two sets of books. One is for the banker, and the other is for the IRS.

Anything wrong with that picture? Or just smart business practice?

[GrantDawg]

It makes all feel just a little bit better about people that have more money than us.


Yup, it is all about punishing success. :)


No. I think the post ealier from one of the founding fathers of our economy said it best. Taking very little money from lower incomes is much more detrimental to them than taking an even higher amount from the rich. ie. 15% from the lower class hurts them more than 30% from the upper.

[GrantDawg]

Just curious on some of your thoughts as long as we are on the tax subject.

This probably pertains to any business but it is somewhat of a loophole we use on our farm. Before December 31st, we buy as much in inputs for the following year that we possibly can in order to under-report our income from the current year for tax purposes. In essence, we have two sets of books. One is for the banker, and the other is for the IRS.

Anything wrong with that picture? Or just smart business practice?


If it is legal, then just smart business practice. I had the same thing on a personal level where I had some very good tax advantages that allowed me to legally under-report taxable income, but when I went to the bank it was all accounted there.

[Fidatelo]

Ya, it's all about how much of your paycheck goes to essentials. The poorer you are, a higher percentage of your pay gets eaten up just by food, clothing, housing, basic transportation, etc. As you earn more money, the percentage of it that is more 'disposable' rises, so taxing you at a higher percentage doesn't affect your standard of living to the same degree.

[molson]

Yup, it is all about punishing success. :)

No. I think the post ealier from one of the founding fathers of our economy said it best. Taking very little money from lower incomes is much more detrimental to them than taking an even higher amount from the rich. ie. 15% from the lower class hurts them more than 30% from the upper.

I agree, and am just being cynical. There's people that have opinions based on legitimate, if debatable, economic ideas and those who just don't like the fact that people have more then them.

Obama is about the former, but can't help but rally the latter up into a tizzy as well. You can feel it, I won't call it "class warfare", but he's appealing to that kind of element, which is a tad scary in a way that it wasn't with Clinton.

[Fidatelo]

Just curious on some of your thoughts as long as we are on the tax subject.

This probably pertains to any business but it is somewhat of a loophole we use on our farm. Before December 31st, we buy as much in inputs for the following year that we possibly can in order to under-report our income from the current year for tax purposes. In essence, we have two sets of books. One is for the banker, and the other is for the IRS.

Anything wrong with that picture? Or just smart business practice?

I'm curious, wouldn't that only work once (the first year)? Because next year you have all these excess inputs kicking around so you don't actually need to buy as many, and then when you do the same thing on Dec 30 at the end of the year, aren't you just where you would have been?

[Fidatelo]

Dola

Or if you keep using all your extra money to buy more inputs regardless of need, don't you eventually end up with an excess of inputs?

[lungs]

If it is legal, then just smart business practice. I had the same thing on a personal level where I had some very good tax advantages that allowed me to legally under-report taxable income, but when I went to the bank it was all accounted there.

Of course it's legal. I guess it's kind of a no-brainer stupid question so let me word things a little differently.

Is it fair that a business owner can under-report his/her income by practices such as that to avoid taxation while a regular Joe that picks up a paycheck really can't do the same thing?

[Fighter of Foo]

Ya, it's all about how much of your paycheck goes to essentials. The poorer you are, a higher percentage of your pay gets eaten up just by food, clothing, housing, basic transportation, etc. As you earn more money, the percentage of it that is more 'disposable' rises, so taxing you at a higher percentage doesn't affect your standard of living to the same degree.

The way around it is to have a bit higher floor where income is tax free; say 10k instead of 3k (or whatever it is now).

[GrantDawg]

Ya, it's all about how much of your paycheck goes to essentials. The poorer you are, a higher percentage of your pay gets eaten up just by food, clothing, housing, basic transportation, etc. As you earn more money, the percentage of it that is more 'disposable' rises, so taxing you at a higher percentage doesn't affect your standard of living to the same degree.


Exactly, and it isn't like "tax them to the poor house" kind of need for equality. Just an "fair" spread of the damage, basically. A good tax would be the one equally felt IMHO. About as much damage done to the $35,000 income as to the $125,000, even if one is paying 15% and the other 25%.

[lungs]

I'm curious, wouldn't that only work once (the first year)? Because next year you have all these excess inputs kicking around so you don't actually need to buy as many, and then when you do the same thing on Dec 30 at the end of the year, aren't you just where you would have been?

Not necessarily, because inputs are in different classes. For example, a new piece of machinery may be needed one year which can soak up any excess income. The next year it could be an improvement to a building or other upgrade that is completely different than the year before. All are inputs, just inputs of varying kinds.

All I know, for as long as I can remember, our farm appears to have made no money whatsoever when you look at the bottom line at the end of the year. But when you dig deeper, that's the not the story whatsoever.

[GrantDawg]

The way around it is to have a bit higher floor where income is tax free; say 10k instead of 3k (or whatever it is now).

Somewhat (which was the way I understood the Forbes flat-tax to be), but everything I saw still ended up with a net increase to the middle class and huge relief to the upper incomes. Graduation, even slight, would eliminate some of that.

[GrantDawg]

Of course it's legal. I guess it's kind of a no-brainer stupid question so let me word things a little differently.

Is it fair that a business owner can under-report his/her income by practices such as that to avoid taxation while a regular Joe that picks up a paycheck really can't do the same thing?


Fair? Not much of our tax system is fair. But a small farm paying less taxes seems fair to me.

[stevew]

All I know, for as long as I can remember, our farm appears to have made no money whatsoever when you look at the bottom line at the end of the year. But when you dig deeper, that's the not the story whatsoever.

I "lose" about 10-20 bucks per day on my current job after the mileage deduction. Such a shame ;)

[lungs]

Fair? Not much of our tax system is fair. But a small farm paying less taxes seems fair to me.

Heh, depends on your definition of small. I've also been accused of being a large factory farmer.

This year might be different though. One arm of the business has already plowed over $1 million in equipment purchases this year and other rising input costs might make it hard to horde on some things before January 1st.

We just might have to pay taxes this year!

[cartman]

Here's an interesting analysis of why Obama is leading:


It's because he's HYPNOTIZING people! They have a 60 page PDF report backing up their claims!

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd270/gagejv/Obama/obamajr7.gif

[lungs]

Here's an interesting analysis of why Obama is leading:


It's because he's HYPNOTIZING people! They have a 60 page PDF report backing up their claims!

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd270/gagejv/Obama/obamajr7.gif


I think I posted that a page or three back :)

edit: minus the cool image in the spoiler tag!

[SirFozzie]

ABC News: New Allegations in Mahoney Sex Scandal (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Politics/story?id=6099709&page=1)

This Mahoney thing is getting uglier and uglier. Mahoney still hasn't dropped out of the re-election campaign, but pulled out of tonight's debate.. saying that he didn't want to be a nationally televised circus. Why, you may ask?


"a) Calling Allen (his Mistress) late in the evenings and demanding "phone sex;"
b) Demanding that Allen answer his calls or face termination;

c) Demanding that Allen attend fundraisers and "tease c-ck" to bring in more donations from the male members of the public;

d) Demanding that Allen engage in sexual conduct with another woman for his enjoyment."

Current and former staffers told ABC News the allegations contained in the "demand letter" sent to Mahoney were backed up by tape recordings of phone calls between the Congressman and Allen.

[Buccaneer]

McCain and his wife stopped in town this afternoon to have lunch a sit-down burger place - along with John Elway and John Lynch (plus a few others). I showed my son the picture with Elway and he absolutely freaked.

[Klinglerware]

ABC News: New Allegations in Mahoney Sex Scandal (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Politics/story?id=6099709&page=1)

This Mahoney thing is getting uglier and uglier. Mahoney still hasn't dropped out of the re-election campaign, but pulled out of tonight's debate.. saying that he didn't want to be a nationally televised circus. Why, you may ask?


"a) Calling Allen (his Mistress) late in the evenings and demanding "phone sex;"
b) Demanding that Allen answer his calls or face termination;

c) Demanding that Allen attend fundraisers and "tease c-ck" to bring in more donations from the male members of the public;

d) Demanding that Allen engage in sexual conduct with another woman for his enjoyment."

Current and former staffers told ABC News the allegations contained in the "demand letter" sent to Mahoney were backed up by tape recordings of phone calls between the Congressman and Allen.

"Tease c-ck"? Umm... no thank you!

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/abc_mahoney_2a_081009_mn.jpg

Why is it that pols never cheat with somebody hot?

[GrantDawg]

Why is it that pols never cheat with somebody hot?


She wasn't bad:


http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2004/04/gallery/scandals/ghart.jpg

[GrantDawg]

And of course she wasn't bad, and with enough money you could have had her too:

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolnews_photos/06/03/20080312204409990015

[Shkspr]

Can a campaign wrecker ever be considered hot? GrantDawg says YES!

[Flasch186]

wanted to point out Palin finally testified before someone in Troopergate. Better late than never.

Palin testifies to investigator in ethics dispute - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate)

[Vegas Vic]

With Obama the clear favorite now, I was thinking about the tradition that the networks have followed in the past when a candidate gets over the magic 270 electoral votes. They typically show a regal portrait of the president elect with his full name, and the commentator will say "Ronald Wilson Reagan" "George Herbert Walker Bush" "William Jefferson Clinton" etc. "has been elected the xxth President of the United States".

Want to bet that the tradition is broken this year if Obama is elected? After all, following the past tradition would be considered "racist" and not "politically correct."

[Crapshoot]

With Obama the clear favorite now, I was thinking about the tradition that the networks have followed in the past when a candidate gets over the magic 270 electoral votes. They typically show a regal portrait of the president elect with his full name, and the commentator will say "Ronald Wilson Reagan" "George Herbert Walker Bush" "William Jefferson Clinton" etc. "has been elected the xxth President of the United States".

Want to bet that the tradition is broken this year if Obama is elected? After all, following the past tradition would be considered "racist" and not "politically correct."

Do you keep practicing your one-lines for this thread? We get it - Obama's a scary Black Muslim Socialist Arab (I'm sure you could go on). :rolleyes:

[Vegas Vic]

Do you keep practicing your one-lines for this thread? We get it - Obama's a scary Black Muslim Socialist Arab (I'm sure you could go on). :rolleyes:

That has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make.

[QuikSand]

Seriously, VV, were you viciously attacked by a rabid donkey at some point in the last four years or something? Seems like a deeply scarring incident must lie behind all this.

[Buccaneer]

Uh-oh. When QS calls you out, you are in serious trouble.

[Vegas Vic]

Seriously, VV, were you viciously attacked by a rabid donkey at some point in the last four years or something? Seems like a deeply scarring incident must lie behind all this.

Not really. I'm just disappointed in the demise of the DLC, which was instrumental in getting Bill Clinton elected. I had a really hard time voting for Gore and Kerry, as they were much farther to the left than my political views. My votes in 2000 and 2004 were more or less anti-GWB votes, and I would have even voted for Obama or Hillary in those cases. However, when it became apparent that McCain was going to be the nominee against Hillary or Obama, it was an easy decision for me. The Democratic party is now controlled by its far left, and it will be virtually unchecked in January with the three headed super majority of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

[GrantDawg]

Not really. I'm just disappointed in the demise of the DLC, which was instrumental in getting Bill Clinton elected. I had a really hard time voting for Gore and Kerry, as they were much farther to the left than my political views. My votes in 2000 and 2004 were more or less anti-GWB votes, and I would have even voted for Obama or Hillary in those cases. However, when it became apparent that McCain was going to be the nominee against Hillary or Obama, it was an easy decision for me. The Democratic party is now controlled by its far left, and it will be virtually unchecked in January with the three headed super majority of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.


Well, as a comfort...I think it is pretty safe to say they have two years to do what they can. 2010 could see the House turn red, or the Senate. At the least, well probably see both sides of congress at pretty close to 50/50.

[JPhillips]

Not really. I'm just disappointed in the demise of the DLC, which was instrumental in getting Bill Clinton elected. I had a really hard time voting for Gore and Kerry, as they were much farther to the left than my political views. My votes in 2000 and 2004 were more or less anti-GWB votes, and I would have even voted for Obama or Hillary in those cases. However, when it became apparent that McCain was going to be the nominee against Hillary or Obama, it was an easy decision for me. The Democratic party is now controlled by its far left, and it will be virtually unchecked in January with the three headed super majority of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

The problem with this is that Clinton's proposals and actions during his first couple of years were more left wing that anything Obama is likely to do. CLinton started with gays in the military, higher taxes for nearly everyone, and an attempt to bring single-payer universal health coverage. Regardless of his DLC connections, Clinton came to office with a very liberal policy agenda that only modified after the 1994 elections.

[Buccaneer]

The problem with this is that Clinton's proposals and actions during his first couple of years were more left wing that anything Obama is likely to do. CLinton started with gays in the military, higher taxes for nearly everyone, and an attempt to bring single-payer universal health coverage. Regardless of his DLC connections, Clinton came to office with a very liberal policy agenda that only modified after the 1994 elections.

And we will see that again (hopefully)?

Well, as a comfort...I think it is pretty safe to say they have two years to do what they can.

I take no comfort in that. If it's so obvious that the voters will turn them out in two years, why does anyone think what we will have to go through the next two years is a good thing (unless you are on the "far left" as been mentioned)? Is it really all just oppositional politics, taking revenge when one can do so? How noble and worthy.

[larrymcg421]

Ugh, can we please stop this "OMG, why is it wrong to use his middle name?" nonsense. This has already been dealt with numerous times.

Yes, the media will use it when he wins, and no it won't be racist.

[Vegas Vic]

The problem with this is that Clinton's proposals and actions during his first couple of years were more left wing that anything Obama is likely to do. CLinton started with gays in the military, higher taxes for nearly everyone, and an attempt to bring single-payer universal health coverage. Regardless of his DLC connections, Clinton came to office with a very liberal policy agenda that only modified after the 1994 elections.

His bringing up "gays in the military" was a mistake, but it was also blown out of proportion, and it certainly wasn't a priority. He raised taxes after exhaustive discussions with Robert Rubin, who convinced Clinton that getting the deficit under control was the single most important thing at the time, and that it would be in the long term interest.

Clinton was hardly a favorite of his party's left. He often infuriated them with his stands on issues like NAFTA and welfare reform. He had a long track record as a centrist governor before he was elected president.

[GrantDawg]

And we will see that again (hopefully)?



I take no comfort in that. If it's so obvious that the voters will turn them out in two years, why does anyone think what we will have to go through the next two years is a good thing (unless you are on the "far left" as been mentioned)? Is it really all just oppositional politics, taking revenge when one can do so? How noble and worthy.


Well, it is just historical. The president's party loses ground in congress in the first mid-term election. Bound to happen. Right now, though, it is especially true. The economy is no going to suddenly get better, and that will be bad for the Dems as the party in complete power, even though there is absolutely nothing that could be done to change that.

I also don't think there is going to be a whole lot accomplished in his first two years. The economy is definitely going to be a distraction. With tax receipts going down on top of that, the likely-hood of Obama's tax cuts or any raises is very slim. Not to mention the health-care thing will never fly when the government is going to be covered in red.

Obama is probably going to look a lot like Clinton in his first term. He'll push through what he can by executive order to undo much of the damage Bush has done in his tenure. He'll make the right mad, and they'll enrage the people over minor nothings that will be blown out of proportion. Then after the mid-term, he'll move to the center and maybe pass some cuts in taxes and the budget. About the end of his term, the economy will start looking up, and he'll have a shot of re-election. (That is of course something majorly bad happens, like Russia invading the Ukraine, or the financial system hits another crisis and collapses under the strain. Then things might get interesting).

[JPhillips]

His bringing up "gays in the military" was a mistake, but it was also blown out of proportion, and it certainly wasn't a priority. He raised taxes after exhaustive discussions with Robert Rubin, who convinced Clinton that getting the deficit under control was the single most important thing at the time, and that it would be in the long term interest.

Clinton was hardly a favorite of his party's left. He often infuriated them with his stands on issues like NAFTA and welfare reform. He had a long track record as a centrist governor before he was elected president.

What are Obama's positions that are far to the left of Clinton's? As far as I know there's nothing he's proposed that's far to the left of where Clinton was.(with the possible exception of trade issues) He's also been consulting with Rubin on his tax policy and he also has a record as a pretty pragmatic guy when it comes to policy.

There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Obama, but I honestly don't understand how being left of Clinton is a serious concern.

[GrantDawg]

His bringing up "gays in the military" was a mistake, but it was also blown out of proportion, and it certainly wasn't a priority. He raised taxes after exhaustive discussions with Robert Rubin, who convinced Clinton that getting the deficit under control was the single most important thing at the time, and that it would be in the long term interest.

Clinton was hardly a favorite of his party's left. He often infuriated them with his stands on issues like NAFTA and welfare reform. He had a long track record as a centrist governor before he was elected president.


Sure, but JPhillips was right on in that he did not govern from the center early on. He never mentioned welfare reform from the time he left the campaign trail till the time the Republicans took the House. His moves to center (which is how he ran in both elections) didn't come till he stopped listening to Hillary's gang and started listening to Dick Morris (the sleaze bag).

[Vegas Vic]

There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Obama, but I honestly don't understand how being left of Clinton is a serious concern.

All we have is his voting record, which granted is a somewhat small sample size on the issues that he's actually bothered to cast a vote. You can spin it however you want, but Hillary Clinton and Obama aren't anywhere close to being centrists.

[JPhillips]

Where on the voting record are they substantially different? There just aren't many liberal issues that have been voted on during their time in the Senate. If you have specifics I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence that Obama pursues a radical left-wing agenda.

Look at Clinton in 1992-93, he was for higher taxes, less military spending, gays allowed in the military, universal, single-payer healthcare, high speed rail funding, and tougher environmental standards. As one who would like to see some liberal policies enacted, I see Clinton as more left in most every area.

[Vegas Vic]

To be fair, I think that you also need to look at Obama's voting record as a state senator in Illinois, which comprises the bulk of his political experience.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not sure how looking at voting records is a good sell for John "I voted with Bush 90% of the time" McCain.

[Vegas Vic]

I'm not sure how looking at voting records is a good sell for John "I voted with Bush 90% of the time" McCain.

If not, let's see how many times Obama or McCain has been willing to stand up to their party's establishment.

[Arles]

If you believe the polls, the democrats will have more than enough votes in the house and senate to force through any of Obama's policies they like. I could see them passing the national health care plan, rolling back the Bush tax cuts (esp cap gains) and even repealing all the drilling they supported before the election by next November.

My fear is that all that will get rubberstamped and we'll be in the middle of a recession with a pending tax increase (esp on cap gains) and this enormous health plan starting soon with no real way to pay for it (much like what Hawaii found out).

[Vegas Vic]

My fear is that all that will get rubberstamped and we'll be in the middle of a recession with a pending tax increase (esp on cap gains) and this enormous health plan starting soon with no real way to pay for it (much like what Hawaii found out).

The last president who raised taxes during a recession was Herbert Hoover.

[sabotai]

Hoover raised the top bracket from 25% to 63%. I don't think anyone is talking about a change quite that drastic.

[stevew]

I'd be happy if there was a supermajority, as long as they backroom deal Pelosi out of the speakers chair. And maybe HilRod will unseat the Navada gangster.

[stevew]

dola-

And how exactly does the speaker vote work? Could the republicans nominate and back someone like Dennis Moore(D-Kansas) for speaker? And maybe get enough blue dogs to beat Pelosi.

[ISiddiqui]

I think just about every Dem not related to Harry Reid would rather see Hillary in the Senate Majority slot... let's see if they have the balls to can Harry Reid's worthless ass though.

And how exactly does the speaker vote work? Could the republicans nominate and back someone like Dennis Moore(D-Kansas) for speaker? And maybe get enough blue dogs to beat Pelosi.

Yes. It's basically a whoever gets the most vote. Usually each party nominates their person and everyone in the party votes for that nominee (and you better if you want the good slots).

[Arles]

WSJ has an interesting article on both candidates' tax plan:

When it comes to taxes, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain is arguably as wide as it's been in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale battled in 1984. Sen. Obama is proposing to raise taxes more than any recent candidate, while Sen. McCain wants to cut them substantially. Most of the campaign debate has been over whose taxes would be raised, and whose cut.

Here are the facts:

Mr. Obama would roll back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for taxpayers in the top two brackets, raising the top two marginal rates of income tax to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35%. The 33% rate begins to hit this year at incomes of $164,550 for an individual and $200,300 for joint filers. Mr. Obama claims no "working families" earning less than $250,000 would pay more in taxes, but that's because he defines income more broadly than the taxable income line on the IRS form. If you're an individual with taxable income of $164,550, you will pay more taxes.

The Democrat would also reinstate the phaseout of the personal exemptions and itemized deductions for married couples making more than $250,000 a year. Those phaseouts would raise the top marginal tax rate for millions of taxpayers by another 1.5 percentage points.

Capital gains and dividend taxes would increase to 20% from 15% for those making more than $250,000, although capital-gains taxes on investments in "start-ups" would be eliminated.
The Election Choice: Further Reading

Health Care – The candidates differ on the merits of tying insurance to a job.

* For full coverage of the election issues, please visit our Election Choice page.

Mr. Obama's most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he'd raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points -- though it's unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.

In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program -- which pays out based on how much you paid in -- into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.

Taken together, these add up to about a 10-percentage-point hike in marginal tax rates for those making more than $250,000 a year, including millions of small businesses that pay taxes at individual rates. The "marginal" rate refers to the rate paid on the next dollar of income, and it has an especially strong influence on decisions to work and invest.

Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has proposed an additional 4% "surtax" on incomes above $200,000. This would further increase the top marginal federal income tax rate to close to 50% -- or slightly above that, depending on the rate of the new Social Security tax -- when combined with Mr. Obama's hikes.

Mr. Obama is also famously promising that 95% of all Americans will get a tax cut. However, he would not reduce tax rates. His tax cuts come in the form of tax credits, most of which are also "refundable." In tax jargon, "refundable" means that you get the credit even if you owe no income taxes at all -- which means the government cuts you a check. These credits include:

- a credit of $500 to offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 in earnings;

- a 10% mortgage-interest credit for those who don't itemize their deductions and so don't currently benefit from the mortgage-interest deduction;

- an expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would raise the income eligibility, reduce the EITC "marriage penalty," and increase payouts for families with three or more children;

- an increase of the college tuition tax credit to $4,000, from $1,800;

- a 50% "savers" credit of up to $500.

- The child-care credit would be made fully refundable and the credit increased to 50% of child-care costs, from 20%-35% now.

According to the Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama's tax credits would increase the share of Americans who pay no income tax to 48% from an estimated 38% this year.

On corporate taxes, the Obama campaign has proposed to eliminate "loopholes" for oil and gas companies and rewrite the rules for how multinational corporations are taxed. In particular, he has proposed to treat foreign-source income the same as income earned domestically -- which means subjecting all income earned by American companies around the world to the 35% U.S. corporate rate, which is the world's second-highest. He is also promising a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies.

As for Mr. McCain, the central plank of his personal income-tax proposals is to make permanent almost all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. This would leave the top marginal rate at 35%. The one exception is the death or estate tax, which expires for one year in 2010. Mr. McCain wants a 15% death tax on estates larger than $5 million. Mr. Obama wants a 45% rate on estates larger than $3.5 million.

Mr. McCain would also increase the dependent exemption by two-thirds -- to $6,000 per dependent from $3,500.

Mr. McCain would lower the corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35% today, and allow full expensing, temporarily, of some investments in plant and equipment. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain has said he would "close loopholes" on oil and gas companies and reconfigure the tax regime for multinationals.

The Republican's most dramatic proposal is to introduce an optional simplified tax system with only two rates and larger standard deductions and exemptions. Although Sen. McCain first put forward this proposal months ago, the details of it remain sketchy. In rough outline, taxpayers would be able to choose to pay under the current tax code or file under the optional semiflat tax.

Both candidates have said they would permanently index the Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation. In reality, both would have to do far more to change the AMT, which hits more middle-class taxpayers each year, and which members of Congress have many proposals to alter or repeal.

In sum, Mr. Obama is proposing to use the tax code to substantially redistribute income -- raising tax rates on a minority of taxpayers to finance tax credits and direct income supplements to millions of others. How much revenue his higher rates would raise depends on how much less those high-earners would work, or how much they would change their practices to shelter their income from those higher rates.

By contrast, Mr. McCain is proposing some kind of tax reduction for most Americans who pay taxes. He says he would finance those cuts by reducing the rate of growth in federal spending.
The Election Choice: Taxes - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122488938501868507.html)

[Grammaticus]

Hoover raised the top bracket from 25% to 63%. I don't think anyone is talking about a change quite that drastic.

Your only looking at one component of what Obama says he will do. The total tax increase is greater than what Hoover did in 1932. For example, Hoover's Revenue Act of 1932 implemented a tax of 13.75% on corporations (much less than Obama). Also, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (passed in 1930) was in full effect and added fuel to the fire and of course a world wide depression resulted. Yeah, it didn't work for Hoover in the middle of a recession and it won't work for Obama either.

Obama probably has no clue what happened in 1932. Heck, his Vice Presidential candidate thinks Roosevelt (FDR) was president in 1932.

[Vegas Vic]

Your only looking at one component of what Obama says he will do. The total tax increase is greater than what Hoover did in 1932. For example, Hoover's Revenue Act of 1932 implemented a tax of 13.75% on corporations (much less than Obama). Also, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (passed in 1930) was in full effect and added fuel to the fire and of course a world wide depression resulted. Yeah, it didn't work for Hoover in the middle of a recession and it won't work for Obama either.

Obama probably has no clue what happened in 1932. Heck, his Vice Presidential candidate thinks Roosevelt (FDR) was president in 1932.

Unfortunately, I think the debate is about over at this point. I'm astounded at the number of friends that I have, most of whom are very intelligent, who get indignant over any criticism of Obama, despite the fact that they can't cite any accomplishment or any substantive policy issue that they think he will implement. They just "like him" and think it's "time for change." I think that's where the bulk of the country is at right now.

[sabotai]

The total tax increase is greater than what Hoover did in 1932.

Considering the amount of different kinds of taxes we have now compared to 1932, I would think it would be rather easy to have a "total tax increase greater than what Hoover did" after you added everything up.

For example, Hoover's Revenue Act of 1932 implemented a tax of 13.75% on corporations (much less than Obama).

Which was an increase of 1.75% in corporate net income tax (which was a flat tax back then). Is Obama planning a larger increase in that tax? A quick google search only shows that McCain plans to lower it, but nothing on Obama doing anything to it.

Also, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (passed in 1930) was in full effect and added fuel to the fire and of course a world wide depression resulted.

Trust me, I know all about that one. I may have ranted about it at some point in that past on here.


Don't take my reply earlier as a defense or support for Obama's tax plan. From what I see, we're probably screwed with either Obama's or McCain's plan getting passed. I just think the comparisons to Hoover are pretty silly (which would put them on par with just about everything else going on in this election).

[Tigercat]

Unfortunately, I think the debate is about over at this point. I'm astounded at the number of friends that I have, most of whom are very intelligent, who get indignant over any criticism of Obama, despite the fact that they can't cite any accomplishment or any substantive policy issue that they think he will implement. They just "like him" and think it's "time for change." I think that's where the bulk of the country is at right now.

Have the masses ever talked deeply about policy? If Obama wins, he would have put forth more specific policy details than any elected President in my lifetime. His tax proposal alone has more specifics than any candidate has put forth in decades.

Sounds a little bit like you "just don't like him." Or at least some of bandwagoning going on around him. Thats just presidential politics.

[Passacaglia]

In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program -- which pays out based on how much you paid in -- into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.

I wonder how many people think that that's what Social Security is supposed to be, anyway.

[Warhammer]

Have the masses ever talked deeply about policy? If Obama wins, he would have put forth more specific policy details than any elected President in my lifetime. His tax proposal alone has more specifics than any candidate has put forth in decades.

Sounds a little bit like you "just don't like him." Or at least some of bandwagoning going on around him. Thats just presidential politics.

You been listening to the same guy I have?

[GrantDawg]

Dang, Palin just needs to stay away from hockey games. First the booing, and now this:

Goalie injured after tripping on Palin carpet | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-gen/ap/General_Hockey_News/HKN_Blues_Legace_Hurt.html)

Goalie injured after tripping on Palin carpet

By JIM SALTER
Associated Press Writer
ST. LOUIS — Blues goalie Manny Legace left after one period Friday night with a hip injury that occurred when he slipped on the carpet placed on the ice for Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

The Alaska governor dropped the ceremonial first puck before the Blues hosted the Los Angeles Kings. A narrow carpet walkway was placed from the gate at the Blues bench to center ice for Palin, her husband and two of her daughters.

Just before the ceremony, Legace was the first player onto the ice for St. Louis. A team official pointed to the carpet. But Legace said the official moved his own foot from the carpet just as Legace stepped down, causing the carpet to slide.

Legace fell, then gingerly made his way to the crease. After Legace's mishap, the official rolled up enough of the carpet so other players wouldn't have to step on it.

Legace described the injury as a strained left hip flexor. He doesn't believe it is serious but said it is painful. He said he won't play Saturday when the Blues host Florida, but wasn't sure if he'd miss any additional games. "I felt a pull right away," Legace said. "I was hoping it would just go away." But after making his first save, the injury felt worse, Legace said. He played one period, giving up two goals on 12 shots. After the intermission, the team said he suffered a "lower body" injury but did not immediately elaborate. He was replaced by Ben Bishop, making his NHL debut.

Legace is 4-2 with a 2.94 goals-against average in six games this season. He is 313-291 in his nine-year career. He was selected to the Western Conference All-Star team last season.

It was Palin's second appearance at an NHL game this month. She also dropped the ceremonial puck at Philadelphia on Oct. 11.

Legace didn't blame Palin for the injury.

"She's been pretty good for our game," Legace said. "I'm starting to like her more and more. No grudge."

[Big Fo]

The Flyers finally won yesterday, their first win since Palin dropped there a few weeks ago. With Legacy's injury and the Blues losing last night I guess the curse has been passed on.

[sabotai]

The Flyers finally won yesterday, their first win since Palin dropped there a few weeks ago. With Legacy's injury and the Blues losing last night I guess the curse has been passed on.

Maybe not. The Flyers won on the road, not at the Wachovia Center. ;)

[Crapshoot]

I think just about every Dem not related to Harry Reid would rather see Hillary in the Senate Majority slot... let's see if they have the balls to can Harry Reid's worthless ass though.



Yes. It's basically a whoever gets the most vote. Usually each party nominates their person and everyone in the party votes for that nominee (and you better if you want the good slots).

Agreed, but apparently Harry Reid is beloved by his colleagues. And Pelosi, for all her flaws, is a bare-knuckled politician, and I'd be shocked to see her lose that role.

[SirFozzie]

Christian right intensifies attacks on Obama - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/ap_on_el_pr/christian_right_attacks)


Terrorist strikes on four American cities. Russia rolling into Eastern Europe. Israel hit by a nuclear bomb. Gay marriage in every state. The end of the Boy Scouts. All are plausible scenarios if Democrat Barack Obama is elected president, according to a new addition to the campaign conversation called "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America," produced by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family Action.

Do they not realize how incredibly counterproductive this is and how idiotic it makes them look?