Nightwing

Oh, hell yes, I know. I live less than half an hour away from a GM plant that is closing before the end of the year, and that closure could affect as many as between 5,000-10,000 local jobs, depending on who you listen to (numbers are including local suppliers that are closing, and other service industries). One of my best friends was already laid off from there. The thing is, this is already happening. I don't know if a ton of money from the government is necessarily going to guarantee any kind of long term solution. For this industry? I'd say yes. You think it's happening, but it's not yet. 3,000,000 jobs PERMANENTLY lost in the US alone has not happened yet, not to mention possibly more on the way. Even if the foreign automakers expand 20% like the articles says they do, that's still an 80% loss on the market. We are talking the loss of a massive amount of business that the US has never seen before. To let the auto industry fail would be foolish and dangerous; Obama understands this and that's why he's pushing hard to get something through. And just to say: People are harsh on the Auto Industry for making these trucks and SUVs, but you should remember that the people wanted them. They bought them, they demanded bigger, flashier stuff, and the Big 3 were happy to oblige. They've been trying to make changes, but it doesn't help that Bush has given the entirety of Michigan the cold shoulder after we gave him the finger back in 2000.

Do you even know what you're talking about? Even if they've moved some of their production out of the country, they still have dozens of suppliers here in the US along with a sizeable employee base still in the US. Letting them go under would be much worse for the economy, because you'd be killing the dozens of suppliers they hold up but don't own. The Auto industry is starting to catch up, but the problem is that they've had no government assistance at all in the last 8 years (I'm not counting "boosting car loans", since that barely addresses the problems. That is a band-aid on a bullet wound). Bush's first meeting with them was last year, and lasted all of 30 minutes. I agree on better gas efficiency (I don't know where you've heard your rumor from, but it's simply not possible for the auto industry to just "start" making gas-guzzlers at the drop of a hat, when it's only been all of two months with low gas) and such, but they need some actual assistance. At the very least, their package more directly helps the people than the bailout to AIG did. The last estimate I've seen in the paper, 3 million jobs would be lost in the first year. But hey, who knows what an American car is anyways, right?

I don't know if that speaks worse of Bush, or better of Rove. The statement I suppose could be taken a variety of different ways. But why put her in the Senate? I'd wager she'll be Obama's direct-line into the Senate, as a way to keep a handle on Reid. I can certainly understand why he might want to have at least one person who he can trust to represent his interests in the Senate. I don't have much of an opinion on it, just as I don't have much of an opinion on Palin becoming Senator of Alaska (Which, in all honesty, might open her eyes to the world below the Sub-Arctic Circle).

I love their characters constantly breaking character. "Dude, it's 1776! We can just kill him and take his stuff and no one will care!"

I was mainly referring to the "Western Individualism" becoming "Southern-Fried Moralism", but I was simply trying to quote everything. I still agree with quote.

EFA Seriously. The question of what's going to happen with the Republican Party came up in my National Security Policy class Wednesday. My take was that, while I would prefer to see the Republican Party become a socially moderate to liberal, fiscally conservative libertarian type party (since I loathe social conservatism, but am at least sympathetic to fiscal conservatism), I simply don't think that's going to happen. The party is becoming increasingly Southern and increasingly hard right. The only region of the country that McCain won was the South--Obama easily won the Northeast obviously, but also pretty handily won the West and Midwest--and the South is not the place where a libertarian message is going to be successful. Furthermore, most GOP moderates in Congress have been picked off by Democrats in the last two elections. So I see the party moving further to a more Mike Huckabee-esque direction as I don't think there's much of a market for fiscal conservatism. People may like the idea of low government spending in the abstract, but when you talk about actually cutting entitlements or the military budget, the two biggest components of federal spending, you're generally not going to get very far. The Economist agreed with your assessment when they endorsed Obama. I believe their quote (Which resonated greatly with me) was "when did the Western Individualism of Reagan's movement get replaced with Southern-fried Moralism?"

The same context wasn't applied to McCain's voting record, was it? Panthermatt still rarely posts anything other than tu quoques. I know. I'm disagreeing, so I'm obviously intellectually inferior. Way to prove him right, man. Wow.

*sigh* That's not the reason. The reason for Republicans' speaking out against Obama is his VOTING RECORD, or at least, what little he has. As much as the campaign made a big deal out of McCain voting with his party's president 90% of the time... imagine that... a party voting the same way...... he voted Democratic literally 100% of the time. That's not hope, change OR working together. It's just a neatly packaged partisan using catchphrases that our younger generations, and apparently you, fall for like dominoes. ... You didn't even conflict with what he was talking about. He said there was no chance that he could pick up those voters, and lists off three things he could do which would be good for everyone, regardless of party (Raising the dollar, turning the economy around, peace in the Middle East), wouldn't be enough to convince these voters. To an extent, I believe he's right: We are talking about people who are firmly looking to continue the culture war (Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc), so these issues wouldn't change their view on him. And that's a jack-ass statement on Obama's campaign. Sure, it was brilliantly packaged, but he has substance, and (like it or not) most people do want more Democratic changes right now. If you want to whine about something, whine about the "Campaign of Hate" McCain ran, which centered around making Obama not seem like a "good" American, branding him a socialist, extremist, and anti-American. There are stupid people who didn't know what he was running on, but there were plenty of people who were informed about what his policies were. Acting like McCain got beat just because of the shiny wrapping paper is inane: he got beaten by his own campaign, solutions that hadn't been working (Deregulation, anyone?), and trying to win with a shrinking base rather than the growing number of independents. Falling like dominoes, my ass. Pushed over a cliff into the Obama camp is more like it.

Obama had a stand on the issues? Wow, not like we haven't heard that one before. It's not like there's this website that you could go to, or the numerous debates you could have watched, or dozens of other things you could have discerned his view on the issues. But hey, what am I to say? The Republicans' campaign of "OMG SOCIALIST!" was so much more issue-based.

I think you are taking this whole reaction the completely wrong way.

Wow, Vidal has been hitting the drink, hasn't he? I mean, he sounds completely BLITZED.

I disagree with the assessment. I think the battle in the Republican Party is going to come down between secular vs. evangelical, as well as intellectual vs. populist. It's not a moderation thing as much as the two want to really go into two different directions with the party, which caused the big split on Palin during the election. It wasn't just the moderates leaving the party during this election, it was the thinkers that didn't want anything to do with an idiot like Palin.

Upon rewatching the Daily Show coverage (since I missed most of it), I have to say that it was pretty funny. Stewart has been getting better after reaching sort of a low point with me during Bush's second term (His Bush impression just never gets a laugh out of me), and Colbert's expression of disbelief after getting his show stolen was hilarious.

Stevens only has a 5,000 vote lead. I don't see that holding up.

Obama is apparently only 400 votes behind in Missouri right now.

Yeah. I'm going to stay up to watch the end of that race. By the by, Proposition 1 (Allowing Medical Marijuana) and Proposition 2 (Allowing Stem Cell Research) have passed in Michigan. Prop 2 is especially good, since Michigan is a big leader in the medical and biotech fields.

OMG PEOPLE ARE RIOTING IN THE STREETS!!!! Well, it's more of a peaceful riot, with a lot more dancing and hugging than car tipping, but still. RIOTING!!!

Goshdarnit, people like him.

Sort of like people predicting Bush turning America into a theocracy and suspending democratic elections, Jingus?

When do we get our jetpacks and flying cars? Do they come in the mail, or do we have to pick them up?

The real John McCain has reappeared again. Thank God for that.

Let the unreality begin!!

DO YOU BELIEVE IN MOST LIKELY SCENARIOS?! YES!

Fox has projected New Mexico as well as all the other states that CNN has called. Man, it's just getting worse for McCain. I honestly feel bad for him; I really like him as a man and as a politician up until about 2 years ago. If only he had made it to the General Election in 2000...

Down goes McCain! Down goes McCain! Down goes McCain![/Howard Cosell]