OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:18 pm

RobVarak wrote:
wco81 wrote:
GTHobbes wrote:
I'm still trying to decide. On the subject of taxes, I've got to favor McCain.
Why?

McCain gives more tax cuts to very high-wage earners.

For everyone else, Obama is at parity or actually offering more tax cuts.

But overall, McCain's plan adds $1.5 to $2 trillion more to the national debt.
You and Jack both assume that he's taking the candidates' plans at face value.

Actually, I am taking their plans at face value. I'd like to be modest, so I'll just say that Jack and WCO have answered their own questions. Still, it's a tough decision to have to make.

Post by **Jared** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:29 pm

webdanzer wrote:
Jared wrote:Forum moderation: DEFCON 3
This is cool. I hope we get avatar changes for heightened levels of danger. Maybe you can borrow Drudge's flashing light, or get some sort of MIDI sirens blaring...

Dude! That is such a good idea...I think I'll just start banning people to get excuse having the siren up.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:29 pm

If you aren't taking the plans at face value or through the some other credile lens, then what?

Maybe it's just on taxes -- if I say that Obama's plan is nothing but hot-air with no semblence of truth, but I say I'm a stuanch supporter of Obama, then my reasons for voting for him amount to nothing more than a popularity contest.

I'm just curious because if one isn't voting based on a plan then what exactly is the deciding factor? Party, likability, relatability, other?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:32 pm

GTHobbes wrote: Actually, I am taking their plans at face value. I'd like to be modest, so I'll just say that Jack and WCO have answered their own questions. Still, it's a tough decision to have to make.

LMAO This is no place for naked self-interest

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:50 pm

JRod wrote:If you aren't taking the plans at face value or through the some other credile lens, then what?

Maybe it's just on taxes -- if I say that Obama's plan is nothing but hot-air with no semblence of truth, but I say I'm a stuanch supporter of Obama, then my reasons for voting for him amount to nothing more than a popularity contest.

I'm just curious because if one isn't voting based on a plan then what exactly is the deciding factor? Party, likability, relatability, other?

Well I think one could very well support either candidate despite being skeptical about their tax plan or any other discreet policy position.

I've got several good friends who are Obama supporters despite their firm belief that he'll never implement his tax plan; Indeed they support him despite being quite certain that he has no interest whatsoever in lowering taxes, particularly with a Democratic House.

I've got other friends who support McCain despite hating McCain-Feingold, his immigration position etc.

There are more factors than one can count when it comes to presidential politics.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:55 pm

RobVarak wrote:
JRod wrote:If you aren't taking the plans at face value or through the some other credile lens, then what?

Maybe it's just on taxes -- if I say that Obama's plan is nothing but hot-air with no semblence of truth, but I say I'm a stuanch supporter of Obama, then my reasons for voting for him amount to nothing more than a popularity contest.

I'm just curious because if one isn't voting based on a plan then what exactly is the deciding factor? Party, likability, relatability, other?
Well I think one could very well support either candidate despite being skeptical about their tax plan or any other discreet policy position.

I've got several good friends who are Obama supporters despite their firm belief that he'll never implement his tax plan; Indeed they support him despite being quite certain that he has no interest whatsoever in lowering taxes, particularly with a Democratic House.

I've got other friends who support McCain despite hating McCain-Feingold, his immigration position etc.

There are more factors than one can count when it comes to presidential politics.

Would you file that under past history which might not be listed in a plan but you know a guy might go "there".

I guess I classify that as a the same thing for me. I just lump plan, issues, voting record in the same boat. Becuase at least that's somewhat informed. If you don't vote on those things, then what can it be? That's how I took the question.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:55 pm

In Ifill's own words...
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RhkmZM0A4NY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

It's not anti-Obama. It's Pro-Obama. It's not ONLY about Obama, but hell's bells...it's releasing on INAUGURATION DAY. By design. If she doesn't have a vested interest in an Obama victory, then what the hell does she gain by releasing it then? With that release date, she, to me, shows that she hopes it IS Obama, else the book will not amount to much.

She has no business moderating that debate. Period. And that is not even considering the stupidity of the questions in the 04 presidential debate-the plight of AIDS among african american women?!?! For pete's sake.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:02 pm

Here's a piece of the summary of Ifill's book on Amazon.com:

book summary wrote:
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign...

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:08 pm

I'm not here to debate Ifill's ability to moderate, but authors have no control over release dates of their books. That's clearly the publisher betting on an Obama victory to propel sales.

Also, given Ifill's status, she probably received a pretty substantial advance on the book, so she's already profited regardless of who wins. I would be shocked if she wasn't pro-Obama, but I don't think profit motives will be influencing her ethics.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:12 pm

GTHobbes wrote: Actually, I am taking their plans at face value. I'd like to be modest, so I'll just say that Jack and WCO have answered their own questions. Still, it's a tough decision to have to make.

Will your earnings potential in the future be determined solely by tax policy?

People who paid the 39% rate in the '90s fared pretty well.

The people who've paid 35% in this decade may have done well for awhile but may have the same fate as their UK counterparts:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet ... iness/home

State and local tax revenues are down, particularly in NY, for obvious reasons.

In any event, the current rates are due to sunset after 2010. Republicans have been trying to make them permanent, at least since 2004. McCain isn't likely to get a Democratic Congress to give him his tax plan (but you never know, given how spineless the Democrats in Congress are).

You never know though, the Congress could flip overwhelmingly GOP in 2010 and they could give McCain his tax plan.

Not likely though.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:15 pm

Teal wrote:Here's a piece of the summary of Ifill's book on Amazon.com:

book summary wrote:
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign...

Teal, I mean no disrespect, but you're acting like Ifill is writing the promo copy and setting the pub dates. She's not doing any of that. The jacket copy and descriptions of the book are written by a publishing copy monkey (I know, I was that monkey for a while). They are clearly trying to sell units, so they are going to use breathless prose to hype the book.

The other thing is that Obama's campaign is pretty stunning. He's not only the first black nominee, but he knocked off a Clinton campaign that looked unbeatable just a year ago, and he's running neck and neck with one of the most well-known members of Congress. Regardless of what you think of Obama, the campaign itself is historically significant and also pretty surprising.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:15 pm

Brando70 wrote:I would be shocked if she wasn't pro-Obama, but I don't think profit motives will be influencing her ethics.

You might be technically correct. Most pro-Obama journalists do it for the love, not the money.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:23 pm

Well, Brando, she also penned a "glowing" piece in Essence magazine on Obama:

She's clearly, as they say, 'in the tank' here. It'll be interesting to see how the spin goes in an effort to minimalize this.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:24 pm

FatPitcher wrote:
Brando70 wrote:I would be shocked if she wasn't pro-Obama, but I don't think profit motives will be influencing her ethics.
You might be technically correct. Most pro-Obama journalists do it for the love, not the money.

zing!

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:25 pm

GTHobbes wrote:
RobVarak wrote:
wco81 wrote: Why?

McCain gives more tax cuts to very high-wage earners.

For everyone else, Obama is at parity or actually offering more tax cuts.

But overall, McCain's plan adds $1.5 to $2 trillion more to the national debt.
You and Jack both assume that he's taking the candidates' plans at face value.
Actually, I am taking their plans at face value. I'd like to be modest, so I'll just say that Jack and WCO have answered their own questions. Still, it's a tough decision to have to make.

A couple hundred bucks doesn't amount to much when you don't have a job. Or even when you do have a job.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:32 pm

FatPitcher wrote:
A couple hundred bucks doesn't amount to much when you don't have a job. Or even when you do have a job.

Oh because job creation has been so stellar with the current tax and fiscal policies?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:34 pm

FatPitcher wrote:
Brando70 wrote:I would be shocked if she wasn't pro-Obama, but I don't think profit motives will be influencing her ethics.
You might be technically correct. Most pro-Obama journalists do it for the love, not the money.

Well struck, sir, well struck.

The irony will be that, if Obama wins and the book sells well, his presidency will hurt her economically.

Also, I'm not arguing for her to be the moderator. I just don't think it's some giant crisis.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:47 pm

Tim Russert...god I wish he were still here...

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:51 pm

The bottom line on the moderator issue is that the Commission approved her and it's a bi-partisan panel. This speaks more to laziness than anything IMO. Nobody as bad as she was in '04 should have gotten the gig again. I'm not surprised they didn't catch the book issue, because apparently none of them paid any attention to anything she's ever done

As for whether she's biased, as with any conflict of interest involving third parties, the real question is whether there's an appearance of impropriety or interest in the outcome. I'll let you guys make up your own minds on that one...

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:54 pm

Brando70 wrote: Also, I'm not arguing for her to be the moderator. I just don't think it's some giant crisis.

Given her past history I think she'll be fine, but we'll find out.

Even McCain himself agrees:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VYGU-9Sybl4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:57 pm

RobVarak wrote:I'll let you guys make up your own minds on that one...

I predict a split decision

Post by **Jared** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 pm

Teal wrote:She has no business moderating that debate. Period. And that is not even considering the stupidity of the questions in the 04 presidential debate-the plight of AIDS among african american women?!?! For pete's sake.

Teal,

Just because someone doesn't ask questions you don't think are important doesn't mean they're not important. Do you know what's the leading cause of death for African-American women age 25-34? AIDS. Out of women with AIDS, 64% are black. The rate of AIDS is 23 times greater in black vs. white women.

(And how much did she talk about Obama in that three minute video? Barely any...)

And hey, Bob Scheiffer's brother, who will moderate the third presidential debate, was a business partner with George W. Bush. And Scheiffer has golfed with him. (BTW, Ifill is friends with Condoleeza Rice. Does that also disqualify her from the debate?)

(My guess is that this will push Ifill to ensure that her questions are fair; as I really doubt she'll want the debate story to be about her. Personally, I don't care who moderates it, but I'd like it to be fair.)

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:41 pm

Teal wrote:Tim Russert...god I wish he were still here...

I am with you.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:56 pm

Jared wrote: Do you know what's the leading cause of death for African-American women age 25-34? AIDS. Out of women with AIDS, 64% are black. The rate of AIDS is 23 times greater in black vs. white women.

Okay. Those are some statistics. They aren't good ones. But what in the hell does she think Dick Cheney and John Edwards are going to do about it? They were running for VP...not the head of the CDC.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:02 pm

Moderator isn't going to have as much effect on the debate as the format.

From Slate:

Negotiations between the McCain and Obama campaigns resulted in a 90-minute format that calls for the two candidates to stand at podiums and field questions in turn from moderator Ifill. Answers may not exceed 90 seconds, and two minutes of open discussion will follow each question. Each candidate will give a 90-second closing statement.

According to the New York Times, the McCain campaign pushed for this arrangement, which is more restrictive than the two-minute-response, five-minutes-of-open-discussion format of the first McCain-Obama debate, because the looser "format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive."

Probably will help both candidates be concise. Both have shown a tendency to ramble on.