OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[Jared]

I wholeheartedly disagree. You're not being evenhanded, Jared. You ban one, and explain another one away?! Whatever.

Teal, it's because one was a clear case of a personal attack, whereas the other wasn't. I explained my reasoning already...if you disagree with that reasoning, feel free to let me know why I am mistaken.

[Jared]

Then again, no one really liked you before, either, so knock yourself out.

That sucks to hear...but so long as my girlfriend and dogs still like me, I think I'll be okay.

I agree with Jackdog. This doesn't fall under the category of personal attacks, but it is piling on after I've already dealt with it. Yellow card. I'm not going to tolerate the forums being a personal back and forth.

[Teal]

This has turned into a replay of the 1996 election, with McCain as Bob Dole -- a dedicated, accomplished Senator who does not have a clue how to run a presidential campaign. I respect the man's accomplishments and integrity, but he has not figured out that voters outside of one's base do not like angry, irritated presidential candidates. Look at every election since Nixon i 1972 and you'll see that's the case. The guy who appears calmer and more collected wins. Experience doesn't matter -- Gore had a lot more than Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. had a lot more than Clinton.

It is similar, but to me it smacks even more obviously of 1976. The electorate looks like it may elect a hitherto little known liberal despite being a generally center-right electorate. The reason they're doing so is a a backlash against a historically unpopular administration and they're ignoring the fact that the GOP candidate is not the President who is the real object of scorn.

McCain and Ford are both similar characters in that they're people who are widely respected but little loved, particularly by conservatives. And both McCain and Ford were hampered by indifferent speaking abilities and a tendency to dismiss their opponent.

Given this, I think Slumberland may be right. The disparity between the demographics and political culture of the nation on one hand and Obama's politics on the other, make it more likely than usual that he will be a one-termer. If he doesn't move the electorate to the left with him (which he could), then in four years he's going to be open to attacks on policies that are likely to be unpopular.

As for the debate last night, it was definitely more of the same. I think McCain again improved, and actually looked better than he has in either of the first two, but he still never really got Obama to flinch.

Anyone in McCain's camp who thinks that Town Halls are a better format than that one last night needs to have their head and eyesight checked. Seating the candidates takes away the height disparity and minimizes the awkwardness of McCain's gesticulation. Addressing the camera and moderator directly also saw a marked reduction in "my friends."

I think McCain was wise to invoke the plumber meeting, but unwise to hammer it to death so much. He was much better at making the case on taxes, but stunningly unprepared to properly defend his healthcare plan from the same attacks that Obama's been making since Day 1, and which have been demonstrated to be untrue. Poor miss.

The great line that Obama should've run in '04 if he wanted to run against Bush was two debates too late. But still great. His slip calling Obama "Senator Government" was a demonstration that sometimes people's Freudian slips are more incisive than their organized thoughts LOL

McCain was also solid when pointing out the difficulty of sorting through Obama's eloquence to actually get at what he's saying. I think from a pure debating standpoint, his pointing out that Obama only said they would "look into" offshore drilling was the most solidly struck of the night.

Obama was again the strongest on health care. He has a way of promising to fund every program under the sun without ever seeming to be a profligate spender, which is a political gift. He also deflected McCain's abortion attacks quite adeptly.

Obama was definitely presidential in the way that he looked into the camera and lied, particularly if Clinton is your standard of presidential.

He knew damn well that 100% of McCain's ads were not negative, but damned if he didn't look like he believed it. Same with his denial of being introduced to Illinois politics in Ayers' home.

He did not have caffeinated relations with that radical!

I would be far more inclined to say that the race was over if Obama didn't still have such a huge percentage of the electorate skeptical over his readiness to be President. In March 45% of Americans didn't think he was qualified, and here in October that number is still the same. That's the worst figure since Dukakis' 56% in '88. As I said earlier, this may be a Carter election, where people swallow their concerns and vote to penalize the GOP despite them. But that's still a figure that has to give a ray of hope to the McCain campaign.

Incidentally, I was horrified by something new in this debate. Obama's answer when asked about the qualifications for Federal judiciary appointments:

I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that's the kind of judge that I want.

Courts do not exist to "stand up" for anybody. That's the province of advocates like attorneys, legislators and other politicians. Justice must aspire to the blindness long attributed to her, and a judge who looks beyond the merits of the case and the rule of law ceases to be an arbiter and becomes something else entirely...and something incompatible with our legal system.

Just another glimpse inside the activist mind of the Senator from the great State of Government.

And this, ladies and gents, is the first, actual impression of the debate on this forum. Nicely done, Rob.

[Teal]

I wholeheartedly disagree. You're not being evenhanded, Jared. You ban one, and explain another one away?! Whatever.

Teal, it's because one was a clear case of a personal attack, whereas the other wasn't. I explained my reasoning already...if you disagree with that reasoning, feel free to let me know why I am mistaken.

Doesn't matter what I think...you've made that pretty clear already. So carry on.

[pk500]

Will your tax increase appear presidential, too?

Did you miss this article?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/ec ... /index.htm

Unless you make over 227K, your taxes won't increase.

Bill Clinton promised no tax increases, either, and raised taxes. It's simple folly if you think Obama can fund all of his proposed new government programs -- especially national health care -- out of thin air and taxing the rich and those evil corporations.

Take care,
PK

[Naples39]

I wholeheartedly disagree. You're not being evenhanded, Jared. You ban one, and explain another one away?! Whatever.

The liberal media bias extends to DSP!!!



(to be perfectly clear, yes, I am kidding)

[pk500]

Not to be pedantic, but I do think the comment was rather baiting. And it's subject were not those "who aren't voting for Obama" but those who thought BO "seems aloof," seemingly in response to certain poster's opinions in this thread. His "Get over it" admonishment also would seem to imply an inward direction to his statement.

Agreed 100 percent. My first impression upon reading it was that it was a poorly veiled swipe at JackDog, RobV, Teal, MattK and other non-Democrat supporters at this forum.

Just one DSP veteran's opinion ...

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Bill Clinton promised no tax increases, either, and raised taxes. It's simple folly if you think Obama can fund all of his proposed new government programs -- especially national health care -- out of thin air and taxing the rich and those evil corporations.

Take care,
PK

Obama doesn't lie, you racist!! He just tells the truth at a level that ordinary mortals can't understand.

After 8 years of George W. Bush lighting babies on fire with $100 bills and Saudi oil in the Rose Garden, America's ability to discern truth from fiction has been shot. Dont' you watch the Daily Show?

[Teal]

Talk about having zero understanding of the way small business works...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j66LUroXUck&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

Having 250,000 dollars per year in your wallet, and having a net worth of 250,000 dollars a year in a small business are VERY different things. Overhead, payrolls, restocking, paying all the damned fees and taxes that the government already requires.

Not to mention that Biden just called the plumber guy and everyone like him a liar. This Joe isn't doing that Joe, or Obama, any favors. On second thought, he IS doing that Joe a favor...giving him a really clear picture of what they really think of Joe Plumber.

[pk500]

What'll be interesting is what kind of GOP is waiting on the other side of this. Will it be the one embodied by Bill Kristol, or something better and more authentic. With all the dust-up over Obama's "spread the wealth" comments, we were this close to having some sort of honest debate about whether money trickles up or trickles down, but then both candidates fell back on to tropes with accusations of class warfare and Obama attempting to hypnotize with the number 95.

The GOP only will become relevant again when it returns to its core principles -- smaller government and lower taxes -- and sheds the manacles of the religious right.

But the Federal government has mushroomed in size during GOP rule the last eight years despite tax cuts, which simply does not work.

The GOP, through its overt kow-towing to the lunatic fringe of the religious right, also has become entangled in trying to legislate morality and religion, through such ridiculous flaps as prayer in public schools, keeping God in various patriotic symbols and themes, faith-based initiatives, etc.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Talk about having zero understanding of the way small business works...

Cut the guy some slack. After spending 30 years in the Senate getting every major foreign policy decision wrong, he's just getting used to being wrong on domestic policy

I do hear that the's from Scranton though...

[Jared]

Not to be pedantic, but I do think the comment was rather baiting. And it's subject were not those "who aren't voting for Obama" but those who thought BO "seems aloof," seemingly in response to certain poster's opinions in this thread. His "Get over it" admonishment also would seem to imply an inward direction to his statement.

Agreed 100 percent. My first impression upon reading it was that it was a poorly veiled swipe at JackDog, RobV, Teal, MattK and other non-Democrat supporters at this forum.

Understood from both of you, and thanks for your opinions. However, I think macsomjrr's comments could be read both ways (and think he didn't intend your interpretations). In an ambiguous comment I'm very much inclined to give the poster the benefit of the doubt (and this is true, whether the poster is coming from the "left" or the "right"), especially when it comes to decisions about banning. Thanks again for the feedback, it's appreciated.

[Teal]

Joe can't count... (although the last video kind of already established that...)

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

[pk500]

I'm sickened by how much I pay in taxes already, especially after learning this week that 38% of the country doesn't pay a dime, and I sure as hell don't want to pay more, but like others have said, I don't want to base my vote on tax policy alone. And other than the abortion issue, I simply have no other basis to agree with the McCain/Palin ticket, so I guess I'll suck it up and pay even more taxes in doing what's best for the country, IMO.

F*ck that. Plain and simple.

How can you trust that giving more of YOUR hard-earned money to a government that fritters it away by the TRILLIONS is "doing what's best for the country?"

Paying higher taxes to bloat the beast in Washington is exactly what's NOT best for this country.

That's one of the main reasons I'm voting for Bob Barr. I don't agree with every Libertarian plank -- then again, who does march in complete lockstep with their chosen party? -- but the issues of big government and excessive taxation are paramount for me.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

We have entered bizarro world in this thread: Many of the posters who claim that tax policy should not be the sole basis upon which to base a vote are making and agreeing upon posts about how important it is for a candidate to appear "presidential."

Image truly is everything, I guess. Welcome to the MTV-ESPN world of politics.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

We have entered bizarro world in this thread: Many of the posters who claim that tax policy should not be the sole basis upon which to base a vote are making and agreeing upon posts about how important it is for a candidate to appear "presidential."

Image truly is everything, I guess. Welcome to the MTV-ESPN world of politics.

Take care,
PK

Justification can make for awkward logic. Nothing new there...

[GTHobbes]

I'm sickened by how much I pay in taxes already, especially after learning this week that 38% of the country doesn't pay a dime, and I sure as hell don't want to pay more, but like others have said, I don't want to base my vote on tax policy alone. And other than the abortion issue, I simply have no other basis to agree with the McCain/Palin ticket, so I guess I'll suck it up and pay even more taxes in doing what's best for the country, IMO.

F*ck that. Plain and simple.

How can you trust that giving more of YOUR hard-earned money to a government that fritters it away by the TRILLIONS is "doing what's best for the country?"

Paying higher taxes to bloat the beast in Washington is exactly what's NOT best for this country.

That's one of the main reasons I'm voting for Bob Barr. I don't agree with every Libertarian plank -- then again, who does march in complete lockstep with their chosen party? -- but the issues of big government and excessive taxation are paramount for me.

Take care,
PK

When the alternative is to vote for McCain, I feel like I'm left with no choice, really. I guess I could vote for Bob Barr, but I've got better things to do than waste my time and going to vote for someone who has no chance in hell of winning.

[GTHobbes]

We have entered bizarro world in this thread: Many of the posters who claim that tax policy should not be the sole basis upon which to base a vote are making and agreeing upon posts about how important it is for a candidate to appear "presidential."

Image truly is everything, I guess. Welcome to the MTV-ESPN world of politics.

Take care,
PK

Like Jack, I do think it's important how others in the world see us. And after 8 years of seeing W's mug all over the place, I think Obama's will come across as a refreshing change. To each his own, though.

I would've hoped that McCain might come across as an elder statesman. To me, he just appears elder. And bitter.

[pk500]

I guess I could vote for Bob Barr, but I've got better things to do than waste my time and going to vote for someone who has no chance in hell of winning.

McCain is down by anywhere from 8 to 14 percent in various national polls, with Obama's lead seemingly gaining daily. So barring an October surprise, I guess anyone who votes for the GOP on Nov. 4 also falls into the above category, eh?

My vote doesn't ride on a bandwagon. I vote upon principle, chances of electability be damned.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

We have entered bizarro world in this thread: Many of the posters who claim that tax policy should not be the sole basis upon which to base a vote are making and agreeing upon posts about how important it is for a candidate to appear "presidential."

Image truly is everything, I guess. Welcome to the MTV-ESPN world of politics.

Take care,
PK

Justification can make for awkward logic. Nothing new there...

It sure did in 2000 and 2004.

[Teal]

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=198013

[wco81]

We have entered bizarro world in this thread: Many of the posters who claim that tax policy should not be the sole basis upon which to base a vote are making and agreeing upon posts about how important it is for a candidate to appear "presidential."

Image truly is everything, I guess. Welcome to the MTV-ESPN world of politics.

Take care,
PK

Tax policy is important to me. But the makeup of the Supreme Court for the next generation is more important.

You can slam Obama and Clinton's tax policies all you want but under the latter, the economy was a lot better, the fiscal condition was a lot better and the dollar was a lot stronger.

I don't know if Obama's tax policies will yield better results. While people get bogged down on ideological arguments about redistribution of wealth or small govt., I'm more concerned with economic efficacy.

McCain proposes to continue the same tax policies which Bush and the supply-siders have claimed will produce better economic performance. That hasn't worked out. Even before the job losses this year, job gains under Bush have been weak and real median wages have been stagnant. Tax cuts for the top income brackets haven't produced and what economic growth there has been hasn't trickled down.

On top of that, we have record fiscal deficits, weak dollar and the national debt has almost doubled before any of this bailout expenditures are taken into account. So that just feeds into more deficits as the interest on the national debt continues to take up increasing part of the federal budget.

So if one wants to look at tax policy in a very narrow sense, then yeah, you're going to focus on things like "small govt." and "wealth redistribution." But others might consider tax policy in the context of the budget and national debt, and the effects on the overall economy.

As for looking presidential, I remember the Bush supporters got on Gore for sighing too much in one of the debates. Do those mannerisms not count any more?

[JackB1]

As for the debate last night, it was definitely more of the same. I think McCain again improved, and actually looked better than he has in either of the first two, but he still never really got Obama to flinch.

Anyone in McCain's camp who thinks that Town Halls are a better format than that one last night needs to have their head and eyesight checked. Seating the candidates takes away the height disparity and minimizes the awkwardness of McCain's gesticulation. Addressing the camera and moderator directly also saw a marked reduction in "my friends."

I think McCain was wise to invoke the plumber meeting, but unwise to hammer it to death so much. He was much better at making the case on taxes, but stunningly unprepared to properly defend his healthcare plan from the same attacks that Obama's been making since Day 1, and which have been demonstrated to be untrue. Poor miss.

The great line that Obama should've run in '04 if he wanted to run against Bush was two debates too late. But still great. His slip calling Obama "Senator Government" was a demonstration that sometimes people's Freudian slips are more incisive than their organized thoughts LOL

Very well written and thought out review of the debate.

[JackB1]

Bill Clinton promised no tax increases, either, and raised taxes. It's simple folly if you think Obama can fund all of his proposed new government programs -- especially national health care -- out of thin air and taxing the rich and those evil corporations.

Take care,
PK

If Obama gets even 20% of what is planned accomplished, then it will be more than any President has probably ever accomplished in 4 years. But the same holds true for McCain. Just because he says now he won't raise taxes isn't a guarantee he won't screw you somewhere else

[bdunn13]

I guess I could vote for Bob Barr, but I've got better things to do than waste my time and going to vote for someone who has no chance in hell of winning.

McCain is down by anywhere from 8 to 14 percent in various national polls, with Obama's lead seemingly gaining daily. So barring an October surprise, I guess anyone who votes for the GOP on Nov. 4 also falls into the above category, eh?

My vote doesn't ride on a bandwagon. I vote upon principle, chances of electability be damned.

Take care,
PK

I have heard that argument so many times for not voting for a 3rd party candidate. If people actually voted for who they wanted and not for who they thought had a chance to win, then we might see some better candidates.