Palin was wooden. Unpresidential. Unelectable.

Posted by skizziks

Gore was wooden but he was electable. Dukakis was unpresidential but electable. Palin is a nice enough lady and she did ok reciting the talking points that were drilled into her head. She would have done better if she had her own philosophical baseline from which to draw ideals and form opinions but she is a professional follower.

I'd like to have milk and cookies with her after hot sex, but she is not qualified to be VP.

"Sell the sizzle! Don't sell the steak!"

Joe Delafemina (Ad exec from Madison Ave., c. 1961)

i know joe six pack
and i wouldn't let him near my sisters let alone have a joe six pack be president

Palin's head didn't explode during the debate, so by the standard she had manufactured for her, she didn't do that poorly. Poorly to be sure, but not that poorly.

HC gets it. She stuck to her talking points but couldn't refute Joe's accusations on Mccadaver's voting record.

She also jumped in bed with the worst VP in history and couldn't defend that either. "there you go again Joe " was pathetic and poorly delivered and Joe should have done the whole "I knew Ronnie Reagan and you are no Ronnie Reagan" sctick. she was a good cheerleader, Biden loooked like a Leader.

How much would I have paid if Biden said the following:

"Governor, I grew up with Joe Six-Pack: I know Joe Six Pack; Joe Six Pack is a friend of mine. Governor, you're no Joe Six-Pack."

but not that poorly.

Now that my friends is a victory.
Like our victory in Vietnam.
Where I crashed how many planes?
Where are my strawberries?

~ John "Ace" McCain.

Sarah Palin will not be the first Fembot VP.

It is over. Two more presidential debates. Does anybody seriously think that they will be any different than the first except that Obama might look even better in them? The steady erosion of support for McCain/Palin will continue because of the sorry state our country is in, because they don't have anything real to recommend them, because they're Republicans and because Republicans caused the mess. They have done their best to blame the Democrats for everything that's gone wrong and they have done their best to turn Iraq into a victory. People aren't buying it. The only ones who do are those 22% or whatever who still think Bush is doing a good job. Guess what. Those people would have voted for Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee or even Romney too.

It's beginning to look like Obama will get 55%-60% of the popular vote and 65%-70% of the electoral votes.

They had better hurry up and release the WHITEY tape.......

What skizziks, ;) you didn't like that folksy ;) yokel ;) from Wassila ;)?

I bet someone makes a bobble-headed Palin doll that smiles and winks. A talking point Palin doll would also be easy to design and market. Ditto Caribou Barbie, complete with bunny boots, rifle and a snow machine.

**** What skizziks, ;) you didn't like that folksy ;) yokel ;) from Wassila ;)?.. Posted by nullifidian ****

......8 years of folksy yokel is my limit......

**** They had better hurry up and release the WHITEY tape....... Posted by Manypaths ****

......that's why James Dean, FWThom, Johnson, Chair & BLT2 are absent today......

......they're turning the trailer park upside down trying to figure out who borrowed it last.......

'Mercifully, McCain can retire to the French Riviara with his billionaire friends, secure in their gratitude that he gave all for their welfare."

I dunno, Skiz. Those billionaires didn't get where they are by displaying gratitude. Their John isn't likely to wind up with any glitzy retirement package. herm

I dunno, Skiz. Those billionaires didn't get where they are by displaying gratitude. Their John isn't likely to wind up with any glitzy retirement package. herm

Plus I hear that Cindy may dump John for a younger black guy.

*** I dunno, Skiz. Those billionaires didn't get where they are by displaying gratitude. Their John isn't likely to wind up with any glitzy retirement package. herm.... Posted by herm ****

.......you think maybe they'll give him a coupon for free flying lessons instead ?.......

"...they don't have anything real to recommend them, because they're Republicans and because Republicans caused the mess. "

Right, Bluey, but they still have Clinton's blow job and somehow they try to blame this depression onto Democrats. And you did hear Sarah screech about the greed and corruption without noting that hers is the party OF greed and corruption? And you do know the last rule of Rovian politics: when all else fails, obfuscate. herm

She wasn't actually drooling as she didn't answer questions, so Repubes are happy with her.

She had her salivary glands removed. 'Course, from my way of thinkin, those were the wrong glands to remove....

i know joe six pack
and i wouldn't let him near my sisters let alone have a joe six pack be president

#3 | Posted by klifferd

I know him too-I'm related to the bastard!
I wouldn't let that shitheels anywhere near any female that I'm related to-or even acquainted with....

Herm,

They have all kinds of rules for winning elections at which they've been very successful. It's been disastrous for America that they don't govern as well as they run to govern.

A possibly incomplete list of these rules:

Amass tons of money from the wealthy. "This is an impressive crowd. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base"
Obfuscate and deflect.
Blame everybody else -- refine further by attaching your own crimes to them.
Smear and slime.
Manipulate the electoral system. Caging, gerrymandering, cleansing the electoral rolls, outright fraud.
Mention God, guns and gays as often as possible.
Make sure flags are always prominently displayed.
Attach the party to Christian fundamentalism.
Pursue a "Southern Strategy". A euphemism for appealing to racists and bigots.

Democrats have been and are equally or more guilty of some of these, particularly the last, but certainly not all of them.

Such tactics have served the GOP very well up till now. They might have worked again if they hadn't grown overdependent on them, forsaken strategy and assumed that the actual candidates they ran hardly mattered.

Bush and Cheney were a bridge too far. McCain and Palin are the final straw.

'McCain and Palin are the final straw." Bluey speaks the truth that's not pushed. enough, The goddess grants us one more chance. If we blow that, we might as well hang it up and await the end. herm

"Palin was wooden. Unpresidential. Unelectable."

"Have we reached the point of mediocrity in this country that Sarah Palin's debate performance was actually acceptable to her supporters (fortunately, Independents in early polls do not share that view) because she didn't fall on her face, as many conservatives feared? That's your standard? No wonder there are still some of you who still think George Bush, the very definition of mediocrity, is a good president......If the stakes weren't so high, this obviously nice and fairly articulate person can probably still govern the state of Alaska, where frankly it doesn't much matter. But vice president of the United States? That is a bridge not only too far, but the real bridge to nowhere."

" Sarah Palin did extremely well last night."

Too bad she didn't answer the questions.

Danforth,

My initial reaction to the debate was that it was a rush to say nothing; by both candidates.

Sarah Palin wouldn't even answer the fricking questions. It's like John McCain's campaign installed an ALDL on the back of Her neck and fed Her talking points to say. If that is experience well I don't want to know inexperience.

Larry

"My initial reaction to the debate was that it was a rush to say nothing; by both candidates."

Why Jeff, didn't she mesmerize you when she sent little starbursts through the screen?

it's like she was winking just at me!

I can't believe I saw a VP candidate fucking do that in a debate. Searched my house for rope to make a noose.

Oh and God Her voice. It's like a bad set of brakes squeeling. Besides Her voice it was like She was competing for Mrs America or something.

Larry

Null,

I've officially become a news-junkie.

She did extremely well on style, but I was pining for substance.

On that front, I thought both paled in comparison with their running mates in the previous debate.

Although, I think that was due, in part, to the much looser format of the first debate.

I am frustrated that Obama seems primed to win this thing.

I really do view him as an un-proven lightweight; at best.

I think he's winning in large part due to Bush hangover.

I guess that's a situation where the Republicans reap what they sow.

Granted, a lot can still happen in the next month, but McCain is looking more and more like a long-shot.

JeffJ,

She certainly did better than many predicted, but the memorized passages seemed hollow. Still, the handlers obviously got what they wanted: folksy, and answering with XYZ regardless the question. In her defense, all politicians do it, once they're polished; her newness at it showed via her nervousness. But she calmed the base, and didn't freeze up, which, unfortunately, seems to be the bar of success. In no way did I feel she is or would be ready. Regarding Biden, I agree with David Gergen: very solid. Not perfect, but very effective in his comments regarding the Vice Presidency and very honest when talking about his dead wife and daughter, and his injured sons.

Ultimately, I'd imagine this might move the polls a point or two in McCain's direction. Still, it's Obama's to lose.

Danforth,

I concur.

"I've officially become a news-junkie."

Interesting. I remember a few years ago when you took a lot of ribbing from Leadbelly, myself and others for your admission of having ignored news and current events for most of your life.

Null,

I'd like to think I've come a long way since then.

Great pic, Null..and thanks for the props.

Null,

If you are going to be around for a few, I'd like to post an exchange my dad had with a very liberal aunt of mine. I'll post it and edit out the personal stuff. I just want to make sure you'll be around to read it.

Let me know.

I'll read it sometime, tonight, Jeff. Post away.

Null,

I'll post my aunt's original comment (which was a cut-and-paste) and then I'll post my dad's reply.

Here goes (please forgive all of the ">>>>" I am too lazy to edit it out:

Republican Free Market Chaos>>>>>>The financial crisis.>>>>>>

All of the following is true and not exaggerated. Check it for yourself.>>>>>>

According to the FED's summary of the savings and loan scandal (U.S.>>>General Accounting Office--July 1996), the savings and loan crisis of>>>the 1980s and 1990s wiped out 747 savings and loan banks, costing about>>>$160 billion (more than double that in today's dollars) most of which>>>was paid for by the U.S. government, i.e., you and me.>>>>>>The most common causes of failure were bankers giving thousands of>>>loans to people who could not pay them back and outright fraud (giving>>>loans to buddies at ridiculous interest rates or, even, that they never>>>expected to get back). Sound familiar?>>>>>>Every one of those banks were audited yearly and warnings were not>>>sounded by their accounting/auditing firms . . . hmmm. The biggest S &>>>L auditor was the world's largest accounting firm, Arthur Anderson,>>>Inc. Anderson was later completely destroyed when its complicity in the>>>Enron series of frauds was discovered. Yes, completely. BTW, many of>>>the banks now in trouble were forced to pay fines for their complicity>>>with Enron.>>>>>>So much for financial industry policing itself.>>>>>>Did we learn from that scandal? No. Do most American adults even know>>>about it? No.>>>>>>The Enron disaster forced President Bush to appoint William Donaldson,>>>a reformer, to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. After a few>>>years, Donaldson wanted to tighten banking and hedge fund regulations,>>>so Bush fired him. Fact!>>>>>>Next, the banking rules, i.e., oversight regulations, were actually>>>loosened. A leader of this "deregulation" was Senator Phil Graham who>>>when recently said, "The recession is mostly mental" was fired as John>>>McCain's leading economic advisor.>>>>>>Next, a loophole in the SEC regulations, hedge funds are completely>>>unregulated, and on many days hedge funds account for about half of the>>>trades on the NY stock exchange. The average salary of the top 29 hedge>>>fund managers last year was over $900 million. That is almost a billion>>>dollars for a year's "work." No exaggeration here. None.>>>>>>Today, in what seems to be a recurring nightmare, we find that>>>thousands of financial institutions issued literally millions of>>>subprime mortgages to people who cannot pay them back, causing the>>>greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.>>>>>>At least six major financial institutions have failed, and TRILLIONS of>>>our tax dollars are being used to guarantee the banks solvency. This is>>>not an exaggeration. How does it feel to own AIG? You bought it>>>yesterday for $85 Billion!>>>>>>And things could get much worse. According to the FDIC, at least a>>>hundred more banks are expected to fail. According to CNBC, more major>>>institutions are in trouble including Wachovia, Morgan Stanley,>>>Washington Mutual, Goldman Sachs and Citicorp.>>>>>>Even more ominous, as the following chart shows, foreigners are>>>beginning to stop purchasing our debt which, when including the FED and>>>trade deficits is easily over a trillion/year.

Here's my dad's reply:

I'll try to cover each of McCannon's points and then general philosophy. > On the 80s and 90s S & L crisis, I agree that the primary cause was too > many bad loans. Fraudulent loans were a small portion of the total, but > too much credit was given to businesses and individuals who couldn't > justify the loan amounts. Lax lending standards were probably the most > significant cause.>> He has a lot of facts wrong in his comment about auditors. Arthur > Andersen was not the largest S & L auditor, Peat Marwick (my firm) was. > He says warnings were not sounded by the S & L auditors but, in many > cases, there were warnings. These took the form of qualified auditors > reports on the financial statements of the the S & L organizations. Many > audit reports took exception to the amount of loan loss reserves (too low) > or issued a "going concern " opinion. I will agree that on hindsight the > audit profession could have done a better job but the financial > institution's own internal controls and the government's regulatory > auditors were or should have been the primary line of defense. Anyway, > that is history.>> Bill Donaldson was not fired by Bush as head of the SEC. Once he was > confirmed by the Senate, he could not be fired or replaced by the > administration until his term expired. He resigned from the SEC > chairmanship based on the SEC's press release at the time. It is fair too > say that he took a lot of criticism from business groups and the two other > Republican commissioners for his methods and practices.>> It is correct that hedge funds have never been regulated. I agree that > they should have been subject to SEC regulation in the past and should be > put under the SEC's oversight now. One point is that hedge funds have > been in existence about 20 years. That covers 12 Bush years and 8 Clinton > years and about 10 years of each party being in control of the > legislature. So I think that both parties missed the risk associated with > the hedge funds.>> While excessive executive compensation is not against the law, I agree > that it has gotten way out of hand. The primary contributing factor is > GREED.>> The comment about AIG has merit but has to be considered in context. > Simply put, AIG was too big to fail. The repercussions to the rest of the > economy would have been catastrophic if Bear Sterns, AIG or Merrill Lynch > had failed. I have read financial writers who believe once an orderly > selloff of AIG is completed(over several years), the government will make > money on its loan/ownership of AIG. For example, the government is > receiving an interest rate of LIBOR plus 5%. LIBOR is essentially > equivalent to prime rate but is based on an European index. That is an > extremely high rate. One final point on AIG is that Bill Clinton said in > a CNBC interview the day after that the takeover was the only thing the > Fed could do. At least a little bit of bi-partisan concurrence.>> There will probably be more financial institutions to fail. Hopefully, > the effect can be managed.>> Now to philosophy. I strongly believe in the value of free markets, free > trade and minimum government regulation. While there clearly have been > excesses in the financial sector, many individuals have played their role > in the crisis. Buying a home for $300,000 when a person's income only > supports a loan of $150,000 isn't very smart. This is one example of how > too many individuals have taken on too much personal debt (mortgage or > credit card) to achieve a lifestyle that is not sustainable. We have to > become a nation of greater savers and lesser consumers. I know that was > bad grammar, but you get my point.>> Anyway, I will be very interested in how the two presidential candidates > think we should solve the problems.>> Pretty verbose, huh.

"I bet someone makes a bobble-headed Palin doll that smiles and winks. A talking point Palin doll would also be easy to design and market. Ditto Caribou Barbie, complete with bunny boots, rifle and a snow machine.

#12 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2008-10-03 11:53 AM"

No need for a snow machine. Last night proved Gov. Palin can produce plenty of snow without one.

Jeff J-
It is "pretty verbose", when it could be summed in one sentence:

Deregulation has fucked us.

" Deregulation has fucked us."

Posted by BetelG

Deregulation has fucked you again, suckers.
-Big Money

Fixed.

It is "pretty verbose", when it could be summed in one sentence:

Deregulation has fucked us.

Uh huh.

I don't really concern myself with that level of debate, Jeff. The problem isn't, as one would believe by reading partisans here, the fault of a particular piece of legislation, i.e. community reinvestment act, or a particular party, or the Bush administration, etc.

The problem is ideology, i.e., free market fundamentalism, which has been promoted to varying degrees by both parties since the late 70s. It's a recurring pattern: laissez-faire leading to crisis leading to regulation leading to deregulation leading to crisis, etc.

Jeff J-
You must be right. It was under-regulation by Democrats when Republicans were for regulation, but when Republicans had total control, over-regulation was the problem.

Uh-huh.

I don't really concern myself with that level of debate, Jeff.

Fair enough, Null.

The only reason I posted it was because I thought you might find the take of a retired partner of one of the big-5 public accounting firms interesting.

BetelG,

The problem isn't solely linked to Democrats or Republicans.

It's a complex-series of intertwined problems that culmaltively came to a head.

Null,

Where in the hell is Ray?

I would have thought he would have been all over this crisis in a "I told you so" manner.

Ray is on Sign Up status. Whatever THAT means.

Larry

PS Sounds worse than a vistor status but that is just Me.

Jeff J-
You're the one stuck on the partisan issue. The point is that deregulation and lack of oversight caused this meltdown.

"The problem isn't solely linked to Democrats or Republicans."

This is true. What's called "neoliberalism" internationally began in the late 70s, but really accelerated in the 80s under Reagan and Thatcher, was continued by Clinton with his support of NAFTA and the WTO and has run into its inevitable brick wall under Bush.

Like I said before, the pendulum swings back and forth as every movement of free market fundamentalism ends up generating a crisis which requires some dosage of "socialism" to rescue the capitalist system.

BetelG,

De-regualtion is the problem here?

It was government intervention that allowed Fannie and Freddie to shirk existing lending practices and snatch-up sub-prime loans under the notion of making housing more affordable for the poor.

In order to compete, other lending institutions followed suit under a combination of greed, fear of market-place loss and under the implicit (and now realized) guaruntee that the government would back this shit if it failed.

Government interference in the market was a much-bigger problem than de-regulation.

"the pendulum swings back and forth"

How two-dimensional.

Null,

Per usual I suspect you and I will agree to disagree on the cause-and-effect of all of this.

Jeff J-
Right. Advocates for the poor were pushing the sub-prime market.

(Are you as stupid as you try to be?)

How two-dimensional.

It swings back and forth in a circular motion, Zat.

"Government interference in the market was a much-bigger problem than de-regulation."

Nonsense. The 80s and 90s were the decades of deregulation. Nice try.

Jeff-
Yes. The sub-prime market flourished for a decade before Fannie and Freddie even got into it, and it was pushed by "libs" who wanted to see the poor pay usury rates. (How stupid must you be?)

Is it the radio...fluoridation of the water...both?

Right. Advocates for the poor were pushing the sub-prime market.

(Are you as stupid as you try to be?)

Do some reseach into the constructs of Fannie and Freddie. Start with a '99 NYT assessment of what was a pilot program at the time.

Investment bankers ran with this hard, once the door was opened. However, they weren't the ones who opened the door.

"circular motion"

Whereupon I proceeded to take that mittenful of the deadly yellow snow Crystals and rub it all into his beady little eyes with a vigorous

*Circular motion*

hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mudshark in your mythology.

Here it goes,the circular motion, now rub it!

-Z

"How two-dimensional.

It swings back and forth in a circular motion, Zat."

Yeah whatever. Economic history speaks for itself. Laissez faire followed by regulations--a New Deal--followed by another attempt at laissez faire--followed by crisis, etc.

"Say it ain't so Joe" was wooden??

You guys crack me up..

Where is Rex and the musak thread??

" back and forth in a circular motion "

"Where is Rex and the musak(sic) thread??"

Posted by MURPHY

It swings back and forth in a circular motion, Zat."

Yeah whatever.

It was a joke, Null. It was a play on Zat's '2-dimensuional comment.'

That's all.

"Government interference in the market was a much-bigger problem than de-regulation."

Nonsense. The 80s and 90s were the decades of deregulation. Nice try.

Uh huh.

Reconcile that with the wonderful, regulatory economic period of the '70's.

Nice try.

I think I know what JeffJ's problem is tonight. He just realized His neo maxi zoom dweebie McCain is sinking faster than a 1 ton man in quick sand. That must hurt You know.

Larry

I'm going to go listen to this from Frank's own vinyl.

Alone.

And I'm gonna love it.

neo maxi zoom dweebie

Thanks for the funny movie-reference, Larry.

I needed a chuckle.

I've gotta check out for a bit.

I hope to be back later.

Jeff J-
It's such a good thing that after OPEC gutted our economy in the 70's that Reagan canceled all the alt. energy funding provided, pushed, and cajoled by Carter.

"It's such a good thing that after OPEC gutted our economy in the 70's that Reagan canceled all the alt. energy funding provided, pushed, and cajoled by Carter."

Posted by BetelG

Now now,

Take your Soma.

"It's all so simple."
-Ron the con

"Reconcile that with the wonderful, regulatory economic period of the '70's."

Don't you mean the regulatory period of the 40s, 50s, and 60s, characterized by one of the greatest booms in economic history? It was a period that turned the working class into the middle class.

the other night, in kicking around politics, a woman said that her entire family of republicans have decided not to vote as palin was on the ticket.
and this was prior to the debate.
she is making a difference as much to moderates as those to the far right that are still looking up milf on the internet.
on the flip | on npr, a thick southern accent stated via phone-in that he and his friends couldn't vote for a black man. another said he would never vote for any woman.

my morning paper stated, correctly, that biden won the debate and palin didn't lose it.
nothing new to sink or launch.
it's sad that there were so many inaccuracies stated by both.

of note. we watched cspan so as to avoid the meters, graphs, polling and such.... the entire debate was split screen. it offered a view of the candidate's body language, facial mannerisms, and eye movement that was telling.

the moderating was horrid, btw.

all the best.

Sara will have t=face more than troopergate when she returns to Alaska. There will be the per diem issue of her not paying taxes to the IRS and her allieing her self with all the John McCain lies and distortions of the truth will be the end of her
politicol carreer in Alaska unless they don't care if politions lie and cheat up there.

. . . " unless they don't care if politions lie and cheat up there." ~ Joelabey

They don't care. They're all getting a nice stipend from her windfall profit tax on the oil companies.

The idiotic regurgitation of the right wing talking points designed to deflect the blame for the economic mess anywhere except on Bush, Greenspan, the Republican Party, etc. is the best argument which could ever be made for the FAirness Doctrine.
I believe America will soon realize they have been led to the slaughter (or poor house) by Rush, Sean, Laura Ingram, and other highly paid right wing tools who cared more about supporting the agenda they were paid to support than about the country they call home. We should never again allow corporations to buy huge parts of the media and use it to push their own economic agenda at the expense to the rest of us. As we try to bail our way out of the mess they have created we need to focus our anger on those whe led the way not on the poor folks who those same talkers are now trying to convince their listeners are to blame.

"the moderating was horrid, btw."

Well ... yeah, it was. My guess is that Gwen Ifill was doing the best she could with the instructions given her. Those instructions surely were never to ask an embarrassing follow-up question or in any way zero in on just how god-awful the lipsticked pig really was. Maybe so she (Gwen) would not be accused of "airs" because she's writing a neutral sociological tome while it has yet to be proven that Sarah! can even read. herm

Palin is so unprofessional she doesn't even know how to address a member of the Senate. Its not Joe honey its Senator. Notice he addressed her as Govenor ever time.

After eight years of criminal incompetence in the WH, does ANYONE in their heart of hearts actually want McCain/Palin elected? It really would be hard to believe. She is a moron. And he is a flip-flopping founding member of the 'more of the same' good ole boy club.

"After eight years of criminal incompetence in the WH, does ANYONE in their heart of hearts actually want McCain/Palin elected?" - MOD

Honest answer?

1. Because Bush/Cheney aren't running. McCain & Palin, despite your assumed objections, aren't Bush & Cheney. They are not only different people with differing personalities, but they aren't mirror images in terms of priorities, etc.

2. I revert to ideology. While Dubya hasn't lead as a conservative enough for me, I have much more faith that McCain/Palin will lead that way then I do Obama/Biden.

"McCain & Palin, despite your assumed objections, aren't Bush & Cheney."

Can you name one economic policy on which McCain differs from Bush?

I can and assume you can name one economic policy on which Obama differs from Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Carter, etc.

It's the same old playbook for both parties. Different faces, different personalities.

To address your question (and I'll assume you'll address mine)... I firmly believe McCain/Palin will show much more restraint in gov't spending than Bush did.

I never really got the sense Bush was a reformer. I do with McCain. Whether congressional Reps will follow his lead, who knows?

"It's the same old playbook for both parties. "

My point exactly. Assuming McCain would be Bush 44 is reasonable.

"I firmly believe McCain/Palin will show much more restraint in gov't spending than Bush did. "

McCain wants to borrow billions and billions of dollars to eliminate a tax which only effects multi-millionaires and billionaires. During a time of the largest deficits known to man. I wouldn't call that "restraint".

"I never really got the sense Bush was a reformer. I do with McCain."

The operative word being was.

DAN,
Since you asked me, could you name one economic policy where Obama and Kerry differ? For that matter, Clinton? Dukakis, etc?

The playbook hasn't really changed. So before you take umbrage with the McCain/Bush link, how is your own house? We all can talk about "change."

1. Because Bush/Cheney aren't running. McCain & Palin, despite your assumed objections, aren't Bush & Cheney. They are not only different people with differing personalities, but they aren't mirror images in terms of priorities, etc.

2. I revert to ideology. While Dubya hasn't lead as a conservative enough for me, I have much more faith that McCain/Palin will lead that way then I do Obama/Biden.

Posted by OohRah at 2008-10-04 03:47 PM | Reply

1 Sure they are. McCain/Palin would be DUbya's third term.

2) Dude McCain has voted with Dubya 95% of the time. wake up McCain is a mirror image. Oh and since all the shit Dubya has done has been a miserable failure. It begs the question why You would want to spread more failure upon the United States. Don't You Love America???????????

Larry

Since you asked me, could you name one economic policy where Obama and Kerry differ?

What does that have to do with anything? Kerry's economic policies, unlike Bush's, haven't been proven to be a total bust. And the last Democrat in office gave us a 225% rise in the DJIA and delivered true surplus budgets to his successor's door...not good enough for you? We are in the middle of the largest deficit known to man, and despite that, McCain is keeping to his plan to borrow billions and billions of dollars to eliminate a tax which only applies to multi-millionaires and billionaires, along with their 60% rate cut on dividends. All leading to this massive debt. When Bush took office, 11% of our annual outlay went to servicing the debt. Last year it was 16.6%. Any guesses which way it's headed?

One success, and one abject failure. Gee, which should I choose?

Palin's should reserve a return trip ticket for their family to Alaska for November 5.

Say idiot the debt was 10 times what it was when Bush left office from when he went in. This is McCain spin and don't believe it.

"the debt was 10 times what it was when Bush left office from when he went in."

Step away from Vernon's calculator.

And BTW, Bush hasn't left office yet. He still may screw up more.

DAN,
I asked you a question... something you'd asked me. A "what does it matter" doesn't tell me anything, particularly when you and I seem to agree that faces may change, but policies tend not to.

Kerry was rejected by voters. So, if Obama wants to perpetuate Kerry's ideas (healthcare, taxes, etc) then what's really new and likeable about Obama's initiatives?

The reality is that the Dem playbook is the same now as it was in the 70's.

Check this out and tell me which Dem VP said it:
"I believe that most Americans would agree on the problems this country faces and which the next administration must solve. They include the need, once again, for an economy that works. The economy today is in very, very bad shape, the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, 50% higher than when Mr. XXX took office, raging inflation.

The latest wholesale price index is once again raising the specter of double-digit inflation. The purchasing power of the average American has slipped so much that it's now the equivalent of the purchasing power in 1965. It's not getting better, it's getting worse. All the leading indicators now point downward. Stock investors are losing confidence. Over $50 billion of value has disappeared from the stock market in less than a month.

We need a government that works, we need a government that cares, and once again, we have to get back at work on education, on health, on housing, on the environment, on energy. And we need a foreign policy that once again reflects the values and the beliefs of the American people. This will take leadership, and we need leadership, too. The Republican administration, the Republican Party has had eight years to solve these problems. All of them have gotten worse. The Republican ticket does not offer new plans for their solution but is engaged in a frantic effort to defend the past. This nation desperately needs new leadership. The XXX ticket would offer a new generation of leadership dedicated to solving the problems I have listed, and that is the basis of our appeal."

The speaker was Walter Mondall in his debate with Bob Dole back in 1976. The more things change, the more they stay the same, apparently.

"what's really new and likeable about Obama's initiatives?"

At this point, the driving force in this election is Bush's epic failures, and the fact the Republicans nominated Mr. 90%.

The 'what does it matter' was referring to the stark economic differences between the last time a Dem was president, and Bush. You're right it's basically the same playbook, but if you'll remember, that was the playbook that gave us a balanced budget and a soaring Dow.

DAN-
I can play the same game. Your "balanced budget and a soaring Dow" party got beat not once, but twice, by Dubya.

So when we hear "change" from Obama there really is very very little actual change from the Dem playbook. I asked you to come up with some economic areas where the new guy (Obama) differs from the last guy (Kerry). I even allowed you to take into account Gore, Clinton and backward timewise to come up with differences.

Sure, the Dem and Rep candidate will differ from his counterpart in the opposing party. You and I weren't debating that point. Your point was that McCain and Bush were twins separated at birth policywise.

So is Obama offering anything new? He might be, but we'd have to look long and hard to find where he does. Thoughts?