SuperJerk

Do you think that happened a lot?

I think I love you.

Bob Barron is part Jewish. Czech Republic is part, too. Put them both together... ...What a nerdy fucking Jew!

There was a pretty good later episode of The West Wing called "The Mommy Problem" where the campaign manager for the Democratic nominee laid out exactly how and why elections are won or lost at the presidential level. Basically, he said, that elections aren't about competing answers to the same question, but control of the question itself. If the question is national security, the Republicans win. If the question is economics, the Democrats win. All issues fit into 3 categories: security, economics, and trivia (stories beyond the campaign's control that get lots of press attention). Democratic campaigns have to fight to keep the focus on economics, or they lose every time. I think the theory is sound because since the start of the Great Depression, the only Republican that I've ever seen win by running on economic issues was Ronald Reagan, but he still had the Iran hostage crisis and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan to run against. If the Cold War hadn't ended in 1991, I don't think Bill Clinton could have gotten elected.

Abortions considered a winning issue? Because in her Couric interview, Palin was really trying to play down her abortion views. The "choose life" catchphrase she uses makes it sound like she's actually in favor of the choice part.

I enjoy the show, but it doesn't seem as enjoyable as last year. I really disliked the episode about the nuclear reactor, and the stories don't feel like they're going anywhere and the plots aren't particularly that different from week to week.

Anyone else think the subtitle of this thread should be "Can't Be Wrong"?

Thanks for reposting this...I think most people missed it when I posted it a few days ago. Some of the people at first seem very reasonable, but the further along it goes, more people sound like idiots. The "sir, your point right there" chick seemed kind of...drunk. She made no sense and then acted like she'd just destroyed all liberal logic, ever.

That was kind of a damned if you don't moment for him. Still, as much as I dislike the Republican Party, I'd rather live in a country with them in charge than live in another country. I prefer the Democrats, but its not like there haven't been Republicans that did a good job in office. I get the impression, especially after seeing clips of the Hannity interview with McCain and Palin this week, that Palin hadn't even heard of the Weathermen until recently. Here's another controversy: The AP looks at Palin's history of using her offices to promote religious activities. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_...hurch_and_state Not THAT big of a deal since she's technically allowed to charge the taxpayers for ANY travel and lodging expenses (such as staying in her own home, which she has done), but I don't think she is allowed to do this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_...hurch_and_state

The conservative pundits and the McCain campaign have created a monster they are quickly losing control of.

Reports: Chrysler, GM discuss merger, acquisition http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_...er_merger_talks I predict an upswing in the number of trucks with decals of Calvin urinating on a Ford logo if this happens.

FactCeck.org has an article up about McCain's use of the Bill Ayers "controversy": http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he...bill_ayers.html Andrew Romano of Newsweek also has an excellent take on it: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arc...nformation.aspx

Maybe because you told him you were looking for a splitter instead of a switcher?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/o...s-on-bush-deal/ First of all, you gotta love the Washington Times for running a headline that they couldn't support in the text of the actual story. The article itself is actually fair and well-written, despite the biased headline. Second, Sarah Palin's already running with this, claiming that if Obama did this, he was putting his political ambition above his country, though I'm not sure if she explained exactly how Obama would gain politically by either reminding the Iraqis that an agreement would require Congressional approval (something also noted by Republican senators), or by keeping an agreement from being reached until next year.

I could imagine this would be a place my dad would want to eat, had he not already died of a heart attack 2 years ago.

I'll do both guys, because I don't want to get cocky about winning. It was only a couple of weeks ago that McCain is ahead, and while all indicators (formal and informal) point to Obama, there's still time for things to change. President John McCain: State-Lieberman Defense-Tom Ridge. I'd say General Petreaus, but I think there's a time frame in which someone can't go from being in the military to a DoD person. Treasury-Mitt Romney President Barack Obama State-Bill Richardson or Richard Holbrooke Defense-Chuck Hagel Treasury-Warren Buffet

Missed it! I caught some of the British version on BBC-America and enjoyed it. I love good time travel stories .

My preference would be to lock it on November 5th, and start a "Reflections on the Election" thread and a "President-Elect" thread. This thread would never have gotten so much traction had it not been for the fact that everyone was so eager to see President Bush leave office. I'm sure if Obama gets elected, that other board will have a "Is it 2012 yet?" thread up in no time. I have an idea. If I'm still posting here 4 years from now, someone kick my ass and tell me to get a life.

I remember once Obama and Guiliani jumped into the race, throwing my hands up and saying I had no idea what was going to happen next. I think we were all expecting a traditional presidential race, but this one has certainly rewritten the rules, hasn't it? I think the only person ANYWHERE who called it right was Tina Fey in an early episode of "30 Rock" where her character was talking about probably voting for McCain over Obama.

No argument here. You should maybe look at the big losers today. Only two companies on the Dow are up for the year, those being JPMorgan and Wal-Mart. The rest are down in the depths. What I meant was that since the Dow is based on speculation about a cross-section of the entire economy, and not just credit-giving institutions, what we're seeing with these drops is a feeling of overall economic pessimism being given a quantitative value, but I think the financial investors will come around in time once all of this has had time to sink in. Plus, we're three weeks out from the election, and that only multiplies the uncertainty factor.

No matter who wins, one side's going to accuse the other of voter fraud. The Republicans are just getting a head start this year. Allegations of voter fraud have never actually changed the outcome of a presidential election, even when the fraud was real.

I think they'll get out as soon as possible once the crisis is over. And, if they don't, it is the America people who ultimately decide who makes the decisions at the Treasury Department. They aren't working for Obama (well, they are, like as in trying to get him elected, but they don't work FOR HIM per say), but he donated money to one of their affiliates during his primary campaign. Marvin can show you some alternate takes on this. Of course most of those are scrawled on walls with shit...but still. Obama worked with ACORN as early as 1992 and was a leadership trainer for the members in Chicago on the advice of a Madeline Talbott (another really nice person Obama has ties to) which was part of his dubious "Community Organizer" role, ultimately gaining the endorsement of ACORN in every election he's run in since. Obama served on the board for the Woods Fund of Chicago from 1993-2001 which doled out grant money to ACORN. Obama was ACORN's attorney in the Civil Suit case of ACORN vs Edgar, the Republican Governor of Illionois at the time (1993), which forced Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter legislation that makes it easier for the poor and minorities to register to vote. He did donate $800,000 to an offshoot group of ACORN this year. Seems to me, the question isn't "Is ACORN working for Obama?", its "Is Obama still working for ACORN?" But shouldn't the fact that the people who were WRONGLY submitting fake voter registration forms are being caught imply that actual voter fraud (not just fraudulent registration) is less likely to happen? I think what we're seeing here is the building-in of an excuse if McCain looses, and to keep the Republican base fired up with anti-Obama stuff.

I think the point of the bailout was to prevent the failure of lending institutions, not to keep the Dow Jones Industrial average pumped up to a certain level. You're reading too much into the market flucuations, since the composition of the Dow average is made up of lots of companies, not just credit-giving ones.

Thousands of voter registration forms faked, officials say http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/aco...aims/index.html