OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:40 pm

JackDog wrote:NBC runs this McCain ad.

https://democracyforamerica.com/contribution_pages/69

Hooray NBC!!

The add is disgusting and obviously inappropriate. OTOH I don't fault NBC for taking the 527's money, and I think the ad will ultimately hurt the Obama campaign more than McCain's. They may want to back-channel with that organization and get it off the air.

dougb · Post by **dougb** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:50 pm

RobVarak wrote:Funny as hell and bi-partisan...

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/866 ... ed><br/><a

Yeah I saw that one and loved it! I'm actually fairly impressed with the Onion's video stuff so far.

Best wishes,

Doug

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

dougb wrote:
RobVarak wrote:Funny as hell and bi-partisan...

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/866 ... ed><br/><a
Yeah I saw that one and loved it! I'm actually fairly impressed with the Onion's video stuff so far.

Best wishes,

Doug

LOU WARREN
LOST HIS F*CKING TERRIBLE JOB

"On-the-sh*t job training"

Classic!

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:37 am

this is my favorite

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:03 am

The full text of the letter from economists objecting the original Paulsen plan.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.coch ... rotest.htm

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:13 am

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:34 am

RobVarak wrote:The full text of the letter from economists objecting the original Paulsen plan.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.coch ... rotest.htm

Yep, those are the dangers. I've had a list of pros and cons earlier in this post, and the cons virtually mirror those mentioned here. I have yet to form a definitive opinion on the plan, as I've only seen bits and pieces of it, but it appears that both sides agree that it must be done, so it will be passed in some shape or form. From purely theoretical standpoint the idea to insure those mortgages as offered by conservatives, seems very interesting.

Here is my question. If democrats and centrist republicans agree on the proposal, why the standstill? Democrats have the majority in Congress and can pass it without the help of GOP. And with at least half of the republicans supporting Bush's proposal they won't even have to worry about a filibuster. Are they just trying to put on a good show, and display that everyone in Congress can work together on important decisions? Or am I missing something, and constitutional majority is required to pass this?

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:43 am

MACTEPsporta wrote:
RobVarak wrote:The full text of the letter from economists objecting the original Paulsen plan.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.coch ... rotest.htm
Yep, those are the dangers. I've had a list of pros and cons earlier in this post, and the cons virtually mirror those mentioned here. I have yet to form a definitive opinion on the plan, as I've only seen bits and pieces of it, but it appears that both sides agree that it must be done, so it will be passed in some shape or form. From purely theoretical standpoint the idea to insure those mortgages as offered by conservatives, seems very interesting.

Here is my question. If democrats and centrist republicans agree on the proposal, why the standstill? Democrats have the majority in Congress and can pass it without the help of GOP. And with at least half of the republicans supporting Bush's proposal they won't even have to worry about a filibuster. Are they just trying to put on a good show, and display that everyone in Congress can work together on important decisions? Or am I missing something, and constitutional majority is required to pass this?

Democrats don't want to go out on a limb passing this thing unless they can share the blame with Republicans when it goes sour.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:45 am

And here I thought Democrats were concerned with civil liberties: http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit ... 024910.php

McCain's 1st Amendment track record is less than stellar because of his campaign finance reform, but this is worse.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:46 am

FatPitcher wrote:Democrats don't want to go out on a limb passing this thing unless they can share the blame with Republicans when it goes sour.

God... can we just eliminate the concept of re-election all together?

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:17 am

FatPitcher wrote: Democrats don't want to go out on a limb passing this thing unless they can share the blame with Republicans when it goes sour.

I thought that could be the case too, but I doubt it. This plan came from Bush and his administration, so that's where the blame will go. Much like the war in Iraq that many democrats supported, remains republican wrongdoing this will be remembered as Bush's plan.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:54 am

this just in.....

McCain will go ahead with tonite's debate. Since Obama said he was showing up no matter what, I wonder if he tricked McCain into this? If McCain didn't show, Obama would have been able to monopolize the time and just speak without McCain being there to respond.

Looks like McCain's posturing may have backfired a little? Should be interesting tonite. Anyone know if the VP's are involved at all tonite?

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:59 am

JackB1 wrote:Anyone know if the VP's are involved at all tonite?

Yes. If you press select in between rounds, the VP candidates will rub the shoulders of their running mates faster and improve their mental acuity.

Post by **Jared** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:03 pm

Palin is actually going to be watching the debates at a local bar up the street from where I live. Thought about going to see the spectacle, but it's a private event.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:03 pm

Some momentary comic relief......

Been following the McCain / David Letterman rift in the past week?
Some funny stuff. Here is Letterman's recent Top 10 List....

TOP TEN SURPRISING FACTS ABOUT SARAH PALIN

10. Sometimes Sarah calls McCain "Grandpa"

9. She stole that sexy librarian look from me

8. Recently passed legislation to build a bridge to Funkytown

7. Does great impressions of Tina Fey

6. Favorite meal: Moose nuggets and beaver jerky

5. Working on a "Knight Rider" spin-off about a talking snowmobile

4. Favorite book? The Late Show Fun Facts -- available at fine stores everywhere

3. Once spent a week in the hospital after attempting to put lipstick on a pit bull

2. To improve her foreign policy experience, she recently went to the International House of Pancakes

1. Only person I know who's not afraid to go hunting with Dick Cheney

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:03 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote:
FatPitcher wrote: Democrats don't want to go out on a limb passing this thing unless they can share the blame with Republicans when it goes sour.
I thought that could be the case too, but I doubt it. This plan came from Bush and his administration, so that's where the blame will go. Much like the war in Iraq that many democrats supported, remains republican wrongdoing this will be remembered as Bush's plan.

You shouldn't doubt it. Democrats want at least 100 votes from Republicans in the House as political insurance. If Democrats wanted, they could pass a bill without any additional Republican help. The negotiations going on right now are simply to prevent them from having to take flak for passing it.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:09 pm

Jared wrote:Palin is actually going to be watching the debates at a local bar up the street from where I live. Thought about going to see the spectacles, but it's a private event.

FTFY

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:20 pm

JackB1 wrote:McCain will go ahead with tonite's debate. Since Obama said he was showing up no matter what, I wonder if he tricked McCain into this? If McCain didn't show, Obama would have been able to monopolize the time and just speak without McCain being there to respond.

He tricked him.

Good one. Damn that Barry is a sly one.

If McCain didn't show, just how would Obama have a debate by himself? Wait Jack, don't answer that. I'm 90% sure you actually know the answer, and 100% sure I don't want to know what it is.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:21 pm

Jared wrote:Palin is actually going to be watching the debates at a local bar up the street from where I live. Thought about going to see the spectacle, but it's a private event.

Watching someone watch a debate. Sounds like a lot of fun on a Friday night.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:24 pm

Palin on Russia....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... 29318.html

wow.

p.s. anyone know when this interview with Couric airs or did it already?

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:27 pm

matthewk wrote:
JackB1 wrote:McCain will go ahead with tonite's debate. Since Obama said he was showing up no matter what, I wonder if he tricked McCain into this? If McCain didn't show, Obama would have been able to monopolize the time and just speak without McCain being there to respond.
He tricked him. Good one. Damn that Barry is a sly one.

If McCain didn't show, just how would Obama have a debate by himself? Wait Jack, don't answer that. I'm 90% sure you actually know the answer, and 100% sure I don't want to know what it is.

"Tricked" wasn't the right word. Maybe "outmaneuvered"?
Either way, I am glad Obama stuck to his guns and showed he was willing to focus on 2 things at once. The polls numbers in recent days seem to agree. The more the #1 issue stays The Economy and not The War, the worse it is for McCain. Do you agree with that?

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:39 pm

JackB1 wrote:this just in.....

McCain will go ahead with tonite's debate. Since Obama said he was showing up no matter what, I wonder if he tricked McCain into this? If McCain didn't show, Obama would have been able to monopolize the time and just speak without McCain being there to respond.

Looks like McCain's posturing may have backfired a little? Should be interesting tonite. Anyone know if the VP's are involved at all tonite?

Boy, I sure am glad that McCain halted his campaign for a couple of days to go to Washington...that was a master stroke!

On a serious note, it's already fun watching his camp spin this in an attempt to save face.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:49 pm

This is the kind of s*** that we cannot have going on in the bailout negotiations. Press Release from Sen. Jim DeMint (R- SC):

We've just been alerted that despite House Democrats relenting on extending bans on offshore drilling and oil shale in the continuing resolution (CR) appropriations bill, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid has decided to sneak an extension of the oil shale ban through as Congress fights over the financial bailout. Oil shale in America's West is estimated to hold be between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — that is more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia alone.

Here is the text of Reid's proposed new ban on oil shale, that he is trying to add as an amendment to the CR or move seperately as a "stimulus" package, or we should say an anti-stimulus package if this is included.
Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:
SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale.

This is not time for anyone on either side of the aisle to try ramrodding other unrelated issues into the negotiations.

And for all of you who think it was purely a McCain political stunt to return to Washington (and spurn the important national forum of Dave Letterman's show

)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finke ... n-got-invo

From the CBS Early Show today.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

Looks like Clinton may have been correct.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:02 pm

McCain on Wednesday: I will not debate unless a bailout deal is done.

McCain on Friday: No deal is done, but I'm still going to the debate. Significant progress in negotiations.

Looks like McCain's political move backfired. Well done, John. Need a paper towel to clean that egg on your face before the network TV lights turn on at 9 p.m. (ET) tonight?

Take care,
PK

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:03 pm

Not unsurprisingly, Reid has a different take:

"Some Democrats pointed at presidential politics as the reason for Thursday's breakdown. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he believed a basic agreement was in place for the rescue plan Thursday.

"Then, guess who came to town — and then that completely fell apart," he said, in clear reference to GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

"House Republicans, since the arrival of the presidential (nominee) have not been involved in this, and I hope they become more engaged," Reid said at a Friday news conference. He said recalcitrant House members are "going to have to become more realistic" about their demands.

****

Democratic leaders questioned the involvement of GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain in the House Republicans' opposition to the plan.

Reid on Friday said McCain had gotten in the way of a deal, and he called on him to give a clear indication of what he expects from any plan to rescue the economy.

"We still don't know where he stands on the issue," Reid said of McCain.