October 7, 2008
John McCain: The Mount Vesuvius of Mud (Brent Budowsky)
Equity markets collapse. Credit markets are strangled. Economic pain skyrockets. Global markets shake. And John McCain campaigns on Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, pit bulls with lipstick, slanders, smears, falsehoods, lies and fear — a Mount Vesuvius of mud that will drag Republicans to defeat.
Americans endure a crisis of economic pain while McCain suffers a crisis of his own identity. The McCain who ran in 2000 would be scandalized by the McCain who runs in 2008. And McCain and Sarah Palin hit bottom with the last refuge of dying campaigns, suggesting Obama is not a real American, questioning his patriotism, with warm-up acts invoking his middle name when what voters want to hear is how the candidates can make their lives better and more secure.
Voters need raincoats and boots as John McCain closes his failed campaign dishing dirt in political panic. McCain's staff tells reporters he cannot discuss the economy because he will lose. Palin's staff tells her what newspapers she reads in the morning. Rather than offering intelligent solutions to an economy in crisis, McCain and Palin dump sludge on voters who hunger for leadership and despise the Bush-like politics that is the new McCain brand.
John McCain and Sarah Palin have reached a level of sickness and slander in a campaign that has nothing to say to voters about the only real issue in the election. It is amazing and astonishing that McCain is now reduced to literally nothing but slander, character assassination and lies even as his polls continue to sink.
How can anyone serve government during three decades and admit he does not know much about the economy?
With American families deeply worried and troubled by the state of the economy, how can any candidates be so divorced from reality that he, and she, try to trick voters into forgetting about the economy with a politics of defamation?
There is the whiff of the pungent and repulsive odor of the George Bush years from McCain and Palin, from Rove and Schmidt, from Wallace and Kristol, from Republicans who repulse a nation in crisis with this Mount Vesuvius of mud.
And now, McCain is Bush; the same people who ran the dirtball campaigns of Bush move down the street to run the dirtball campaign of McCain. The same bad economics, the same Gilded Age greed, the same attacks on the patriotism of opponents but now, with the economy in such danger, Americans do not want the bad smell of four more years of George W. Bush in the name of Palin and McCain.
How can anyone be so totally divorced from the reality of American life to believe our economy is strong and sound, as McCain recently said?
Yet the lava pours out with a never-ending litany of lies like this: Obama wants to lose a war, and to bring cameras and reporters to exploit wounded troops. Palin tells the lie that went nowhere, pretending she killed the Bridge to Nowhere, and then makes up tall tales about Obama “palling around” with terrorists. The list goes on. The mud piles up.
McCain, Palin and the entire Republican convention mock and ridicule Obama's work with churches helping jobless workers in the sickest slander of all.
McCain performs a ridiculous stunt where he suspends a campaign he does not really suspend, pretends to cancel a debate he does not really cancel, airlifts himself into a negotiation on a subject he knows little about, wanders aimlessly around Washington for 24 hours, and then claims credit for the result.
McCain's strange behavior in this crisis reminds me of the movie producer in “The Godfather” who says, shortly before receiving the horse's head: "A man in my position can’t afford to be made to look ridiculous.”
McCain looks ridiculous.
Barack Obama will win because faced with this deluge of dirt, he stands tall as an oak with his dignity, cool in a crisis, calm in a storm, a serious man for serious times, a thoughtful man with major ideas to make our economy stronger, an idealist without illusions, a leader to fix the problems, the real voice for authentic change who will transcend this Vesuvius of mud that is the last desperate gasp of the George Bush years.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 154 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
McCain has sold his soul. He and Palin are now actively conjuring racism and violence against Obama, his supporters, and even the media in their desperation. Very, very sick.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html
"Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."
Comment by Melissa — October 7, 2008 @ 7:56 am
A slightly shorter version of this ran as a
column in today's paper and I have been
sending it around. Lets see if the phrase
"Mount Vesuvius of Mud" starts being used
in McCain stories soon. Not a clever move
to run as George W. McCain with all this
negativity when people care about their
family's economic security.
Comment by Brent — October 7, 2008 @ 8:06 am
Very well put Brent. I can't wait until the town hall meeting debate tonight. You can be sure there will be McCain people in the audience bringing up Ayers and Wright. McCain can get no lower.
Comment by Yvonne — October 7, 2008 @ 8:30 am
I though if you hung around with terrorists who bombed buildings in the USA that would speak to your character. So you say it's all right to do that? You claim it's unfair to characterize Obama as an empty suit. Not once in your post do you specify one thing that Barack has ever done to give him experience. Isn't that precisely what defines an empty suit? Barack isn't about change. He's about more big government which is how we got into this mess. Central economic planning out of D.C. failed, and it will fail again.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Sarah Palin — wailin', flailin' –
Adds to John McBush's ailin'.
In the swiftboat sewer sailin',
Takin' water, madly bailin',
Droppin' "g"s, they sink while failin'.
Comment by Michael Murry — October 7, 2008 @ 8:51 am
Spot on correct Brent. That's a good, factual and entertaining post.
Being a registered republican, who will be voting for Obama, I am not surprised by McCain's behavior. The mud slinging approach has been the only options available to all GOP candidates since Nov 2006. What issue do they run on? The economy? Nuclear proliferation? Iraq? Corruption?
The amazing part is if you listen to Rush (I know, he's an idiot) is you'll hear his dittohead callers (GOP base) demanding McCain go negative. They know no bounds.
In response, McCain has to go negative to appease these lunatic fringe neocons, his base. At least that's what McCain's ignoorant handlers think. It's damn near a laugh, but way too serious.
Comment by Jesse T — October 7, 2008 @ 9:00 am
The problem, Robert, is not central planning
out of DC. You are living in a right wing
fantasy world. The problem is the industry
owned the regulators. The problem is the
industry totally owned the Republicans, and
partially owned the Democrats, and now the
industry goes to both to bail them out. Is
Robert Rosencrans you're real name, just out
of curiosity?
Comment by Brent — October 7, 2008 @ 9:03 am
Rosennuts, you are babbling a whole lot of nonsense. Someone has thrown sand in your eyes, and you don't even know it.
Comment by Jesse T — October 7, 2008 @ 9:03 am
RR;
That is true is Obama and Ayers had "hung around" as you put it but they worked for a foundation that provided education grants to schools. If that is a terrorist is your mind then you and folks like you should be ashamed of yourselves. When you can't run on your record or the betterment of the country, then McCain and Palin should get out of teh race. Times are too hard for this. Speaking of empty suits, name us one thing McCain has done recently for America? What has been his big ideas for the country? Please enlighten us.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 7, 2008 @ 9:26 am
RR;
The first line should have said "That it is true that Obama and Ayers".
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 7, 2008 @ 9:29 am
Brent
These political days are just not as exciting as they were last week or last month or last year.
America, the Unites States of America has been kicked square in the gut. To the point there is an impression of a large boot pertruding through our back. The boot of greed.
"It's the economy stupid".
(Not you Brent, you are smart.)
The jobs are going bye bye, the taxes are going up up, and the misery is getting worse worse.
Now we are to worry politically about who will lead us out of this financial attack on Americans. The honest Americans who are too busy working and raising families to research who the greedy guys are, they (we)really need guidance on who the best candidate for President is.
Can Obama be the man who will rearrange the attitudes of dividers and blamers like Pelosi? Can Obama cross examine Barney Franks on his passivity and denials about the Fannie/Freddie? Will Obama make things REAL for American's to vote for him based on realistic campaign promises? No. No. & No.
Will McCain, who never took earmarks in his entire career save us? Will McCain who called for mortgage regulation (while the Democrat's cried discrimination of low income people) be the man who will stop the fix the fractured economy? Will McCain/Palin fight for the practical rights of all Americans? Yes. Yes. & Yes.
For a long time the richer people have provided jobs for the rest of us. Some of those rich people took advantage of the system. Will McCain /Palin go after the bad guys? Yes.
I think about it a lot. Where there is a track record, we will find McCain/Palin's well plowed path of justice and fairness. The two of these candidates are fearless in going up against their own party, the underground, and the biased, fact distorting, truth omitting media.
Perhaps placing your fellow POWs freedom before your own is not a litmus test for Presidency, but it sure does expose McCain's backbone and integrity. Perhaps making life more important than convenience is not a litmus test for VP, but it sure does expose Palin's backbone and integrity.
McCain/Palin walk the walk. They own their confidence. The love America. They have the experience of creating new and better changes. They lack the false pride, narrow mindedness and work with all parties.
Vote McCain/Palin
Comment by JFK-HRC — October 7, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Right Brent — and bringing up the Keating scandal is not mud slinging, right? Even though McCain was found to have not done anything wrong? NObama learned how to SwiftBoat quite well!
Comment by Laurence Socci — October 7, 2008 @ 10:04 am
remember everybody. McCain/Palin are supposed to be Christians. What would Jesus do?
Comment by Yvonne — October 7, 2008 @ 10:05 am
BTW guys, I predict, without any pleasure,
that the bailout as now constituted is going
to be a huge belly flop failure. Scares
the hell out of me, and I dont scare easily.
This has nothing to do with politics. I
am circulating memos to a number of very
high level people suggesting moves, including
some along the lines of my Buffett Plan B
column in the paper last week.
Comment by Brent — October 7, 2008 @ 10:09 am
How Congress Ate Wall Street, Failed Central Economic Planning
Content:
by Robert S. Rosencrans
While the American public looks on in stupefied wonder and perhaps terror at the blame game and political shenanigans on Capitol Hill in relation to the financial crisis unfolding, they would be better served to find answers in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, capitalism itself will be displaced by communism, a classless society which emerges after a transitional period—socialism—in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
If there ever were a transitional period of socialism, it was evidenced by the giveaway of houses under the auspices of government insured programs called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The story starts in 1977 when President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act. The act required banks to aggressively lend to minorities. After Bill Clinton took office in 1993 he changed the rules to supercharge the process.
Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie/Freddie as early as 1994, President Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in many ways.
In 1995 Clinton had his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, rewrite the rules so that banks had to loan to minorities to obtain a good CRA rating. Positive CRA ratings became necessary for banks interested in merging or expanding.
In 1997 Franklin Raines, a Clinton White House budget director, was appointed to Fannie Mae by President Clinton. Franklin Raines was soon joined by Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General under Clinton. By 2004 when Franklin Raines was ousted from Fannie Mae, he had earned over 94 million in bonuses based on accounting gimmickry that would have served the directors at Enron well. Jamie Gorelick made over 20 million during this time frame.
Ironically, the whole scheme at Fannie/Freddie was exposed several times by a little known regulatory agency called the OFHEO, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. The director, Armando Falcon, Jr., was identified in a Washington Post article as a David Taking on a Goliath.
According to a CBO report, it was recommended that the agency be eliminated and replaced with an agency with more regulatory authority, and presumably, with less skilled investigators.
Many members of Congress, in particular Democrats, received tons of lobbying money from Fannie/Freddie during this period of time. According to OpenSecrets.Org,, the top five recipients of the lobbying money were Democrats. Senator Christopher Dodd, the current head of the banking committee, was the number one recipient. As late as July 2008, just weeks before the government takeover of Fannie/Freddie Senator Dodd was quoted as saying that no action was necessary because Fannie and Freddie were sound.
The number 3 recipient of the Fannie/Freddie largess was Senator Barack Obama, who is walking around claiming that the financial problems in the U.S. were caused by those evil Republicans.
According to an article at the New York Post, written by Stanley Kurtz, Obama and ACORN worked with other community organizers to terrorize and shake down banks to persuade those banks to lend to minorities. This was done by accusing banks who failed to lend of racial profiling or redlining, or by filing CRA complaints against the lending institutions.
In essence, the failure of many banks was caused by central economic planning out of Washington, D.C., i.e., socialism. Socialistic lending policies going back to the Community Reinvestment Act.
Any bailout plan supported by Republicans in Congress should include a repeal of this act. We witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union due to failed central economic planning, and now the America public is witnessing the collapse of Wall Street due to much the same failed ideology.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 10:36 am
If I have learned one thing in my 47 years, it is this: never say a gasp is the last one, until the heart and brain also have stopped for a while.
Comment by Barry Schwartz — October 7, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Mike Coleman: You are misinformed. They did not simply "provide grants to schools."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-woods-fund/
According to a November 29, 2007 report from the Chicago Sun-Times, “Sen. Barack Obama was on the board of a Chicago charity when his former boss, Allison S. Davis, came looking for money. At the time, Davis was a developer represented by the law firm where Obama worked, as well as a small contributor to Obama’s political campaign funds. He wanted the charity to help fund his plans to build housing for low-income Chicagoans.”
When Davis approached the Woods Fund, he was building another apartment building with now convicted felon and Obama friend/fundraiser Tony Rezko. The Chicago Sun-Times recounts: “Obama agreed. He voted with other directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago to invest $1 million with Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners L.P., a $17-million partnership that Davis still operates.” To date the Obama campaign has refused to comment on whether Obama disclosed his ties to Davis when he voted on the project. Another Woods Board Fund member with ties to Davis did abstain on the vote.
Perhaps the most notorious of the Woods Fund recipients was the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). AAAN was established in 1995 as non-profit group supposedly dedicated to improving the conditions of Arab immigrants in the Chicago area.
But its activities were hardly benign. For example, AAAN sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit on the “Nakba” — that is, the “catastrophe” of Israel’s establishment in 1948. AAAN’s officials routinely have made statements vilifying Israel. AAAN Board member Ali Abunimah in 2002 declared: “‘By deliberately denying food, water and medical aid, and wantonly destroying public and private property, and deliberately destroying the economy in the occupied territories, Israel is in flagrant breach of this [Geneva] Convention. … Unfortunately, we are seeing the world turn a blind eye to atrocities being committed under its nose.” (Abunimah co-founded and operates the Electronic Intifada, a website replete with anti-Israel slurs and which declares Israel to be an apartheid state.)
On the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of AAAN, announced: “Arafat was a great man. Yes, Arafat was an icon. … We’re saddened by his death, but we don’t ignore the fact that this is not an issue of individuals, it’s an issue of a people who have been oppressed and occupied for 55 years.”
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Dear Brent: Yes, my name is Robert Rosencrans, but what's in a name, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, etc. As far as your take on the current financial mess, you are utterly wrong, the facts don't support you. I urge you to use the internet. I wrote an article about this at my blog at Politico called KickCommyAss. It tells the whole sordid tale of influcence peddling in Congress, how it started, who participated and the final obvious results. The Hill can reprint it if they like. I doubt if they will because it would offend too many members of Congress. I worked for the Congress for over 30 years and I can tell you they hate the mere mention of corruption. If they hear about it they may actually have to do something about it. The facts are clear, Bush and McCain tried to stop this fiasco and several prominent Democrats stopped them. If you think this is imaginary, just go to the OFHEO, who pinpointed this problem as early as 1998. There are several reports there warning the oversight committees that problems were brewing. Brent, if you want to attack someone with facts, please do. If you want to attack someone who has the facts you are going to look like a fool.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 10:52 am
http://www.sodahead.com/question/41731/?page=7
On the issue of life, six years ago, Obama was the only Illinois state senator to speak out against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which prevents infanticide. (A child would be protected after a failed abortion.) Meanwhile, an identical bill soon passed the U.S. Senate 98 to 0.
It gets worse: In July, Barack and Michelle pledged to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. It merely defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Furthermore, Illinois (and 48 other states) do not have to recognize same-sex marriage, established by four judges in Massachusetts or California. (Obama even said he opposes letting the people of California decide this issue in their November ballot initiative.)
What about protecting the children? In 2001, Obama voted "present" on a bill SB609 prohibiting strip clubs, porn shops and other adult establishments from locating within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and day care centers. (He took a pass.)
And equally weak on gang crime, Obama abstained from voting on a state bill requiring adult prosecution for students firing a gun on or near school grounds
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 10:54 am
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100708.php3
Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you.
Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama's election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers' money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance— but an alliance is not just an "association" from being at the same place at the same time.
Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.
Unfortunately, all that most people know about Barack Obama is his own rhetoric and that of his critics. Moreover, some of his more irresponsible critics have made wild accusations— that he is not an American citizen or that he is a Muslim, for example.
All that such false charges do is discredit Obama's critics in general. Fortunately, there is a documented, factual account of what Barack Obama has actually been doing over the years, as distinguished from what he has been saying during this election campaign, in a new best-selling book.
That book is titled "The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Freddoso. He starts off in the introduction by repudiating those critics of Obama who "have been content merely to slander him— to claim falsely that he refuses to salute the U.S. flag or was sworn into office on a Koran, or that he was born in a foreign country."
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 11:28 am
It cut off the end of the above link.
The story of Obama's political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot— after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates' petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.
Despite his words today about "change" and "cleaning up the mess in Washington," Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.
Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.
Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic Party: "People don't come to Obama for what he's done, they come because of what they hope he can be." David Freddoso's book should be read by those people who want to know what the facts are. But neither this book nor anything else is likely to change the minds of Obama's true believers, who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Perhaps the McCain camp should not have told the media that the elections was not about issues and they intended to go negative to distract voters.
Ayers is a tenured professor and I am sorry he is not scary to most voters–the public and the informed electorate does not care–only the knuckledraggers and wingnuts.
Wright and Rezko? OLD NEWS–Hillary already went there and you see how she fared.
You can go pound sand with these allegations and the moderates and swing voters will not care.
Comment by Theard — October 7, 2008 @ 11:53 am
It's not slander if it's true. It may not be what anyone wants to hear, but why is telling the truth ever wrong?
Comment by Igor R. — October 7, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Wouldn't it be interesting if John McCain were to have lived Barack Obama's life to this point, and instead of William Ayer's being the questionable tie that he had, instead that person's name was Timothy McVeigh?
Essentially, what we're being told by the Obama camp is that his involvement with the equivalent of Timothy McVeigh is and was not close, that they simply served on some boards together, and that he had a political "coming out" party at the equivalent of Timothy McVeigh's house, but not because of his relationship with the equivalent of McVeigh, but simply because the other politicians at the time had set it up to be at the equivalent of McVeigh's house.
Are we sure we want as President, a man who didn't have the judgement to divorce himself of ANY involvement with a Timothy McVeigh type? A man who, for political gain, would actually go to an event hosted by and AT THE HOME of a Timothy McVeigh type? A man who served together with a Timothy McVeigh type on a board, and had casual conversations and meetings with a Timothy McVeigh type when picking up their kids from school, or seeing this person in the neighborhood?!
For me at least, if I were to happen upon Timothy McVeigh in any of those situations, I would have categorically, withought a doubt, ABSOLUTELY, removed myself from ANY interaction with the person, and would have denounced their involvement in the things I was involved with, and taken a "him or me" stand. But I guess that's just me….AND probably EVERY OTHER AMERICAN!!!
What bothers me most about this is not that an up and coming politician, clearly ambitious and eager, made some obvious mistakes in NOT divorcing himself from Ayers along the way. That's understandable all things considered. But what's MOST troubling is that he continues to downplay that involvement, and be disingenous and frankly dishonest about the extent of that relationship, trying to control the perception about it. That sounds so much like EXACTLY what we've experienced over the last 8 years, and the 8 before that, and the 4 before that and the 8 before that.
That is not CHANGE THAT WE NEED, or CHANGE THAT WE CAN BELIEVE IN, or "choose your contrived slogan here". That is more of the same, and elevated now to not only perjury as in Clinton's case, or an assault on our constitution as in Bush's case, but to open and unrepenting warfare against our Country! I find it remarkable that there is a justification and a willingness to dismiss the association with Ayers, instead of a call to come clean and apologize for a display of poor judgement. Simply substitute the name McVeigh for Ayers and tell me if you are just as willing to do so. Tell me then if you still see him as an "idealist without illusions" or a "real voice for authentic change" because I sure don't. So far, I see a political opportunist who will placate anyone, and justify any action that is politically expedient for him or his party, and will simply give us more of the same partisan political crap that we've had for the last 30 plus years.
Comment by Nick — October 7, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
but i would also like to see mccain not shy away from looking obama in the eye and making him squirm over his connection to anti-american terrorists and preachers.
we need to hear it straight from mccain's mouth TONITE, or the effects of the smear campaign won't truly take hold.
he needs to hit barack and his rascist wife with everything he's got. TONITE.
obama is spineless. he has made his money and gained his power thru shady deals and machine politics. he is weak and can't hold up against a true personal attack.
take the fight to this anti-american fraud. make him look like the terrorist that he is!
Comment by x factor — October 7, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
I'm Looking for Igor and Robert R's name on the list of Pundits.
Comment by Yvonne — October 7, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/how_allies_of_george_soros_hel.html
Largely ignored in this crisis is the key role played by Herbert and Marion Sandler, founders of Golden West Financial (GDW), one of the largest savings and loans in the nation. Wachovia purchased GDW for $24 billion dollars in 2006. This was one of the worst merger and acquisition deals of all time for the buyer, and remarkably excellent timing on the part of the seller. In essence, Wachovia bought a financial time bomb ticking away, one that exploded this year, bringing down yet another former financial titan and further wrecking Wall Street. [Update: see this commentary from Bllomberg on the role of GDW in the fall of Wachovia.]
How did this transpire and who are the Sandlers?
Herbert and Marion Sandler, a New York lawyer and Wall Street analyst respectively, bought a small California thrift in 1963 and built it into GDW — one of the largest thrifts in the nation. The company's business was built on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs. These were mortgages offered at low "teaser" rates that ratcheted upward as interest rates increased. They were often sold aggressively to unsophisticated home buyers who did not comprehend the vast financial risks they were taking, or who assumed that housing prices would rise high enough to provide a profit to them when they sold their houses. They were targets for lenders peddling mortgages that should have been stamped with a skull and crossbones, for these were among the most seductive and dangerous types of mortgage.
This book of business is the core reason for Wachovia's current difficulties
The Sandlers knew their business far better than any other person could. Not only were they the founders and major owners, they famously ran the company as a husband and wife team for all these years.
So why did they happen to cash out at precisely the right time? Did they see the handwriting on the wall, realizing the massive risks inherent in the mortgages they originated throughout one of the most overheated real estate markets in the nation's history? They are not talking, but when smart people cash in some of their chips, it's rarely a good time to bet against them. Nevertheless, Wachovia bet 24 billion dollars and lost big time.
The collapse was primarily caused by the GDW purchase, which became an albatross around Wachovia's neck soon after the purchase. "Wachovia found itself in ARM's Way" was the headline of a recent Wall Street Journal article. A huge percentage of these Wachovia ARMs were made to deep subprime borrowers with very poor credit scores. Most of these were "inherited from its ill-timed acquisition of Golden West" at the end of the housing boom in 2006.
The Sandlers have started to invest their billions of dollars politically, in the manner of George Soros, sugar daddy of many far-left wing groups and an early and prominent supporter of Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Soros has developed an empire of so-called 527 groups, putatively independent political activists groups that have influence within the Democratic Party. These 527 groups include the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.Org, Human Rights Watch, Media Matters and a slew of other like-minded groups .
This set of political organizations also includes the International Crisis Group, whose foreign policy staff is likely to contain the embryonic future of the State Department in an Obama Administration . Eli Pariser, who heads MoveOn.Org, boasts about his group's role in the Democratic Party:
"Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we are going to take it back."
They have already done so, in large measure.
The top four donors to these 527 groups in the last Presidential election cycle (2004) were Soros, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler . Collectively they gave 78 million dollars to left-leaning 527 groups. That was just in 2004. They have become much more ambitious over the last few years.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Of all the people to question someones's character. I think John McCain will be committed after the election. My friends, he clearly has lost all sense of reasoning.
Comment by Yvonne — October 7, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
RR;
When you link to pajama media you have lost the debate. I have read too many of your rants to read teh whole thing so I'll make mind short and sweet. McCain has lost his mind, his honor and this election.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 7, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Mike Coleman: Please state what is in the article that isn't true. If you can't you are the idiot of the day. Congratulations! You're an achiever.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
X factor, what's the x for?
Comment by Yvonne — October 7, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
New Gallup tracking has Barack up by 9, after
three polling days of the new slander attack.
Backfiring on McCain and the pit bull with
lipstick.
Comment by Brent — October 7, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Brent,
you complain that McCain is "suggesting Obama is not a real American".
How many real Americans do you know who:
- were born to Kenyan father, who's a Muslim, influenced by Utopian Marxist ideas?
- have attended slimy church for 20 years where pastor chants "God damn America!".
- have visited a house or had direct conversations with known terrorists?
- have "disassociated" themselves from dozens of questionable individuals in a span of 3-4 months?
- have been endorsed for Government office by Hamas?
Face the facts, Brent and look at his name. Barack Hussein Obama is not one of us. Electing him to Senate was a grave mistake due to access to classified data he's got. Electing him to President would doom this country.
Comment by Misha — October 7, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
#30 Yvonne,
The X may stand for xerox since the same loser has copied/pasted the exact same message using the alias "ha ha dems" under several other articles on this site.
I kind of like his/her idea that McCain should further demonstrate his impulsive anger and erratic behavior tonight. That'll drive independents away even faster than Todd can race his little snow machine.
Comment by Melissa — October 7, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
RR #29;
I have an article that is going to blow your socks off. When you linked to that pajamamedia article it didn't present the facts. First off do you know who Walter Anneberg is? Mr. Anneberg is a lifelong republican who funded teh Anneberg Challenge and many Democrats, Republicans and Independents worked on it. Mr. Anneberg thought enough of William Ayers to put him on the board so guess what, that terrorist you want to link Obama to was a respected member of Chicago society. Here is the article link into NPR.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/131120/885/357/622049
Cheers, but don't worry, it is only going to leave a bruise.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 7, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Melissa,
I think McCain should simply ask whether people would question (or attribute it to simple mudslinging) Obama's judgement and agenda had he attended, much less been the focus of attention, a political event hosted at Timothy McVeigh's house?
Rather than drive people away, I think that would frame the debate on this issue in it's proper context. Perhaps Obama can then respond to the issue properly…or continue to evade, down play, and be dishonest about it. At least at that point, people can judge for themselves, one on one, candidate on candidate, how important associating (however peripherally) with terrorists is to the person seeking the Presidency.
Comment by Nick — October 7, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Misha;
In answer to your question how many real Americans do you know that were named Misha. It sounds foreign to me.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 7, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
i think the x factor stand for obama's lack of integrity
Comment by coco puffs — October 7, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Misha, Brent and Obama's supporters WANT to doom this country. They don't like it the way it is: too mean, too unfair, and too free to criticize those who only want to improve the lot of the downtrodden. So get with the programs, think about how good it would be to be taxed to death and feel patriotic, how great it would feel not to have to spend any time criticizing Barack Hussein the Great. Ask yourself: aren't the people of Venezuela a lot better off with a true friend leading the country? Of course they are and of course you know how much Barack admires Hugo's great governing ability. So stop with the attack, praise our only hope, our beacon of shining light, the one, the only, the great Obama!
Comment by Igor R. — October 7, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
it's a relief to know that if, god forbid, obama-rama does get elected there will be as much dirt on him going into the white house as bill clinton had coming out.
he'll be impotent on arrival(just like bush) because of the staunch 45% of the country that doesn't agree with him on anything. people are scared right now and big govt. sounds like a good option to them. they don't remember the tax rates or the pascifism of the carter administration.
also, an obama administration, sure to fail for the same reasons the carter administration failed, will give way to 8 more years of GOP control of the white house. congress will sway back to the GOP in 2010 too.
so i guess there is a brightside to things…
Comment by coco puffs — October 7, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
And by the way, YOU KNOW that Obama is hiding something terrible about his birth certificate. Protective orders barring discovery until standing is established are normally used only when the discovery would result in disclosure of damaging or embarassing information not related to the case at hand.
The only thing in contention in the Berg lawsuit on obamacrimes.com is Obama's citizenship. The production of documents proving his citizenship would stop the suit dead in its tracks and there would be no further discovery or action.
So, Senator Obama, enough already. Produce an official copy of your birth certificate.
Comment by Igor R. — October 7, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
obama cannot be trusted
Comment by coco puffs — October 7, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Igor and Kooky puffs;
Why don't you have McCain open up his military and medical records for all to see? How about we look at Cindy McCain's tax returns? In 2004 you nutjobs wanted Kerry to open his but you're now silent on McCain's, hypocrite much are we. Also Igor, your boy McCAin was on teh board of a terrorist organization and teh AP is reporting about this now. What is really going to leave a bruise on you nutjobs is that the Anneberg Challenge Foundation was founded by Walter Anneberg who once worked for Reagan and Bush I and was a life long republican. So tell me that you're calling someone that Reagan and Bush liked a terrorist. Here are two articles that should make you go screaming into the night. Cheers!
McCain and the terrorist organization:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/why-mccains-time-with-cou_n_132470.html
Obama, Ayers and the Anneberg Challenge:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/131120/885/357/622049
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 7, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Mike Coleman: Sorry, but you're still an idiot. The DailyKos is a totally discredited source. It may be true but it doesn't change the facts in the other article. Once again, don't change the subject just state what isn't true. You can't.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Igor-
I believe Melissa responded to this charge. The case will be dismissed and I am not sure that the plaintiff has any standing to even bring the suit.
You repeated this bogus charge on three or four threads thus far?
Speaking of lawsuits, the MI GOP filed a libel suit against a blogger who blew the whistle on their voter caging efforts. You see, the fine men of the GOP attempted to prevent voters, whose homes have been foreclosed upon, from voting. Nice!
Well our courageous blogger reported it and the Obama camp filed suit, causing the GOP to scurry and abandon its voter suppression plans. Now they are fighting mad and want revenge. I hope she hires a decent lawyer, I would love to see the discovery process on that legal battle.
Comment by Theard — October 7, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
RR;
The article is linked to an AP article. I know that when the truth hurts you'll bury your head in the sand. Also lets look at your girl Sarah and her nutty friends. She and her husband wanted Alaska to secede from the union. Are you in favor of that. Take a look.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/75010/3956/937/622494
Also RR we know that you are a low info voter.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 7, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Nick,
The candidates themselves are permitted to ask questions of one another according to the rules. McCain himself is welcome to answer a question from the audience with a rhetorical question to Obama, but I really don't think that will resonate at all. I don't think people whose homes are being foreclosed upon and whose 401K's are evaporating and who've been unable to fill up at the gas pump care about William Ayres. McCain can try to avoid economy talk (since his advisers know that = loss for McCain), but that will only make him appear more out of touch to those who are hurting economically and can't help but fear for their futures.
Comment by Melissa — October 7, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
#32. McCain wasn't even born in the U.S.
Comment by Yvonne — October 7, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Misha, Misha, Misha,
We can do the same to your candidate as well.
How man Americans do you know who:
cheated on his disfigured wife getting a marriage license while still married as a sitting US Senator?
embraced a pastor who calld the Catholic Church "The Great Whore"?
Picked as his running mate a sympathizer of the Alaska Independance Party, notorious UnAmerican, Unpatriotic USA Haters?
Calls his present wife a painted trollop?
Makes crass jokes about the young daughter of a sitting president, being raped by a gorilla, bombing world neighbors,and "killing the bitch"
Claims friendship to Vets, yet does not even bother to vote on the GI Bill?
I could go on, but I need some fresh air.
Comment by sherri wong — October 7, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
#40 Igor, a quick Google search on your plagiarized post turns up this website:
http://smithfiles.com/2008/10/07/obama-dnc-file-motion-to-delay-discovery-until-after-defendants-motion-to-dismiss-is-decided/
Plagiarized…unless….unless you're Rick Honcho? He looks like an honest, upstanding Joe Sixpack with a real grasp on legal matters, doesn't he? ROTFL!
http://smithfiles.com/rick-honcho/
Comment by Melissa — October 7, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Isn't this fascinating? Barack claims sub-prime loans were the problem but he sued a bank trying to force them to make one.
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007
Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans by abusing the Community Reinvestment Act (see HERE and HERE)? The abuse of this act by ACORN and officials like Janet Reno was a factor in causing the economic crisis. The harasment suits filed under this act were used to get banks to lower credit standards and hand out high risk loans. Fellow bloggers have dug up the lawsuit below while researching Obama’s legal career. It is a typical example of an ACORN harassment lawsuit.
In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?
It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 7, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
The Dow closed down 508 today. People are
seriously, seriously, hurting and worried.
The news going into the debate on the nets
will be very depressing. This is not the
moment for McCain to be baying about Ayers,
Jeremiah Wright or any of his mud and
it is not the moment for Palin to be baying
about anything with her minor league nonsense.
McCain's toilet campaign is pure disaster for him. He better take advice from Uncle Brent
and straighten up and fly right. At least he
can lose with class. If he loses without
class, he gets creamed.
Comment by Brent — October 7, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
Always a favorite, lol.
Subject: How Taxes Actually Work
A brilliant explanation of our tax system using actual percentages, the impact
of a tax cut, and the public reaction that everyone should be able to
understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes
to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and
seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a
curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up
being paid to drink
his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so -
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man and said, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything
at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night the
tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers
without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
very important. They didn't have enough money between all of them to pay even
half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a
tax reduction. Tax
them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up
anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not
understand, or will not understand, no explanation is possible.
Comment by Nick — October 7, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
brent you sound scared.
anyone that regularly reads your work knows you don't have a very good understanding of economics. yet you have the gall to change the subject from Obama's character and terrorist ties back to an economic crisis Dems created and are trying to lie about.
you're a tool of the Dem party, willing to spread their drivel and lies.
Comment by coco puffs — October 7, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Damn Melissa, you outed me!
Comment by Igor R. — October 7, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Theard, what bogus charge have I repeated? That he is hiding something? How about the birth certificate itself? I don't claim he is born anywhere in particular, I have no idea if there is any merit to the lawsuit, it may very well be dismissed in the next five minutes, my point is that I can't see a reason for a Presidential candidate not to release his birth certificate.
Comment by Igor R. — October 7, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
Coco puffs,
Brent doesn't sounds scared to me as much as he sounds EXACTLY like all the things he's describing and accusing McCain and Palin of. And as an Obama surrogate, he IS doing exactly ALL those things he's accusing McCain and Palin of doing. Perhaps considering he's accusing McCain & Palin of desparation, he's desparate. Pretty sad either way. Rather than debate the issues, he hurls insults and threats. He should do better.
Comment by Nick — October 7, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
The lying liar is getting more and more exposed…ya just can't hide the truth:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/07/cnn-obamas-lying-about-william-ayers/
Comment by Igor R. — October 7, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
#48. Sherri. Excellent, you go,girl!!!!
Comment by Joyce — October 7, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Just your average Obama pals palling around with voter fraud:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/07/acorn-vegas-office-raided-voter-fraud-investigation/
Comment by Igor R. — October 7, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Coleman, #36
I am not running for President. To paraphrase, how many real Americans do you know whose name has Hussein in it? Or Barack for that matter?
Comment by Misha — October 7, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Brent, #51
Just relax, if it's not a moment for negative campaigning and American people don't want to hear about Ayers, they want candidates talking about issues, they'll punish McCain at the polls. OK? If they do, they'll reconsider and McCain defeats Obama. I know you want to give valuable advice to McCain campaign, but just relax, Brent.
Comment by Misha — October 7, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Do you Republicans get paid by the post, paid
by the paragraph, or paid by the lie, LOL?
There really is a tone of creeping anger in
our right wing friends here, just like there
is in McCain! Here's something that will get
our Republicans all excited. Word on the
street is, a major news organization will soon
run with a major story about McCain's health.
I kid you not. Remember where you heard it.
Comment by Brent — October 7, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Where the hell is Rev.Wright? We need to organize a book tour for him, give some speeches, reminisce about Obama's wedding, baptizing his girls, soul talk with Obama about our evil country, etc. RNC should pay all his expenses. Every Republican would contribute. Make him come to Fox News and other outlets to promote the book. That's by far the best way RNC can spend its money.
Comment by Misha — October 7, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Jerome Corsi arrested and deported from Kenya. ROTFL!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7656546.stm
Comment by Melissa — October 7, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Brent, #62
"Word on the street is, a major news organization will soon run with a major story about McCain's health."
That's a real classy way to dispose an American hero and install an Chicago-style black politician in a White House!
Comment by Misha — October 7, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
#62, Brent, $7.25 an hour from the RNC according to commenter #3 on Lanny Davis post of Sept. 29, 2008.
Comment by Marilyn R. — October 7, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Barack won another debate, possibly big but
certainly he won. Barack was slightly
professorial, but presidential and serious,
and a big plus he stayed after debate while
McCain stalked off early. McCain to me
looked old and stern. Didn't score any big
points. Some of his condescending comments
alienated. His reference to Barack as "that
one" was truly bizarre. Net net both debates
were big wins for Barack adding it all up.
Like Kennedy and Nixon, Kennedy stood toe to
toe as the less experienced candidate, as
Barack played JFK tonite and McCain played
Nixon. CBS and CNN polls showed Barack won
and I agree, completely. We'll see if people react the way I did, that McCain just looked
pretty darn old as Palin might say.
Comment by Brent — October 7, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
Melissa, I know, it's so funny! And look how funny if may get if Obama is elected. Rush Limbaugh arrested! Hannity arrested! Fox shut down! ROTFL (that stands for Real Obama: Too F… Lame!)
Comment by Igor R. — October 8, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Notice how Brent never responds to any arguments: he is just constantly pointing out what's wrong with those who don't agree with him. Could it be because he has no idea how to respond to arguments?
Comment by Igor R. — October 8, 2008 @ 1:54 am
Thinking about the debate overnight, I think
McCain and Brokaw both looked old and stale
by comparison to Barack who looked vibrant,
presidential and informed. I now believe
that the age issue will hurt McCain at least
as much as the race issue hurts Barack, and
possibly more as voters worry about the economy
Comment by Brent — October 8, 2008 @ 7:30 am
Brent,
I think Obama emerged the winner last night. His answers were much more clear, and he seemed very relaxed and connected to the people. McCain seemed less comfortable, and he didn't articulate himself nearly as well. I agree that at times he sounded like a grumpy old man. His reference to "that one" made him look bitter and petty.
If this debate has any influence on the polls, I suspect it will help Obama. McCain should learn that anger and incitement of hatred courtesy of his bumpkin running mate have not and will not add up to more votes.
Comment by Melissa — October 8, 2008 @ 8:42 am
Brent;
That comment "that one" was really weird. I noticed too that McCain and his group took off after the debate while Obama stayed and mingled. The one thing that keeps bugging me is that McCain will say "I know how to win wars". What war has McCain won? Is the man delusional? I feel that Obama more than held his own and McCain lost a lot last nite.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 8, 2008 @ 9:31 am
# 70 Brent
I agree that Tom Brokaw was not on his game last night. Obama was his consistently good-looking self, all teeth and legs. However, if I hear him repeat his talking points one more time, I will do the next debate for him… I was with a group of professionals last evening watching most of the debat, and they were completing his lines. Too funny!
However, McCain, was the Captain of the ship. No, he was not a rock star. He was the Commander and Chief. That all American's ask for. No empty promises, just a carefully navigated watchful direction out of the rocky waters we are in. A realistic vision and realistic plan to keep the US afloat on all counts.
VOTE FOR MCAIN/PALIN
Comment by JFK-HRC — October 8, 2008 @ 9:45 am
FYI - I think Drudge has been very non-partisan about the headlines throughout the campaign between M & O. For what it is worth, the MSM looks to the Drudge Report all day long. There are many who believe, in spite of other polls , that McCain was the winner. See the count below.
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?…
MCCAIN
66% 186,182
OBAMA
30% 83,682
NEITHER
4% 12,192
Total Votes: 282,056
http://www.drudgereport.com
Vote McCain/Palin
.
Comment by JFK-HRC — October 8, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Wow,
I gotta say that if anyone here was satisfied with either of their candidates last night, then you guys really have closed minds. That debate was dreadful. It was a complete rehash of the previous debate only with less quality answers. It was like watching Pander-Dee and Pander-Dum. Pretty sad, IMO, that we've come down to these two men as the best that we have to choose from for the most powerful governemental office in the world. McCain appeared to be a frustrated guy who can't believe he's losing to "that one", but had trouble articulating his reasons for why he shouldn't be losing, and Obama looked like Anna Nicole Smith at a casting call, rereading the scripted lines and beleiving that what's important is that he deliver his lines well and "connect" with his audience regardless of the fact that he has no concept of what he's saying. He may have been easy on the eyes, but he sure is hard on the brain. Harvard must be cringing that "that one" is what they have out there representing their finest alumni.
I came away from that debate realizing that regardless of what the spinning talking heads on either side want to tell us what we should believe, we've already lost as a Country with these two men as our best choices. Truly, though, with the vitriol and venom that is spewed by both sides as diplayed here by Brent and by those of us who respond to him and to each other, I suppose it's no wonder that no true quality people with a REAL vision and with a REAL desire to redirect the purpose of our government back to what it was intended to be, will seek out the office. I guess it's true we get the government we deserve, but surely our Children deserve better than this, and it's a shame that our generations have allowed it to get to this point where we'll suffer another minimum of 4 years of hopelessness from a clearly impotent and grotesquely bloated and blind government.
Again, don't for a second try to convince me that McCain is the solution, nor that Obama is the solution. They are BOTH vapid, thoughtless, parrots of a pandering ideology whose only thirst is for power, not for service. If you didn't see that last night, then you should put down the crack pipe.
Comment by Nick — October 8, 2008 @ 11:52 am
The debate was awful because of Tom Brokaw, another tired liberal. He didn't bring up abortion or illegal immigration.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 8, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Pretty soon, you guys will see a pivot. Obama will start ignoring McCain, just like he did to HRC. This will drive McCain nuts.
Who is running McCain's campaign? These guys are worst than the Keystone cops, there is no consistent theme or message except the kitchen sink, control the media cycle at all cost strategy.
The new gallup poll:
Obama 52
McBush 41
Comment by Theard — October 8, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Melissa, you're right. New Gallup has Barack
up by 11 and that barely reflects the debate.
Though that number is too high, but the move
is clear. HRC would you please change your
penname to something like Nixon_Agnew, more
accurately reflecting your state of play, LOL?
McCain is the captain of his sinking ship,
and if you look at Senate races, he's about
to take Republican Senators down with him in
larger numbers than even I've projected before.
I knew McCain would lose the debate when I
saw Nicole Wallace dishing the dirt before
the debate, sounding just as she did when
she dished the dirt for W in 2004. And look
at our Republicans here. Not even earning
their $7.25 an hour. The RNC should spring
them taking at least a 3 credit economics
course. They sound like McCain, Robert, Igor,
Misha, the whole lot of them. I suspect they
are all the same person, because their total
lack of knowledge of finance is astonishing.
They dont even try. They think Jeremiah
Wright is Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Maybe McCain and Palin are actually Robert
and Igor, same name calling and same lack
of knowledge of finance. McCain is the
captain of the Republican Titanic.
Comment by Brent — October 8, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Not all polls behaved as the Gallup poll, several others moved in the opposite direction. It's funny how those who live by the polls cite only the Gallup. That's what psychologists call "confirmation bias".
Comment by Igor R. — October 8, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Brent,
I feel bad for you and for our Country that this clearly appears to be a game to you, rather than truly what it is, a critical stake in the future of our Country. And unfortunately for us, your outlook and approach is shared by most of the pundits, operatives and surrogates, we read in the news and see on TV.
As much as you can accurately dis McCain for his inability to provide a focussed and consistent articulate narrative about his vision for the Country, Obama has been unable to articulate any vision of substance other than his plan is to the opposite of George Bush. Never mind that his proposals are tatamount to economic suicide for our Country and the deficit, and nevermind that his sparse and fundamentally non-participatory history of experience on anything of substance is essentially contractidory to most of what he proposes. Add to that that essentially in his comments about North Korea and Iran last night, he proposed a course of action in dealing with them that is essentially right out of George Bush's playbook in how he dealt with Iraq in the run up to the war, and you have clearly a candidate that stands for everything and nothing. Go ahead and go back and relisten to it and point out how it differs. I challenge you.
Obama's playbook is pure pandering, and you know it as do any of his surrogates and that's why you and them don't, nor can you, talk about his accomplishments or back up any of his ideas with any specific substance. And now, rather than the negative Rovian attack plan you accuse McCain of, he's instead in reality adopted the Obama pandering plan of election.
You don't see it, but the truth is that your approach to this process and to governing as a "game" is the most cynical and detrimental approach to our politics and the main reason we find ourselves in the straits we're in. When you and others (and this is endemic on both sides) approach this process as a "game", you betray your elitist outlook you have on the American Public and that by default, they are just the pawns you use in the "game". It's truly a shame, and while a true "straight talking and acting" McCain probably had at least a chance of beginning to chip away a little bit at the perverted system and a hope with some success of inspiring a true transformation longterm, he seems to have abandoned any of his principles in this regard. And unfortunately, Obama hasn't had any principles to start with, so the American Public "pawns" of your "game" and by definition, our Great Nation, suffers and will continue to do so for at least another 4 years, and undoubtedly longer.
Comment by Nick — October 8, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
I just watched McCain, and have to say, he
is just full rage and personal hatred
towards Obama. I have never seen anything
like this. Just full of personal hate and
rage. He went on and on. He and Palin
are also trying to foment hate towards
Obama. This is not political disagreement.
This is something that is getting very sick.
He cannot utter a coherent sentence about
the economy but is just totally consumed
with rage. This is very strange and very
unhealthy.
Comment by Brent — October 8, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Did you hear what he said in Bethlehem???
"You and I together will confront the $10 trillion debt the federal government has run up and balance the federal budget by the end of my term in office. Across this country, this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners and the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent."
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/mccain_refers_to_voters_as_fel.html
His rage must be triggering post-traumatic stress disorder or something….
Comment by Melissa — October 8, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Brent
You are just too much. : )
I almost wish I didn't become a Republican. It would have been fun to work with you. You really get into it!
But, your objectivity was lost during the Primaries. You loathed Hillary on so many levels. (We need to talk about that.) She is a sister-democrat-to-you… Did the Clintons somehow diss you, like they dissed Dick Morris? He has a bit of the hate-thang goin' on there too…
Whatever… You wanna talk about an example of hate? To give up 18,000,000 votes, YES 18 millione Democratic votes - is my book far beyond hate — it is complete insanity on the Democratic camapign's part.
What the hell will happen if Obama get's in… Will he sell New York to Putin?
Ya never know !
Comment by JFK-HRC — October 8, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
More carnage..
This is David Brooks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html
"[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party"
What does he think about Obama?
"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So i say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.
And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception"
Comment by Theard — October 8, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Brent, #81
Of course McCain hates Obama, it's not a political disagreement. You see, McCain is a military man, Obama's friend bombed the Pentagon, where McCain's heart and soul is, where his father and grandfather served. Is it too difficult to understand for a liberal butt kisser like yourself?
Comment by Misha — October 8, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Theard, Karl Marx was a tremendous intellectual.
Comment by Igor R. — October 8, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Brent, I currently don't think that "Jeremiah
Wright is Chairman of the Federal Reserve", but I'm a little concerned that if Obama is elected, he will be. Bill Aeyrs? Head of the FBI of course. Bernardine Dorn? Homeland Security. Farrakhan? Head of the CIA. Rezko? Either the head of the Federal Prison System or Secretary of Commerce, depending on how much he sings.
Comment by Igor R. — October 8, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
I apologize, first of all for misspelling the esteemed Bill Ayers' name, and then forgetting that with his new found interests, he would certainly prefer to be the Secretary of Education.
Comment by Igor R. — October 8, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
#84 theard
I hate to inform you darlin', that little 'tingle', sweetheart… has entered your little ol' biddy brain…
Obama was smarter at 8 years old. He stayed away from willie ayers!
Comment by JFK-HRC — October 8, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
Knowing the fascist trash well, I think we can all see that the "n" word, a staple in all fascist discourse, will come oozing up out of the mud and very soon at that.
But, I still wonder where the fasmily values discussion is, particularly the marital infidelity element?
Can it be that the party of high morality is supporting a home wrecker for first lady?
Can't wait for the answer to assuage my concerns.
Comment by rightistrash — October 9, 2008 @ 7:43 am
theard interesting about David Brooks. We
are now having people attenting McCain and
Palin rallies inspired by them to chant things
like kill Obama. This is taking on a very
sick, sick dimension. I have never seen a
presidential campaign, even Bush at this
worst, make open appeal to hatred and inspire
anyone to call for the death of a political
opponent. I suspect the Secret Service is
very unhappy about this. I know the voters are
rejecting it. But there is now something
very poisoned, very sick, and very ugly about
the McCain campaign. Where did they find that
guy who like Mussolini wearing his black shirt
to push hate? McCain has turned his campaign
into a true hate campaign. And when someone
says kill Obama, the idiot Palin cannot bring
hserself to say stop it. This is sick, sick
stuff. After McCain loses and reflects he
is going to be humiliated and ashamed about
the hate campaign that is the new McCain
brand.
Comment by Brent — October 9, 2008 @ 9:42 am
#91 Brent,
Palin can't do the right thing and respond to those making violent remarks like "Off with his head" or "Kill him" or "Treason", but there are apparently some things she will respond to….
"You're a hottie!" a young man near the front called out to her.
"What does that have to do with anything?" she answered with a smile.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100803601_pf.html
Comment by Melissa — October 9, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Come on, Brent, _dehumanization_ has been the core, the Alpha & Omega, of Republican electioneering for decades. What made Ronald Reagan so good - so admired by Righties & Lefties alike - was his ability to (do) so with humor and class, as in his debate with Mondale when he said "I will not dignify the age question, because I don't want to have to point out the youth and inexperience of my opponent."
Even Mondale had to chuckle, but Reagan was actually a very efficient cultural hit-man, he started his 1980 campaign in.. Philadelphia, Mississippi, nationally reknown as an icon of white supremacy. Reagan cold have launched his campaign in any of a thousand other small towns across America, but he choose 'THE ONE" where 3 Civil Rights advocates ("agitators") had been killed by the South's then de rigeur extra-legal "midnight visit" by the Sheriff's deputy. (i.e. state sapplied terrorism.)
As a Republican senator 2000 to 2008, McCain did nothing to insure the voting rights of disenfranchised voters (neither did Democrats, darn them) the undercurent being "if your vote wasn't counted, it was because it didn't deserve to be."
We could cite chapter-and-verse of McCain's _dehumanizing_ tactics, but the larger lesson is that they are all straight out of an ethnic conflict textbook. i.e., Serbs will vote for an 19 year old unqualified axe-murder to be their president - as long as he is a Serb - over a qualified and experienced Croat, and vice versa.
You could put ANY conflicting ethnic groups in that formula (Georgians/Ossetians, Irish Protestants vs Catholics, Tamils vs Sri Lanka, etc.) "Multi-culturalism" may take alot of work, but that is OK… before they arrived in the New World and banded together here in America, the various Scotish clans were hacking each other's throats… civil wars are every bit as bloody, and almost as genocidal, as wars vs foreign tribes & enemies.
Comment by Lj — October 9, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Brent #91;
I agree with you about the hate that the McCain campaign is generating but look at our neocon friends here on the board. They are so afraid of the scary brown people that Bush has made them afraid of. Igor, Misha and a few others have hate that comes through their writings here and it is a shame to see, especially with the way the republicans have ruined this country.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 9, 2008 @ 10:44 am
http://www.hinzsightreport.com/2008/05/william-ayres-la-educacion-es.html
In his fascinating blog, Santa Clara University law professor Steve Diamond lays out an interesting timeline and theory about the relationship between Obama and Ayres. According to his timeline, it would appear that Obama and Ayres became acquainted in the late 1980s. The full article, entitled Who Sent Obama, is available here, with excerpts below:
When the 1988 reform Act was passed a group called Leadership for Quality Education (LQE) was formed, according to Shipps, by the elite business lobby that was in part behind the new reforms, to train the newly elected local school council members. The head of LQE was John Ayers, brother of Bill, son of Tom. Some 6000 LSC members were elected. And they became a huge thorn in the side of school administration in Chicago.
In the fall of 1988, however, Obama left the city to go off to law school. My best guess, though, is that it was in that 86-88 time frame that Obama likely met up with the Ayers family. I will explain why I believe that in a minute. Interestingly, after his first year in law school Obama returned in the summer of 1989 to work as a summer associate at the prestigious Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin. This in and of itself is a bit unusual. Very few top tier law students work for big law firms during their first summer. The big law firms discourage it because if you work for them in the first summer you are likely to work for a second firm the following year and then the firms have to compete to get you.
So, why or how did Obama - at that point not yet the prominent first black president of the Harvard Law Review (that would happen the following year) - end up at Sidley?
Coincidentally, or not, Sidley had been long time outside counsel to Commonwealth Edison. The senior Sidley partner who was their key outside counsel, Howard Trienens, was a member of the board of trustees of Northwestern alongside Tom Ayers (and Sidley partner Newton Minow, too). Coincidentally, or not, Bernardine Dohrn worked at Sidley also, hired there in the late 80s many contend through the intervention of Tom Ayers, even though she is not a member of the bar (as far as I can tell) because of her past jail time for Weather Underground activities.
It is possible that Tom Ayers introduced Obama to Sidley. That might have happened if Obama had met up with Bill and Tom and John Ayers prior to attending law school when Obama's DCP group was supporting the reform act passed in 1988. Or it might have been Dohrn who introduced Obama to the law firm. It is a little unclear from her CV but Dohrn may have still been at Sidley when Obama was there since she left sometime in 1988 for public interest work prior to her starting a position at Northwestern, again hired there by some accounts because of the influence of Tom Ayers and his Sidley counsel Trienens. My best guess is that it would have been Tom Ayers who vetted Obama to Sidley and that would have helped him get the attention of someone like Newton Minow. (And that would come in very handy later in Obama's career as Kaufman suggests but not just because of the fund raising that Minow could help with but perhaps also helping with an introduction to the Kennedy family, whose recent endorsement of Obama came at such a critical moment in his campaign.)
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 9, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Mike I have now doubt our neocon friends here
are doing what their Republican bosses are
telling them to do. In fact beneath the
surface there is a growing movement among
some very serious Republicans to somewhat
separate themselves from McCain and Palin
or go to McCain and tell him to stop the
hate and losing with dignity. I do not
believe any election is over until it is
over, but there is now the real possiblity
Obama wins a landslide, and even if he wins
by less than a landslide, McCain is taking down
more Congressional Republicans, especially
in the Senate, by the day. Even Al Franken,
who I never gave much chance, is at least
even money to win. Ditto Dole in N. Carolina
who could easily lose. McCain is not only
imploding himself, but Palin is creating major
alarm among many serious Republicans and the
Congressional campaign committees on the GOP
side are gravely worried that McCain takes
their people down too.
Comment by Brent — October 9, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Brent-
You can add George Will, Charles Krautheimer, and several other prominent conservatives to that list.
I agree with you on the tenor of McCain's campaign, but I am not concerned about his feelings, rather the vitriolic sentiments he is racheting up that could last well after the election.
This could devolve into a domestic national security issue.
Comment by Theard — October 9, 2008 @ 11:51 am
I think we have a good chance of reaching the magic number for cloture, thanks to McPalin. The Caribou Barbie is destroying the GOP…LOL
She's been called a Trojan Moose, lol. Most sane repubs geniunely feel embarrassed and can no longer publicly support the ticket with good conscience. Have u noticed that no other GOP surrogate has been out on the stump with them?
Where is the Huckster? Romney? Pawlenty? Graham?
Let the Caribou Barbie loose!
She's been a gift that's kept on giving. Hopefully, they will run her again in 2012.
Comment by Theard — October 9, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Obama supporters,
94 responses preceeding this one, and not even a shred of a comment about what qualifies Obama to be president; what he has done in the past that qualifies him, how any of his proposals will benefit the United States, or how his proposals are better than McCains.
Instead, there's only commentary about what a bad guy McCain is, and how incompetent Palin is, and how the voters won't respond to negative campaigning.
Brent, as "host" of this thread, your comments are more in line with someone of the intellect of Dan Quayle's shoe shine boy, than Lloyd Bentsen's aide. Instead of anti-white race baiting and defiling and American Hero, why don't you call on him to enunciate a DETAILED and no-bull-sh step by step plan about what he plans to do to effect positive economic growth. And since you claim to have the ear of the Democrat "insiders", why don't you have Obama provide a shred of substance about his plans and explain away the apparent contradictions between his middle class tax cuts (which will be tax increases when he lets the Bush tax cuts expire) and his spending spree he's announced.
And as for questioning the Ayers connection, Obama could have rendered this issue null and void by being TRUTHFUL about his associations with him, instead of coy and evasive. That he launched his political career in the house of a Unabomber or McVeigh type, and served on a charitable board with him and had casual conversations with him in his neighborhood or while picking his kids up from school, is no where near as unsettling as his refusal to come clean about those associations and or to admit they were at worst, a mistake in judgement. That lack of good judgement then, COUPLED WITH, the lack of good judgement now in dealing with his lack of good judgement then, may ultimately cost him the Presidency, and for what, because he's too prideful to admit he made a mistake?!
Obama can learn a thing or two from McCain about dealing with bad judgement. When McCain was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal, he didn't run like a coward from it like Obama is, he instead had a press conference, and sat in front of the microphones for THREE HOURS addressing any and ALL questions posed to him about his involvement. On top of that, he pledged to answer anyone's questions fully UNTIL THEY HAD NO MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. Kinda speaks VOLUMES about the character of these two men, in my opinion.
The fact that you and the rest of the Obama supporters use negative tactics to defame and destroy out of one side of your mouth, and yet can't come up with one item of positive SUBSTANCE about your candidate out of the other side of your mouth speaks volumes about you and the rest of the Obama supporters.
Comment by Nick — October 9, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Misha, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, very American, brought up since he was 10 by his very White grandparents. He has the trueness of being an American. No where in the world will his story be possible.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal. Although under US territory, I think we need to question whether he is a US citizen. Obama was born in this country, McCain in Panama. Shoot, go Schwartznegger. He might become the next president in 2016.
Comment by Suze — October 9, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Nick, go onto Obama's Web site, http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/economyplan
Barack's plan to bring about real change for our economy
$1,000 Tax Cut for Middle Class American Families
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families, because the economy needs to be revitalized from the bottom up, not the top down. Read more »
Energy Rebates
Obama and Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help pay for rising bills. Read more »
Create Jobs through Fair Trade
Obama and Biden believe that trade with foreign nations should create American jobs, not send them overseas. They will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security. Read more »
Create Five Million Green Jobs
Obama and Biden believe that we should invest in innovation, including manufacturing jobs in the growing clean energy market — freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil within a decade and creating five million green jobs. Read more »
New Jobs Through National Infrastructure Investment
Obama and Biden believe that rebuilding our highways, bridges, roads, ports, and air and train systems will create jobs, ensure safety, and bolster our long-term competitiveness. Read more »
Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs
Obama and Biden will increase federal support for research and technology, and promote innovation in our companies and universities so that American workers can lead the world in developing cutting-edge jobs and products. Read more »
Support Small Business
Obama and Biden will level the playing field by eliminating all capital gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses. Read more »
Labor
Obama and Biden will strengthen the ability of workers to organize for fair wages, health care, and secure pensions. Obama and Biden will fight for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama and Biden will ensure that labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama and Biden will also increase the minimum wage and make sure it remains a living wage year after year. Read more »
Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud
Obama and Biden will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders, make sure home-buyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners. Read more »
Address Predatory Credit Card Practices
Obama and Biden will establish a five-star rating system so that every consumer knows the risk involved in credit card borrowing. They will establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices. Read more »
Reform Bankruptcy Laws
Obama and Biden will reform our bankruptcy laws to protect working people, ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies, and require the disclosure of all pension investments. Read more »
Work/Family Balance
Obama and Biden will help working families by doubling funding for after-school programs, expand the Family Medical Leave Act, provide low-income families with a refundable tax credit to help with child-care expenses, and encourage flexible work schedules. Read more »
Sign up now and share your story:
Comment by Suze — October 9, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Nick, you complain that Obama supporters aren't saying what qualifies him to be president, yet I can't seem to find anything in your post that explains what qualifies McCain to be president. Hmm…what's the word I'm looking for…oh, here it is:
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function: noun
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Comment by Melissa — October 9, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
We no longer feel the need to defend Obama. Any questions you have on his policies can addressed by visiting his website.
Once McCain chose the Caribou Barbie as his running mate, that was the beginning of the end. The experience, celeb attacks were no longer valid.
Please enlighten us, how will McCain be different than Bush. Please spare us the climate change meme.
Comment by Theard — October 9, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Melissa,
Some of the things that qualify him:
-26 years in Congress
-A record of introducing important pieces of legislation and continuing to fight for them until passage like the campaign finance reform as one example (still waiting for ONE Obama example)
-A record of voting against pork barrel spending and advocating "clean" legislative bills
-A record of Military Service and understanding of our Military system and strengths and weaknesses unrivaled by many in our nation.
-A record of commanding in an executive role something other than a political campaign
-A record of advocating government reform, introducing legislation for government reform, and fighting even his own party for the principles of government reform so that corruption can be reduced and transparency is provided to the American People - by the way, that's who the government serves, not the other way around
-A record of strong understanding of international affairs and good judgment on international affairs of the US
-A record of honesty and forthrightness, to a fault in some instances and certainly HEAD AND SHOULDERS above most politicians
-A record for doing what he says he'll do and standing by his principles (contrasted to Obama's it becomes even MORE impressive)
-A record of supporting less taxes
-A record of supporting less and more efficient government spending
-A record of fighting for his principles not just for the party line
Obviously, he's not perfect and he has many places where he can be criticized and where he’s made mistakes, but he will admit those mistakes. And he is a politician so all of this comes with some qualification simply because of that. But at the end of the day, ALL of those things qualify him to be President, ESPECIALLY, when compared to Barack Obama.
Comment by Nick — October 9, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
I am sure that Melissa will answer you…but allow me to throw some volleys of my own:
Campaign finance reform: McCain takes advantage of loopholes.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/09/mccain_ads_are_hybrid_vehicles.html
What executive role has McCain held? I am assuming you are referring to his tenure in the navy?
On Honesty and Integrity:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
He supported the bailout package ladden with $150 billion of pork, so much for the earmark reformer.
He recently proposed another bailout of $300 billion to buy home mortgages but had to quickly change it after criticism from the right.
His behavior has been erratic and inconsistent-his first executive decision? He chose the Caribou Barbie, country first! Please!!
His own conservative colleagues have lambasted him openly and they fear that his campaign is inflicting irreperable harm to the GOP.
Comment by Theard — October 9, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Suze,
Thank you for posting that info. That's a change from all the negative McCain bashing and Palin bashing and avoidance of the issues that has gone on in most the previous 100 posts in the name of pointing out how raising questions about Obama and his record and judgements is somehow negative.
Now, among what you posted and what Obama supports, there are several good ideas (portions of the energy policy for instance), and stating a “green” vision for the future that in a sense is similar to Kennedy's man on the moon vision, and will spark economic growth and success through that.
At the same time, there are several bad ideas, not to mention positions that are completely contrary to his record, such as taxes. He's run before on a platform of a middle class tax cut, yet has never introduced legislation to support it once he was elected. In FACT, he's advocated letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which will INCREASE taxes on the Middle Class, for example, by $4500 for a person making $150K, when their tax rate goes up from the Bush reduced 28% back to the Obama advocated 31%. So a $1000 cut does not offset the $4500 increase that the "Middle Class" person will get hit with.
Furthermore, while the concept (however deceiving his REAL plan is) of taxing the middle class less is a great concept, the middle class isn't going to produce many jobs. Our (middle class – I am and am assuming you are) input into the economy is through consumption and being able to spend that money, and while that does lead to some job creation because of that increase in consumption demand, if you go and tax the job producing small and large business owners more, you will cause them to cut employees, and while those who keep their jobs may have an extra $1000 to spend, that impact will be offset by those who now are looking for work.
This is just one example. But my overall point was that the very thing Brent and others here are accusing McCain of is EXACTLY what they have been guilty of themselves, so while Melissa wants to say I'm a hypocrite, I think by definition, Brent clearly fits that definition much better.
What I'm advocating here and elsewhere is not partisan hack commentary, but a thorough vetting of Obama's AND McCain's policy proposals, calling on both of them to provide and detail them (not just give us sound bites) where they are light on substance, and a thorough examination of their characters and an honest discussion of their judgment, truthfulness, and shortcomings so that we can make an informed decision as voters.
I can point to two instances where character and judgment has come into play for McCain. One is his divorce and marriage to Cindy, and another is the Keating 5 scandal. While I don't condone and in fact take issue with McCain's judgment on both, he confronted them both head on, ADMITTED and TOOK RESPONSIBILITY for both lapses in judgment or weakness in character (however you want to characterize them), apologized for them where appropriate, and moved on pass them successfully because of that.
People want to characterize the questions about Obama's relationships with Ayers and Wright as faulting those who raise them saying they are raising some kind of racial issue, or some kind of personal attack, but it simply speaks to trying to understand the character of Barack Obama. He's ASKING to be PRESIDENT of our Country. With that in mind, he OWES us a FULL disclosure on these issues where his continued actions speak to his actual beliefs, NOTHING LESS. That disclosure needs to be to the level of OUR SATISFACTION, not just to the level he sees fit. When you want to hold the governmental position of President of the United States, and you associate with people who's positions are ANTI GOVERNMENT and ANTI UNITED STATES to the level of preaching that message or even the extremes of bombing buildings and leading to the deaths of innocent people, then YOU'VE opened yourself to those questions and analysis so you OWE a thorough and complete explanation of them so that you can be judged accordingly. His unwillingness to do as McCain did in the Keating 5 scandal and open himself up to thorough examination and pledge to answer all questions until there were no more questions, implies that he is unwilling to be honest and forthright. He has the power to end those questions by fully answering them. It’s his choice and until he does, it’s not the voter’s problem that we want answers, it’s his problem that he’s not providing them.
Comment by Nick — October 9, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Brent,very nice post.
The truth is in plain sight and most of our McCain backers here are so full of hate and prejudice they will not see it. I was not able to read through all of RR's diatribes because of the insane foolishness. Bush, McCain,Gramm and several other GOP's are this FIASCO. They are the embodiment of deregulations. How can you believe the exact opposite of what these crimminals have created? You people are just astounding!!! Ranting about a birth certificates and other such trivia. Does anyone really believe in this day and age a person could be the nominee for President of The U.S. on a fake birth certificate? How childish. Misha, Misha, Misha. Just as Palin can see Russia from her kitchen window, I can see you burning crosses and hanging nooses from all the limbs in your front yard. You are so vile in your hatred it is blinding you and sickening me. Your thoughts are of such filth they would probably repel soap. The fact that you would actually judge a person because of their name is disgusting. You are a small and insignificant waste of oxygen. Do you dare leave your house, thinking everyone that does not have the same skin as you wants to do you harm. Barrack Obama is probably the most vetted man on the planet. All of the GOP'rs on this sight appear SO desperate. Clinging on to a philosophy that has literally destroyed the finances of the entire planet. You remind me of a heroin addict that went from 180 lbs to 97 lbs and is now trying to convince me that heroin is good for your health. The national debt has gone from 5 TRILLION to 11 PLUS TRILLION in the past 7 years and not an EFFEN dime has gone to the infrastructure of this country. That's not counting the 700 plus BILLION that has gone literally up in smoke in Iraq. Everyone in this country, including you die-hard Republicans, has been ROBBED of all our treasury, our dignity, our trust and our FUTURES, just so a tiny few can amass a wealth that they couldn't spend in a thousand years. Then you praise them and worship them as something to aspire to. You are the pure definition of insane. How can you think that using one credit card to pay of another credit card that paid off another credit card is capitalism??? It's called fraud, and you GOP'rs fall for it hook line and SUNK US!!! Capitalism is when a tangible product is built or produced and then sold at a profit. Not creating an imaginary credit default swap and then betting no one will notice it is worthless. I hope you can look you grandchildren in the eye and explain to them why they are living under a collapsing bridge. You people have the moral fiber of diarrhea. If anyone of you is over forty, I dare you to go back thirty years into your life and tell me you have not spoken to, or have been in a room with someone that might or might not have done something that was or could be considered unscrupulous. The republicans of today are a truly disgusting bunch. You will not admit to a mistake even at the cost of your own children's futures. If a parent acted in the same manner as you GOP'rs, the athorities would have removed them from any contact with thier children. Then you would have been baker acted. Right now I can hear your little minds saying, "Masi, on this sight we don't call people names, we try to have an intelligent thoughtful debate" HOGWASH!! Nothing Misha, Rob Ros—- or JFK or any of you GOP'rs say is intelligent. You just repeat the lies of Hannity and Rush. I truly believe you have no concept of cause and effect. You can NOT see more than two weeks into the future. Your whole ideology is me me me first and the hell with everyone else. But everything you do has an effect on all around you. Let me put it this way, if you are standing in an enclosed area and keep releasing poison eventually you are going to die, even if that enclosed area is the size of the planet Earth. You people can't see the poison you are spewing but believe me, it's there. You remind me of the most esteemed and respected scientists of the middle ages. The ones that were so sure that maggots came from rotting meat. Today that rotting meat is our economy and your ideology are the maggots. Just like those maggots, when they are done with the rotten meat will get up and try to fly away. Today we are more intelligent than those scholars of yesteryear, and you have no where to fly.
Comment by Masi — October 9, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Masi,
So, is global warming the maggots, and people the rotten meat?…and who are the scientists? Are they the same scientists that today are so sure that global warming comes from man made activities? You might, just maybe, want to rethink your analogy…….
Comment by Nick — October 9, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Nick,
Well, at the risk of ruffling your feathers, Nick, I feel compelled to rip a few holes in your bulleted list….in the order that you have them written:
1. 26 years in Congress? Here's the argument of experience over change, although McCain seems to want to claim he's the candidate of change despite having been in Congress for 26 years! I don't find career politician status a necessary qualification. Experience can be good, but it can also lead to status quo.
2. Here are two examples: Obama co-sponsored a bill leading to expedition of information under the FOI act. He co-sponsored the bill that led to a public, online database to search recipients of federal funds. Both indicate that Obama is interested in government transparency and accountability.
3. Earmarks only account for $18 billion of the total budget, and they are not all wasteful expenditures. Some of them go towards necessary improvements of infrastructure, so it's pretty insincere to try to address this as a catch-all issue. Obama's other contributions to ethics and lobbying reform may be found here: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/
4. Military service does not qualify someone to be president.
5.What is McCain's executive experience? Being in charge of crashing military aircraft? Geeesh!
6. I've already addressed this above regarding Obama.
7. He has not shown good judgment of international affairs. His threat to "bomb bomb Iran" and later chastising Obama for suggesting he would, if need be, cross into Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden is not showing good judgment or a single standard. Claiming he'd throw Russia out of the G-8 is not demonstrating understanding or good judgment. He's repeatedly spoken against sending more troops into Afghanistan, the real front to the War on Terror. The list could go on and on and on….
8. Maybe you can put some white out over that part of his record where he was connected to Charles Keating.
9. Care to offer some specifics here?
10. If someone is repeatedly supporting tax cuts, and that leads to an increased debt, does that make the person's support of tax cuts a wise decision? I don't think so.
11. Obama, while not a lifer politician, has a similar record of transparency and elimination of wasteful spending.
12. Despite McCain's claim that Obama's never challenged his party, he did in fact side with regards to the ethics reform bill and helped to get enough support for its passage. That sounds like standing up to his party and for his principles to me.
FYI, I don't feel compelled to persuade you or anyone else on this blog to support Obama. Anyone who's made it this far on the Internet can just as easily visit Obama's (or McCain's for that matter) campaign or senate websites. You should not assume that, just because people here aren't actively trying to persuade you to vote for one candidate or another, we don't have valid reasons for supporting our candidate.
Comment by Melissa — October 9, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
Interesting note.
January 1, 2007 (the day Democrats regained control of Congress): DOW 12,474
October 9, 2008 (today): 8,579.19
Comment by Nick — October 9, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Brent: Just for your info, I am paying myself a penny a post. Soon I will have enough money to go to McDonalds and hit the dollar menu. Hooray!
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 9, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Masi,if Obama is the most vetted man on the planets, can you describe what subjects he took during his two years at Columbia or what his grades are? No you can't. That's right, the most vetted man is the only Presidential candidate in recent history not to have his academic records public this close to the election. Think about it Masi before you make other outrageous statements.
Comment by Igor R. — October 9, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
To all my wingnut friends;
I have a bet going on now. Beer and pizza if John McCain brings up Ayers to Obama's face. Any takers.
Comment by Mike Coleman — October 9, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Barrack was at the the top of his class. That means he had the best grades of anyone else. Does it matter if it was a 3.9 or a 4.0? I don't care what color his friggin underwear is either. Just what his potential is to be president. McCain was at the very bottom of his class. He was constantly being demoted for caricature unbecoming an officer. He was part of the problem with the saving and loan debacle but still insisted on deregulating other financial institutions KNOWING what the results would be. He was caught lying to Letterman about his "racing" to Washington to save the day but did absolutely squat when he got there.
He did change his story four times and then tried to take credit for the bailout results. The man is a putz. He cares about nothing but further enriching his multi billionaire friends at our expense. The man has NO HONOR. Why are you so blind to the facts that stare you in the face? Nick, are you trying to imply that this meltdown is the Democrats fault? This market has been declining from bursting bubble after bubble, dregulation after deregulation. The Congress has gotten nothing done because the Republicans have filibustered more than 80 times. More times than has been filibustered in the previous three years combined.
Comment by Masi — October 9, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
The past eight years have pretty much proven all the right wing myths false, and they just can't face it. Republicans don't shrink government. They don't cut spending. Tax cuts for the rich do not fix the economy. Corporations who receive tax cuts do not create jobs.
Shock and awe did not frighten terrorists into submission, and the people who supposedly only understand the language of violence have not discovered new-found respect for America now that we've pulled out our big guns.
It the sad attempt to avoid blame, they need to pretend that the last 8 years either never happened, or that they were powerless the entire time. They try to blame it all on events That took place 14 to 30 years ago.
Apparently the only people who can have any effect are Democrats, even when they're out of power. At least when things fail.
The funniest part is that these folk will likely thrive under the Obama administration as they thrived under the Clinton administration. Nothing like a nice, prominent target for your transferred hatreds and petty bigotries.
Comment by mkochinski — October 9, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
Melissa,
Thanks for your post and the info. I don't doubt that you have valid and hearfelt reasons to support Obama and it's good to see you can articulate them. However, there are still many of us who aren't sold on him yet.
My point has been that most here, Brent as the leader, haven't and instead have resorted to hemming, hollering and shrieking that anyone, especially the opposition candidate, who questions the qualifications and character of Obama based on legitimate issues that have bearing directly on his philosophies, character and may reveal insight into his truthfulness are going negative, personal, and now even racist. That's outrageous. We're not talking about whether or not he smoked pot in college.
You accuse me of being hypocritical, yet all I've been doing is trying to elevate the discussion to real topics and away from the vitriol and venom that Brent spews and incites others to follow with.
People like to say that McCain can't win if he talks about he economy so that's why he's rasing questions about Obama's experience, inconsistencies, and relationships with nefarious characters. But by being less than forthright and candid in answering the questions, it seems Obama is telling us that he can't win if he reveals the total truth about the relationships with Ayers and Rezco and the like.
The economy's in the crapper because of a joint effort between republicans AND democrats and to argue otherwise would prove nothing but pure partisanship. On one hand we have a politician we know just about everything about, who's been tested, who has tremendous government experience (perhaps too much as you offer), has tremendous military experience (you should review his record of experience as it is much more impressive than just getting shot down and surviving 5 yrs in POW camp), has a bent for reform, and a proven history of working in a bipartisan manner. On the other, we have a relattively very inexperienced politician, with limited goverment experience, with a history of working with some out of the mainstream questionable organizations, and associating with some very questionable characters, (one he characterizes as his mentor), but who talks a good game, but either doesn't have a whole lot of substance to back him up on the issues due to his inexperience, or has a back ground in direct conflict with some of his promises (as does McCain).
Now, if we're going to hand over the keys to the kingdom at a time where the economy is where it is, and the international picture is where it is, why would anyone object to having more information about each candidate rather than less. If you support Obama or McCain, why would you want to obscure ANY information about the candidate that could provide insight into his judgment, character or policy positions?
For someone who claims to deplore the partisanship of politics as his bio shows, Brent should be hemming and hollering and shrieking for Obama to come clean on all questions and revealing the weaknesses in his positions, just as we all should be doing for both candidates, not trying to insult and intimidate people for asking those questions, and not trying to sabotage our democratic process by declaring an election over a month before it happens, just so his candidate can win. His candidate should win based on his merits not on the Chicago-Style politics that seems to be represented here.
Comment by Nick — October 9, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Masi, he was not at the top of his class at Columbia. One of he very few things known about his graduation there is that he graduated without honors. I don't want to get into ten different subjects, I think he is a fairly intelligent guy. My point is that to say that he is very well vetted is an illusion. The whole primary process was a fight between him and Hillary, and how can she accuse him of say being a disciple of Saul Alinsky when Alinsky had been her mentor? How can she accuse him of being close to Rezko when Rezko had donated to her?
McCain is a wimp in terms of taking it to Obama. He doesn't like personally accusing people of being flawed, and which is a flaw for a Presidential candidate. That doesn't mean that Obama has been vetted. He is the most mysterious person in the history of Presidential elections, considering his connections with Odinga, Indonesia, Pakistan, Soros, and the whole Chicago contingent that the mainstream media has to be forced to mention only when Palin goes nuclear on him, and still it's kicking and screaming and turning AP into some sort of MediaMattersForObama.
Comment by Igor R. — October 9, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
mkochinski, just because Republicans screwed up in growing the government too fast, it's preposterous to suggest that Obama is the guy to solve that problem. The guy who even now with the economy collapsing is only willing to possibly admit that his "anti-poverty" boondoggle may be postponed. Obama is the spenders's spender. The analogy I like to use is this: if you can't fix your own TV that doesn't mean that some 10 year old neighbor kid would do it any better. Obama with his special talent for unflappability can stand there and claim that he will go over the Federal budget with a fine-toothed comb. Anybody but Axelrod buying this crap?
Comment by Igor R. — October 9, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Melissa,
One more thing in response to your #1 post on this thread and I'll leave it at that.
What's more deplorable or sick? That someone over whom McCain or Palin have no control came to see them speak at a rally and uttered racist or outlandish comments, which may or may not have been heard by the candidate and over which the candidate made no comment, or that Obama CHOSE to spend week after week for over a decade attending services and listening to sermons preached that contained that same kind of racist and outlandish hate speak, and considered the speaker of those words his mentor, and over which Obama made no comment until he was backed into a corner on it?
Comment by Nick — October 9, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
The simple fact is that all allegations into Obama's relationships with questionable characters have been raked over and proven to be baseless.
It has been covered time and again, from the primaries on. It takes considerable twisting of facts to smear Obama in this way, and a considerable ignoring of investigations. When article after article is pointed out explaining why there's no evidence here, the sources are decried as partisan.
(It's a neat trick that the right pulled, smearing every even slightly objective news source as biased, and allowing them instead to link to laughably partisan sources like National Review and Fox.)
As to the blame for the economy, indeed, both sides can be blamed. However - and here's the crucial difference - Republicans were enacting their policies when they caused this mess.
Democrats, by allowing or signing onto such things, were betraying their core values. And those values are that government has a place regulating business in some degree. Not always. But sometimes. Usually in the ones business tends to abuse.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that ANY regulation is too much regulation.
(This is not a false accusation, like the "nanny state" accusation conservatives love to pull out - that liberals want the government to take care of everything and everyone. This is the stated goal of many conservatives.)
This is why the blame falls on the Republicans. They were enacting their ideology. The Democrats, for whatever reasons they might have, were betraying theirs.
Placing blame where it lies is not partisan. The goal is NOT to be "fair" or "balanced" - it is to be accurate and objective. Not the same thing at all.
Comment by mkochinski — October 9, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Nick, in all the months of posting here I have NEVER seen a single Obama supporter criticize one thing about him (let them step up to the challenge and suggest he has not criticize McCain enough) except for Brent criticizing him once for being too obvious or too fast in moving to the center.
Hit on Brent's name on the left of your screen. Scan the titles. This exercise will put the Pravda headlines of old to shame. Even they spiced up the usual fare of "Imperialist Swine Murders Again" and "Record Wheat Harvest Achieved" with something different.
Comment by Igor R. — October 9, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
#116 Okay, here's my Ode to Brent…LOL
As I'm sure you've noticed, Brent is by and far the most popular pundit on this blog. I personally agree with many of his opinions and greatly appreciate his contributions. And, unlike some of the contributors here, he participates in the blog. This often results in abbreviated discussions as opposed to lengthy harangues. I don't believe I'm alone when I say his participation makes it much more interesting and fun.
Now, let's step back a moment and look at Brent's initial column. He was remarking on McCain and Palin's attempts to divert the public attention from the economy and other issues weighing heavily on people's minds these days. One of McCain's advisors even admitted that it was a campaign tactic. Brent wrote in response to the negative campaign tactics being perpetuated by McCain/Palin–politics of fear and division that has even escalated to inciting hatred. But you seem to have a problem with Brent discussing his observation and reaction. It's akin to police arriving at the scene of a crime and arresting a distressed witness while the criminal smiles and walks away from the scene.
Come to think of it, I can't say that I've ever seen you attempt to hold any other blog contributor ("leader") here to the standard which you are applying to Brent. Have you? This suggests, to me, that you perhaps have an agenda or bias of your own. Can you point me to a post in which you called on John Feehery to "elevate the discussion to real topics"? I'd like to see it.
You claim that Brent "spews venom", but I have yet to see you denounce the venom to which he was reacting. Do you support a vice presidential candidate encouraging people to meet the media with hostility and yell out racial slurs? Do you agree with a candidate standing by as audience members are yelling out "Kill him!" or "Off with his head!"? I haven't heard a peep of outrage from you over that. Instead, you're imagining "hollering and shrieking" on a blog.
It is this double standard I see you applying that earned you the "H" label. You wrote an entire post complaining that Obama supporters weren't explaining why they support him without once mentioning why you supported your own candidate. Now you are accusing others of "obscuring" information. Where? Have you been censored? What's being obscured, and how is Brent to blame?
Lastly, I think it's ironic that you believe Brent is "trying to sabotage our democratic process" by exercising his right to freedom of speech. Before you continue heckling Brent, I believe you have a lot of other blogging to do with Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, David Brooks, etc… because all are seemingly guilty of "declaring an election over a month before it happens, just so [their] candidate can win." You better check in with Kathleen Parker, too, because just yesterday she tried to "obscure" the hatred being promoted by Team McCain. When you're done replying to them, can you kindly post the links? Thank you.
Comment by Melissa — October 9, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Nick,
Oh dear. You may want to add this one to your list of people to contact for trying to sabotage the democratic process. Not only does this man claim it's "unlikely" McCain stands a chance, but he seems to be calling elections all over the place.
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2008/10/for-republicans-another-blood-bath.html
Comment by Melissa — October 9, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
Suze, #100
If you say that Barack Hussein Obama born to a black Arab father with Marxist twists who impregnated a stupid white girl in Hawaii is "very American" and John McCain born to a Navy Admiral in a US Military base is not a US Citizen, you need to have your head examined.
Just wait a bit and with free health care Barack will offer you, that exam would confirm there is vacuum inside.
Comment by Misha — October 10, 2008 @ 12:31 am
Barack looks like a president, cool in a crisis
and calm in a story, a serious man for serious
times and a thoughtful and competent man in a
crisis. McCain looks angry, unstable and
confused about the economy his rallies are
starting to look like Germany in the 1930's
with angry McCain people calling for Barack
to be killed and screaming on television with
anger and rage. People aint gonna vote for
this, it's repulsive and obnoxious to voters
at a time they want cool and calm and serious
like Barack. Just look our Republicans on
this site. They look like anger cases at the
asylum in need of treatment, not votes, which
is exactly McCain's problem.
Comment by Brent — October 10, 2008 @ 7:04 am
Misha you now reach a state of unadulterated
pure racism. I dare to you to post your
real name and if I find out that you have
any formal relationship with anyone in the
Republican party I will make you famous for posting racist garbage like that. I dare
you, post your real name.
Comment by Brent — October 10, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Tick, tick, tick, etc.
I'm STILL waiting on one of the lunatics to tell us about their superior morals and the evils of marital infidelity.
Maybe we can get ole Songbird to lecture us about that stuff since the fruitcake posters on this board obviously approve.
Comment by rightistrash — October 10, 2008 @ 9:44 am
fyi brent - misha's real name is jeremiah wright
Comment by lindagirl — October 10, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Igor wrote:
mkochinski, just because Republicans screwed up in growing the government too fast, it's preposterous to suggest that Obama is the guy to solve that problem.
Well, Igor, there are realistically only two alternatives. Given that the Republicans screwed it up, I'm happy to give Democrats a chance.
From what I remember, they did a pretty good job last time they controlled the White House.
Comment by mkochinski — October 10, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
It's funny, too, how conservatives can abandon their supposed principles with such speed and skill.
Republicans screwed up in growing the government "too fast."
I thought Republicans were against growing the government. I thought that was one of the great crimes of government.
Now I see it's just a matter of how FAST we were growing it.
Apparently, if Democrats grow the government "too fast", even without breaking the economy, they need to be thrown out of office.
But Republicans who grow the government "too fast" should be given a second chance.
Even when they screw up the economy and yet reduce services, abandon infrastructure and attempt to dismantle public safety nets.
Those goalposts just keep moving.
Comment by mkochinski — October 10, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Thanks LInda, Jeremiah Misha! Barack's lead
is cementing. Gallup has Barack up 10 but
more important, other polls that had McCain
closer are widening today and state polls are
confirming. Barack's real lead is probably
7-8 which is a lot in this campaign this late.
Remember early and absentee voting is well
underway and Barack is picking up a pile of
early voting while he's going gangbusters.
With early voting this year so much higher
than previous elections, this is a big plus.
The McCain-Palin hate campaign is turning
people off, big time, with the economy. Why
McCain does it, is beyond me, but he is just
destroying his own campaign and Democrats
now have a real shot of ending up with 57-60
Democratic Senators. Keep the dirt flowing,
Republicans, it's landing on McCain!
Comment by Brent — October 10, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Fox poll
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/101008_foxpoll.pdf
Check out the internals..lol
The Ayers issue is backfiring.
Comment by Theard — October 10, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Brent,
Just wondering when Obama is going to start talking about the economy and his detailed plan for getting this thing turned around. Or is his plan to continue to do his Dr. Phil impression and just tell us how he understands our pain and to keep telling us about "the guys in the neighborhood."
I'm pretty sure, but you can confirm for me with your London School of Economics degree, that giving me $1000 in tax cuts with one hand while he sneaks in my wallet for $4500 more in taxes from me with his other hand isn't going to solve the credit crisis or stop the slide on Wall Street.
You keep telling us how "Presidential" ol' Barry looks, but unless you're looking for the early pick for this year's Oscars, looking Presidential ain't much of an accomplishment. Heck, Arianna Huffington was just as convinced that her ex-husband "looked" heterosexual. You might want to get with her and see how important those appearances are. Besides, it's gonna be hard to keep looking Presidential while Pelosi and Reid have their hand up the back of his shirt orchestrating his every move and walking all over him.
I guess that's what old Harry meant when he said the "war was lost". He must've just been predicting a win for Barry knowing that he could help secure the loss that Reid so desparately wants. I bet your high ranking military buddies were just thrilled with your buddy Harry for his help.
Comment by Nick — October 10, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Nick, no one every said Obama would give you $1000 in tax breaks while stealing $4500 from your wallet.
Why do conservatives have to lie to attack their opponents?
Because the truth isn't on their side.
I notice that Bush's plan was to take 700 billion from the tax payers - way more than $4500 - and seems to have accomplished nothing. Obama backed this plan, it's been approved - where's the action being taken?
What are they waiting for?
Directly from Obama's site, the plan is as follows:
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families
Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families
Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000
Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans:
Try reading. You'll embarrass yourself in public less.
Comment by mkochinski — October 10, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
# 131 Brent
Your eye is so focused on the finished line, you are missing the forest for the trees. Fast forward into the future and paint us your perspective. Enlighten us dear wise one.
Hava a Jack D. on me !
: )
Comment by JFK-HRC — October 10, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
mkochinski,
You're showing your ignorance. Maybe you should revisit your understanding of Obama's tax plan, and I'm even cutting him the benefit of the doubt. From his own website, he indicates that a couple making $90K will get a $1000 tax cut. Presumably, since he wants to give more to those who make less, I'll get less than $1000 since we make around $150K. What he doesn't advertise though is that he'll let the Bush tax cuts expire in two years, and would likely look to rescind them earlier if he can since he'll have a Democratic Congress. So my tax rate will go from 28% to 31%, meaning that I'll pay $4500 MORE in taxes. So instead of being quick to accuse me of lying, perhaps you should look at the record and content of the policies of your candidate, instead of just drinking the koolaid thatthe press and his campaign is serving you.
Comment by Nick — October 10, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
mkochinski,
By the way, if Bush's plan was $700B, then guess what, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, and Reid's plan made it $810B and ultimately much much more. Again, you might want to read up on the facts the events and campaigns going on, not just one sides talking points.
Comment by Nick — October 10, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
As a purely political matter McCain strategy
of total negativity, his hate rallies, his
his hate Barack ads, is the dumbest move I
have ever seen in a presidential candidate.
Now Newsweek has Barack ahead by more than
10. What McCain needs to do, is give people
a reason to vote for McCain but he does not
even try. He is reduced to 100% negativity,
literally with rallies that degenerate into
hate, and with ads that say nothing about
McCain at all, 100% negative. The more he
does this the further behind he falls. Even
on this site, his accolytes dont even try to
tell us how McCain would be a good president.
They literally dont even try. It is incredible
and destructive to McCain. He is running the
worst campaign in history, supported by the
hate crowd that does not even pretend to give
reasons why he would make a good president.
Just look at this site! It's as bad as the
McCain campaign. Who would vote for this?
Comment by Brent — October 11, 2008 @ 7:09 am
On Finance
I just heard this AM that last years bonus's for the financial fatcats came to $98 billion.
Again, I propse the government go back 5-years and get all that money back from those crooks. $98B is about 1/7 of the $700B they had no problem extracting from our investments.
Once we get the money back, put the bums in jail, and take over their mansions, for the little people!
Comment by JFK-HRC — October 11, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Uh Oh! Looks like instead of aligning himself with and championing the cause of Harry "the war is lost" Reid, and trying to do everything he can to help Reid get the defeat of the US that he so terribly wants, Barry might have to rethink his Bush and McCain bashing and realize that now, not just Libya, but now even North Korea has decided to give up challenging the International Community and is going to allow as the AP phrased it "EVERY inspection demand sought by the Bush Administration". WOW! Another terrorist Country off the list.
Looks like Obama should probably just refuse to talk at all about international policy and how he would unconditionally meet with the likes of Kim Jong Il, as all it does is emphasize how naive and without a clue he is in that arena. Better for him to follow the old addage that it's better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt. Better that he just keep up his pesonal attacks on McCain and his age, and mocking him for putting his Country first. Perhaps, on second thought, it would be better for the Country if Obama quit whining about how people are asking him questions, and instead answer the questions.
His naive and
personal attacks against McCain and Bush about international policy keep backfiring, and frankly, if he wins, based on what he's said, it appears as though he's trying to set us up to lose in Iraq just to spite the positive progress that has been made and to help support the unteneble political positions he's taken on foreign policy. I guess for him though, he's got now worries. If he wins, he'll be able to blame all the mistakes he makes on George Bush and John McCain.
Comment by Nick — October 11, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
#140 Nick? "Obama should just refuse to talk about foreign policy at all"? Is this the same Nick who also said, "Why would you want to obscure ANY information about the candidate that could provide insight into his judgment, character or policy positions?"??? WOW! It looks like Nick is having trouble hiding his agenda again.
But let's look at what you're hemming and hawing about with regards to North Korea, Nick. You seem to be tying McCain and Bush together over North Korea, but is that really the case? Umm, no, it isn't. It seems that McCain thinks Bush's negotiations=appeasement.
"A Bush administration plan to remove North Korea from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism is stoking the ire of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, even before its anticipated announcement this weekend."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/10/mccain-slams-plan-to-change-north-koreas-status/
Imagine that–John McCain, angry about something! LOL
So as not to "obscure" anything, Nick, here's a link to both candidate's responses:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iAZuPBspUc9bfdYQDKPjoHOpLSJgD93ODL2O1
As I see it, the problem here isn't that Obama should "refuse to talk at all", but that Nick should get his facts straight before he types. WOW! It could prevent future embarrassing moments for you.
Comment by Melissa — October 11, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Listening to the mainstream media these last few days I've learned a few things about the GOP's VP nominee but also had to learn a few things on my own. To wit:
1. From the media I learned Sarah Palin's husband has a DUI conviction from 22 years ago. On my own I learned that Ted Kennedy (hero of last week's tribute at the DNC) was drunk while driving a car off a bridge in Chappaquiddick. That same crash killed a young campaign volunteer with whom he was having an affair. Oh, and that woman was pregnant with his child.
* Mr. Palin's (who is not running for office) DUI came a mere 4 years after Barack Obama (who is running for president) stopped using cocaine and marijuana (by his own admission in his autobiography).
Shocking - it's OK for the presidential candidate to use drugs or the party patriarch to kill someone while driving drunk yet the husband of a VP candidate should be demonized for something done 22 years ago.
2. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant.
* On my own I learned that Joe Biden's (the other VP candidate) son was paid a large amount of money as a consultant to credit card company MBNA.
That same company had business before Senator Joe Biden concerning regulation of consumer credit practices. After the company paid a hefty sum to Mr. Biden's son, he voted in favor of legislation to help that company.
* That same son, Hunter, is also engaged in a legal investigation and suit for defrauding a former business partner
Shocking - it's a crime for the republican VP candidate to have a child who's pregnant even though it's irrelevant to how she performs her job. It's ok, however, for the democrat VP candidate while a senator to vote in favor of a company who paid his son over a quarter of a million dollars.
3. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin should be considered 'selfish' for agreeing to run for VP knowing about her daughter's condition. Knowing that her public role would bring extra scrutiny on the family is selfish and she should have declined to protect her child (actually heard this on ABC this weekend).
Strange - the same people who said Sarah is selfish for running for VP did not seem to care about any impact on Chelsea when Bill Clint on had his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. That was a private, personal matter you see.
4. From the media I have learned to be 'concerned' that Sarah Palin probably won't be able to manage her family and do an effective job of being VP at the same time.
Funny - I never heard anything about Hillary's ability to support Chelsea while re-doing healthcare or any of the other feminist icons who say you can balance work and family. They also never mention that Barack will have to balance time with his children while meeting with heads of rogue nations or how Joe Biden's kids don't even have a mom and will be fighting for his time while he hosts white house coffee fundraisers and sells nights in the Lincoln bedroom.
5. From the media I have learned that Sarah Palin is 'too inexperienced' to be a heartbeat-away from the presidency.
* Apparently taking on corruption in your own party and running a state that's the same size people-wise as Delaware (hint hint: that's where Joe Biden is from) is not really experience.
* However, time spent as a 'community organizer' and less than 180 days in the senate where you've authored no significant legislation is just the type of 'change' we're looking for from the top of the ticket.
Funny - inexperience at the top of the ticket is a mantra for 'change' and 'hope' while strong practical everyday experience as the #2 is cause for concern.
6. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin's husband once got a ticket for fishing without a license.
* I haven't heard much about the fact that if he were still a practicing attorney, the VP candidate Joe Biden would be dis-barred for plagiarism not once but multiple times.
It's ok to break the rules if you're a democrat candidate but not Ok if you are the spouse of a republican candidate.
7. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin doesn't know much about Iraq ; in fact we wonder if she even knows where it is.
* Sarah's son volunteered into the US military and is now deployed in Iraq . I guess that doesn't count.
Sarah has spent more time with troops in Iraq (as commander of the Alaska National Guard she visited Iraq last year) than Obama has even while running for president. In fact, when Sarah went to Iraq she spent time with the troops. When Obama went there, he skipped a base visit to instead go work out at the Ritz Carlton.
8. From the media I learned that Sarah Palin is a 'lightweight' and she better be a 'quick study' to keep up with this team.
Funny, nobody is talking about how, after Barack Obama had 'visited 57 states' accord ing to him he only had '5 more to go' or endless other stupid gaffes that expose who he really is.
9. From the media I have learned that (gasp!), Sarah Palin's husband was once a registered member of a 3rd party that favored states' rights (man, this is really bad stuff).
* That same media has been silent to the story that when Barack Obama announced his first senate run, he did so in the home of William Ayers. Mr. Ayers is an un-repentant terrorist convicted for bombing the pentagon.
This same Mr. Ayers said on 9/11 that he and his group did not do enough to harm our military and he wished he had done more. During the same time as that comment, he was serving on a board with Barack Obama. All notes and information about their serving together is now locked up by the corrupt Chicago machine and reporter access to those records are being blocked by the Obama campaign.
If we've had any doubts about the bias of the media, it's pretty clear now where they stand. Pass this on to some of your friends who are on the fence and who get all their information from Katie Couric, Wolf Blitzer, Tom Brokaw and the gang. This is egregious and corrupt. The only way to stop it is to spread information using other outlets and make these guys irrelevant.
Comment by FrankSeville — October 11, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
BTW Harry Reid is sitting in the catbird
seat. I see Georgia is now even for the
Senate, N Carolina now tilting Democrat,
Minnesota tilting Democrat, these are all
Senate seats I never counted for Democrats.
Bombs away McCain could take down the whole
Republican show in Congress. Even Mitch
McConnell is only ahead by 5 or 6 and should
win, but isn't going to sleep very well until
the election. Democrats have a real shot at
high 50's in the Senate. Harry Reid is the
maestro of Senate elections! Our Republican
delegation here will be saluting the Senator
from Nevada on election day when he raises
his arm in triumph as the Senate results
come in!! Meanwhile I've seen at least three
major polls now showing Barack up by 9 to 11,
Newsweek, hotline and gallup. The noose is
tightening on Republicans. Will we have an
election night photo of Barack, the Speaker
and Harry in triumph? Will Robert, Igor,
Misha, HRC_Bush and our GOP delegation fade
joint a toast for Barack, Harry and Nancy?
Comment by Brent — October 11, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Meanwhile..
10/11: Gallup Pres-Tracker: Obama 51%, McCain 42% LOL!!
10/11: Rasmussen Pres-Tracker: Obama 52%, McCain 45% LOL!!
10/11: Res. 2000 Pres-Tracker: Obama 52%, McCain 40% LOL!!
10/11: Zogby Pres-Tracker: Obama 48%, McCain 44% no surprise there, no ones follows Zogby anymore…
Comment by Theard — October 11, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
FrankSeville, I find the "firewall" that the MSM has creating around any negative information about Obama truly breathtaking. On conservative blog sites, they sometimes extract some MSM clip that even talks about the allegations about ACORN as a "man bites dog" example. The comments are usually "how long will the correspondent keep his job?". I was asked earlier today by someone who got a random chain mail about Obama's birth certificate, and explained that there is a Berg lawsuit on the subject. He was amazed that he never heard or read about it. Berg is a fairly prominent guy, so regardless of the merits you would think that SOMEWHERE in the media this would be mentioned, but of course it's not.
For anyone wathc the CNN coverage after the last debate, it was an orgy of "now it's certain McCain will lose" only punctuated only by a very occasional "if Obama loses because of race there will be trouble".
I have never believed in conspiracy theories, and I don't believe the media behavior is a conspiracy because they've always behaved this way. I'm starting to believe though that the timing of the credit and stock market collapse one month before the election is not purely accidental. The fundamentals were there (totally Democrat-induced, although that's another story), but I question the timing.
Comment by Igor R. — October 11, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Now Republicans from around the country are
criticizing McCain and his abysmal negativity
and failure to intelligently discuss the
economy. This is what Republicans are starting
to say publicly and I know many of them have
believed it privately for the last three weeks.
The rats are deserting the shinking ship, they
know McCain and Palin are starting to take down
Republicans in Congress and state campaigns.
There is the whiff of landslide in the air
and we could have a debacle for Republicans in
the Senate. The Republicans should have spoken
out against the McCain smear campaigns far
earlier and they will pay the price for not
doing so. Though now, every day will bring
more news of Republicans criticizng McCain
and his campaign as the noose tightens.
Comment by Brent — October 12, 2008 @ 8:33 am
#145 Frank's post is an outdated Republican spam email from last month, Igor. Didn't it already look vaguely familiar to you?
I love the rationalization and excuse-making. "It's MSM's fault." "Obama will win because the vote is rigged." "Obama's birth certificate could be my best friend yet." "The Democrats timed the economic crisis to help Obama win." LOL
McCain is set to lose for one reason and one reason alone– He's had no strategy. He's relied on gimmicks and tactics, but they have been useless without a greater strategy. He's done nothing to show people he has a plan that will offer them security and stability in uncertain times. Instead, he's made impulsive, rash decisions that caused even those who once admired him to question his judgment.
You'd think a military man like McCain would understand all this, especially since he accused Obama in the first debate of not understanding the difference between tactic and strategy. After employing tactics to win a few minor battles, his campaign will flail its arms around for several more weeks and lose the war.
Comment by Melissa — October 12, 2008 @ 9:00 am
"Obama will win because the vote is rigged."
Sounds so familiar to:
"Obama may lose because of the Bradley effect."
or the discussion on race:
"Obama may lose up to 6% of votes because ultimately whites won't vote for a black man."
you never hear a peep about the fact that:
"95% of blacks will vote for Obama, more than half simply because he's black and they identify with that."
When Obama loses, just watch all the excuses and apologists that will come out and blame racism, negative campainging, sabotage, voter fraud, etc. etc., instead of how the man speaks completely in generalities, never specifics, never tells the truth about his record, tells you things that aren't accurate about his past, his present, or even true about his plans moving forward. Over the last three weeks of this election cycle, in the midst of the current economic turmoil, people will tire of a man who has no specific ideas, who speaks completely in idealistic genaralities, and will never answer a specific question with a specific answer, instead, always resorting to a canned stump speech or soundbite, or attack on his oppenents for actually questioning his record. He'll have no one else to blame but himself, though he and everyone will try desparately to blame his loss on racism, attack politics, fraud, etc. In the end though, all of those allegations will apply only to the man in his mirror.
Comment by FrankSeville — October 12, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Melissa, indeed McCain has not only no strategy, he doesn't have a consistent belief system so his tactics look inconsistent. And yet had the Lehman collapse and the nightmare that followed it didn't happen, the polls would be about even today.
Comment by Igor R. — October 12, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
"Over the last three weeks of this election cycle, in the midst of the current economic turmoil, people will tire of a man who has no specific ideas, who speaks completely in idealistic genaralities, and will never answer a specific question with a specific answer, instead, always resorting to a canned stump speech or soundbite, or attack on his oppenents for actually questioning his record"
Frankie. Are you sure you are not talking about McCain?
Comment by Theard — October 12, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
#150 There are a lot of "what ifs" you could theorize. What if McCain had selected i.e. Romney instead of a half-baked bumpkin from Alaska? That would've given him a much better leg up on economic policy, no? But that's long-term planning and not short-term "shock and awe" gimmicks of which his campaign is so fond.
The forecast is looking pretty dismal for Republicans. Their party is in complete disarray, and it's going to take some time to try to rebrand that image.
Comment by Melissa — October 12, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Melissa, it is in disarray, but I think you and many others may be overestimating to what degree Obama is viewed as acceptable.
Comment by Igor R. — October 13, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Yep..McCain is campaigning today in VA and NC
Comment by Theard — October 13, 2008 @ 1:20 pm