OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[Teal]

This just f*cking creeps me out:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TW9b0xr06qA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[pk500]

I loved Palin's answer Monday afternoon when asked about the bailout plan:

"I'm glad that John McCain's voice is heard through all of this. And his leadership, too, really shining through with the bill."

Egads. This broad is peppy, cheery and pretty clueless when it comes to details of public policy. She is a wind-up Soundbite Barbie.

Every time I see her, I think of Reese Witherspoon in "Legally Blonde." But the question is, will Palin discover her hidden political savvy, like Witherspoon found her hidden legal expertise in the movie, soon enough to help McCain?

I have doubts.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

U.S. journalism in the 21st century at it's finest.

So somebody asks her if we should go into Pakistan to get terrorists. She responds with "If that's what we have to do" and suddenly she's agreeing with Obama? I'm guessing her idea of what conststutes "what we have to do" is very different from what Obama is suggesting. But of course it's easier to just take this little soundbyte and come up with their own meaning for what she was trying to say.

But given what McCain said in the debate, this completely contradicts him. He was pretty adamant about not sending military forces into Pakistan without Pakistan's consent, because Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror, and he doesn't want to hurt that alliance. Obama's position was that he would risk violating Pakistani sovereignty if he suspected terrorists were inside Pakistan's borders and plotting an attack against the US, and Pakistan wasn't doing enough to stop them. Palin may not have meant for her statement to sound like Obama's position, but that's how it came out.

It would be helpful if she would say what she means, or at least what McCain wants her to say.

[pk500]

This just f*cking creeps me out:

It's a hell of a lot less disturbing than the video of West Virginia voters from the primary season, claiming they couldn't vote for Obama because he was either black or Muslim.

These are kids; they can't pull the lever. Those morons in Deliverance Country can.

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

I loved Palin's answer Monday afternoon when asked about the bailout plan:

"I'm glad that John McCain's voice is heard through all of this. And his leadership, too, really shining through with the bill."

Egads. This broad is peppy, cheery and pretty clueless when it comes to details of public policy. She is a wind-up Soundbite Barbie.

Every time I see her, I think of Reese Witherspoon in "Legally Blonde." But the question is, will Palin discover her hidden political savvy, like Witherspoon found her hidden legal expertise in the movie, soon enough to help McCain?

I have doubts.

Take care,
PK

Word is McCain himself has invited her to join him for 2 days of prepping for her upcoming debate. Anyone see a problem with this? I don't think Obama is tutoring Biden.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... 30146.html

[Teal]

Word is McCain himself has invited her to join him for 2 days of prepping for her upcoming debate. Anyone see a problem with this? I don't think Obama is tutoring Biden.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... 30146.html

No, likely it's the other way around...

[RobVarak]

But given what McCain said in the debate, this completely contradicts him.

Yep, we can't have the VP candidate contradicting the top of the ticket

And I'm with Teal. That video is totally creepy. The kids may not be able to vote, but the weird fucks who assembled them, wrote the song and recorded it can.

Reminds me of this LOL

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

[MACTEPsporta]

Double post

[MACTEPsporta]

This just f*cking creeps me out:

Holy s***. Major flashback to my communist past. LOL
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_cMlu7tUshg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></embed>

EDIT: LOL, Rob beat me to it. LMAO

[pk500]

Christ, that video was made by people who live in California. You're surprised that the lefty bastion of the West Coast used kids to produce a political version of this?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6mOEU87SBTU&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6mOEU87SBTU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's California, for f*ck's sake -- home of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters and their ilk. Damn, maybe you Midwestern and Deep South cats are a bit isolated.

Take care,
PK

[MACTEPsporta]

Damn hippies

[Jared]

CR's analysis is easily the most persuasive for me. And the net result is still that the GSE's were a significant player in the crisis.

I don't understand this rush to minimize the role of the GSE's...

Let me clarify what I'm trying to say:

1) People are trying to say that the law co-sponsored by McCain in 06, and that the debate in that video in 04, has major relevance to the current financial crisis. It doesn't...it shows that some Republicans don't like Fannie/Freddie (for a variety of reasons; some related to corruption within it, some related to it being a big gov't program), and some Democrats will defend it even when it's doing bad things. That's all interesting, but <b>irrelevant</b> to the current financial crisis, and a distraction to all of the real causes of the crisis (deregulation + market stupidity).

2) Separately, people are trying to disproportionately pin the crisis on Fannie/Freddie. Being a big mortgage company, of course they're affected by and involved in the crisis, and some of their policies were stupid and had a very mild effect. But their behavior wasn't a major factor because they had regulations that didn't allow them to be involved in the most toxic loans. They were in better shape than a lot of other companies, but (as lots of solid mortgage companies have seen) because the market got hit so hard, they tanked.

3) The whole exaggeration of the role of Fannie/Freddie is a ploy to distract from the much greater cause: deregulation.

[matthewk]

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

U.S. journalism in the 21st century at it's finest.

So somebody asks her if we should go into Pakistan to get terrorists. She responds with "If that's what we have to do" and suddenly she's agreeing with Obama? I'm guessing her idea of what conststutes "what we have to do" is very different from what Obama is suggesting. But of course it's easier to just take this little soundbyte and come up with their own meaning for what she was trying to say.

But given what McCain said in the debate, this completely contradicts him. He was pretty adamant about not sending military forces into Pakistan without Pakistan's consent, because Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror, and he doesn't want to hurt that alliance. Obama's position was that he would risk violating Pakistani sovereignty if he suspected terrorists were inside Pakistan's borders and plotting an attack against the US, and Pakistan wasn't doing enough to stop them. Palin may not have meant for her statement to sound like Obama's position, but that's how it came out.

It would be helpful if she would say what she means, or at least what McCain wants her to say.

You can twist that soundbyte into anything you want it to, which is exactly what the Obamedia have done....again. I haven't read anything that quoted her as saying they would ignore Pakistan's wishes and just go in there. "If that's what we need to do" can include any number of things.

Speaking of saying what they mean....
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/30 ... shot-iraq/

Or better yet, how about the "no coal plants" comment from Biden? That directly contradicts Obama's stance, but that was never reported on bt 99% of the media outlets.

[matthewk]

Word is McCain himself has invited her to join him for 2 days of prepping for her upcoming debate. Anyone see a problem with this? I don't think Obama is tutoring Biden.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... 30146.html

Oh yes. God forbid she would actually prepare for a debate.

I swear, if you had a link to her eating vanilla ice cream you'd ask if there was something wrong with her because she wasn't eating chocolate.

[matthewk]

Here's another one for the creepy log:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/30 ... icago-bar/

I think I'm more disturbed by the fact the guy used his daughter as the nude model for the painting more than I am that he painted a neked Sarah Palin.

[wco81]

They're running for office, they're not running anything yet.

They should know the parameters of key bills. But to rush into the fray could be seen as grandstanding.

Neither of them are in the relevant committees.

Certainly if they have an issue with how the bill is being shaped, they could register that complaint. But rushing into that photo op didn't really result in anything productive.

There must have been previous campaigns where there was some kind of crisis. Maybe not economic but one involving foreign policy. Should presidential candidates deliberate with the Joint Chiefs or get security briefings only meant for presidents?

Not until they're elected.

[RobVarak]

CR's analysis is easily the most persuasive for me. And the net result is still that the GSE's were a significant player in the crisis.

I don't understand this rush to minimize the role of the GSE's...

Let me clarify what I'm trying to say:

1) People are trying to say that the law co-sponsored by McCain in 06, and that the debate in that video in 04, has major relevance to the current financial crisis. It doesn't...it shows that some Republicans don't like Fannie/Freddie (for a variety of reasons; some related to corruption within it, some related to it being a big gov't program), and some Democrats will defend it even when it's doing bad things. That's all interesting, but <b>irrelevant</b> to the current financial crisis, and a distraction to all of the real causes of the crisis (deregulation + market stupidity).

2) Separately, people are trying to disproportionately pin the crisis on Fannie/Freddie. Being a big mortgage company, of course they're affected by and involved in the crisis, and some of their policies were stupid and had a very mild effect. But their behavior wasn't a major factor because they had regulations that didn't allow them to be involved in the most toxic loans. They were in better shape than a lot of other companies, but (as lots of solid mortgage companies have seen) because the market got hit so hard, they tanked.

3) The whole exaggeration of the role of Fannie/Freddie is a ploy to distract from the much greater cause: deregulation.

In inverse order, just because.

3. We've been around and around the regulation/deregulation debate. Since we're agreeing on things today, can we find middle ground by saying that bad regulations coupled with toothless or antiquated enforcement of existing regulation was a contributing factor as well?

2. Lets assume that the attention paid to F&F may be disproportional given their role in the crisis (although I'm not prepared to conceded the point). I believe as I've said before, that as ostensible government actors they are entitled to disproportionate blame. It's one thing to say that private actors didn't behave well. It's another to day that an organization with direct public oversight and backed by taxpayer dollars was a bad actor. The fallout is justifiable.

1. The fact that some Democrats took money from and coddled F&F in the face of corruption and dangerous behavior while some Republicans (including the current nominee for President) were advocating for reform of the institutions is absolutely relevant.

This is part of the record for both Obama and McCain. We are trying to evaluate their judgment and readiness to lead. Obama isn't to blame for the crisis any more than McCain should win beause of his position on F&F. But their respective records on the issue are completely legitimate data points for the evaluation as candidates.

If you're an undecided voter, I think finding out how each of these men has acted with respect to F&F is something that may contribute to your eventual decision.

[GTHobbes]

Sounds like those of us who have wanted to hear more from Palin are about to get it. But first this:

"Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanm ... story.html

[pk500]

Palin is now doing conservative talk show interviews -- OOOOH, talk about stepping out.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

CNN really is a joke. The lead story at CNN.com at 3:03 p.m. was a piece with the headline, "McCain takes hit from bailout collapse"

Who was the lead source for the piece? CNN's own political analyst, Bill Schneider.

Are you f*cking kidding me? Leading your world news site with a story based on an in-house source who is a commentator, not a reporter?

That's inexcusable.

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

Reminds me of my high school newspaper which once had a movie review written by four people, and half of it was quotes from one of those people.

[Jared]

Maybe it makes more sense if I frame it as a question:

If Fannie/Freddie were perfectly managed, would we still have this financial crisis? Considering that Fannie/Freddie's toxic subprime exposure wasn't that much compared to the rest of the market, I think we would still be in a huge financial crisis. They are a factor, but a very small factor in a very big sea of bad mortgages and CDOs based off of those.

3. Maybe. Those things might have been a factor. But (just as with Fannie/Freddie), the important things are what are the primary factors in this mess. And those have been deregulation. Here's a video on deregulation on the credit crisis, for example:

<embed height="219" width="292" allowscriptaccess="always" src="http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/fop/emb ... elEnable=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>

If the market could regulate itself, that would be awesome. But the current crisis is clear evidence that it many ways, it doesn't do a good job.

2 & 1. I think that their positions on everything are relevant to choosing a president. But specifically with regards to the current financial crisis, you need to look at their records on things that caused the crisis and/or could have prevented the crisis. Focusing on policies wrt Fannie/Freddie is a small part of this; looking at policies wrt mortgage and market deregulation is.

[matthewk]

CNN really is a joke. The lead story at CNN.com at 3:03 p.m. was a piece with the headline, "McCain takes hit from bailout collapse"

I wrote them off as a credible source for news months ago. I still go there out of habit more than anything else, but I know going in what to expect. Glen Beck is one of the few commentators I can stand, but he can be a bit too apocalyptic at times.

Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, and Campbell Brown have been coming off as very arrogant from what I've seen of them lately. They love to inform you of things they have done (like interviews) and how great they are while in the middle of a news story. It's like they have to keep reminding the audience why they should be considered credible.

I laugh at their "no bias, no bull" line. More like more bias, more bulls**t.

[JRod]

CNN really is a joke. The lead story at CNN.com at 3:03 p.m. was a piece with the headline, "McCain takes hit from bailout collapse"

I wrote them off as a credible source for news months ago. I still go there out of habit more than anything else, but I know going in what to expect. Glen Beck is one of the few commentators I can stand, but he can be a bit too apocalyptic at times.

Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, and Campbell Brown have been coming off as very arrogant from what I've seen of them lately. They love to inform you of things they have done (like interviews) and how great they are while in the middle of a news story. It's like they have to keep reminding the audience why they should be considered credible.

I laugh at their "no bias, no bull" line. More like more bias, more bulls**t.

There is no place for credible news. I watch MSNBC for Chuck Todd. Andrew Mitchell is okay as she's probably the most experienced journalist out there.

Though with MSNBC have of it is sensationalism which I roll my eyes at. I do not listen to commentators like Olbermann or Matthews. Nor do I watch any of the commentators on CNN.

I wish there was a BBC world service or NPR did a 24 news station. Outside of that, 24 hours of news and maybe 10 minutes of real journalism.

Though yesturday, Mike Viquira at MSNBC, the Capitol Correspondent was very good covering the story.

[FatPitcher]

This just f*cking creeps me out:

It's a hell of a lot less disturbing than the video of West Virginia voters from the primary season, claiming they couldn't vote for Obama because he was either black or Muslim.

These are kids; they can't pull the lever. Those morons in Deliverance Country can.

Take care,
PK

Like Rob said, it's the fact that parents would do this to their kids that bothers me. It reminds me of the bug-stomping scene in Starship Troopers.