Campaign 2008

[SuperJerk 0]

"Senator, with respect, I think we both know that if your choice for vice president were the Democratic candidate for President, you would be standing here shredding her on her lack of experience, her lack of preparedness, and that the presidency shouldn't require on-the-job training. How dare you stand there and flaunt such thunderous hypocrisy, that you would hold me to a standard that you don't hold your own possible successor to. You have forever tossed away the right to play the experience card as you have repeatedly done with me tonight, and I think you owe an apology to the American people for such dishonorable behavior."

 

The problem with this is that Palin is self-destructing on her own without Obama needing to pour salt on the wounds. Plus, both guys picked running mates who typify qualities that they have criticized the other for, as Biden has been in Congress a full decade longer than McCain. Why draw attention to that by calling him out on Palin?

 

 

"You know who else had a liberal voting record? The Founding Fathers in voting for change. Now I know, Senator McCain, I know...you knew the Founding Fathers. You worked with the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were friends of yours, and I'm no founding father. But I'll do my best to live up to the example they set and the Constitutional freedoms they lay down...freedoms that your good friend, George Bush, has stampeded over."

 

Whether its politically expedient or not, that's just a tacky thing to say.

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The only two things I learned from last night were that Obama agrees with John McCain a lot and McCain hardly ever actually looked at Obama.

 

I dont see where last nights debate was so SUPER IMPORTANT that McCain HAD to be there or else. It was boring and didnt uncover anything that people didnt already know.

 

As far as Im concerned, neither of them won it, they didn't tie..they both LOST.

 

At least I can have high hopes for the VP debate being worth watching.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Last night wasn't for us, it was for people still trying to make up their minds that haven't paid attention until now. I think what they saw last night were two men who both have a deep understanding of the issues, but one was a little more interested in talking about what he wanted to do as president, and the other was more interested in making the other look bad. And if McCain and Obama agree on stuff, I don't see that as bad. McCain isn't wrong about everything in my opinion, and Obama isn't some far left revolutionary with radically different views than Americans are used to.

 

I'm kind of bemused by the "regular people" the media are talking to who are mad the candidates didn't talk more about the economy when the debate was supposed to be about foriegn policy.

 

One thing no one else has mentioned, as far as I know, was that McCain tried to have it both ways on the experience issue last night. He has continually talked about his superior amount of experience, but when Obama called him on it by pointing out how much he has experience he has at being wrong on Iraq, he ran away from his own record by saying the next president isn't going to have to decide on invading Iraq, but how to get out of it. I don't think running on your experience, then saying the important bad decisions you made a few years ago shouldn't matter because you won't have to make that decision again, is a particularly credible thing to say.

[snuffbox 0]

It was National Security & Foreign Policy, I think. The economy falls under national security.

 

Mike Huckabee has his own show on Fox. Anybody still think that Mitt Romney is still ahead of him for 2012/16?

[SuperJerk 0]

It was National Security & Foreign Policy, I think. The economy falls under national security.

 

 

 

 

 

Factcheck.org has an article up about the truthfulness of statements made during the debate.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/fa..._1.html?cnn=yes

 

Some of my favorites:

 

Yes, as we’ve said before, Obama did in fact vote for a budget resolution that called for higher federal income tax rates on a single, non-homeowner who earned as little as $42,000 per year. A couple filing jointly, however, would have had to earn at least $83,000 per year to be affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected. The resolution actually would not have altered taxes without additional legislation. It called generally for allowing most of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire. McCain is referring to the provision that would have allowed the 25 percent tax bracket to return to 28 percent. The tax plan Obama now proposes, however, would not raise the rate on that tax bracket.

 

McCain was way off the mark when he said that earmarks in federal appropriations bills had tripled in the last five years.

 

So the range of what the Iraqi’s could have at year’s end is actually $47 billion to $59 billion. The $79 billion figure is outdated and incorrect.

 

McCain repeated an exaggerated claim that the U.S. is sending $700 billion per year to hostile countries.

That's not accurate. McCain also made this claim in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. He's referring to the amount of money the U.S. spends in importing oil. But the number is inflated. In fact, we actually pay more like $536 billion for the oil we need. And one-third of those payments go to Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

 

An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.

 

McCain’s plan doesn’t call for taxing employers on health care benefits; it would instead tax employees. As the law stands now, employees don’t pay taxes on the dollar value of their health insurance benefits. Under McCain’s plan, they would.

 

McCain also misrepresented Obama's plan when he said that his opponent favored "handing the health care system over to the federal government."

 

Eisenhower (then a general, not yet a president) did in fact write a letter taking responsibility should the D-Day invasion fail. But Eisenhower's letter does not mention resigning.

 

 

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

McCains proposed tax on Employee's health insurance is one of the biggest issues I have with him considering he nor even Obama has mentioned it much. His plan with $2,500 and $5,000 in tax credits towards health insurance for people who buy it privately as well as a tax increase on health insurance benefits people get through their employers is trying to make a move away from employer based health insurance. It might very well save most healthy people money through increased competition and the tax credits, but with my health problems, there is no way I could get the same coverage I get now on the open market for even twice as much as Im paying now through my employer ($70 a month deducted pre-tax including vision and prescription plans). Even with the individual $2,500 tax credit Id probably still be paying a little bit more than I am now and Id probably be getting less benefits as well.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Hey, they're burning the midnight oil in Congress!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

McCains proposed tax on Employee's health insurance is one of the biggest issues I have with him considering he nor even Obama has mentioned it much. His plan with $2,500 and $5,000 in tax credits towards health insurance for people who buy it privately as well as a tax increase on health insurance benefits people get through their employers is trying to make a move away from employer based health insurance.

As I said in the other thread, the $2,500 is basically a consolation prize for having to go out there and fight on your own without the power of collective negotiating of terms.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

"Senator, with respect, I think we both know that if your choice for vice president were the Democratic candidate for President, you would be standing here shredding her on her lack of experience, her lack of preparedness, and that the presidency shouldn't require on-the-job training. How dare you stand there and flaunt such thunderous hypocrisy, that you would hold me to a standard that you don't hold your own possible successor to. You have forever tossed away the right to play the experience card as you have repeatedly done with me tonight, and I think you owe an apology to the American people for such dishonorable behavior."

 

The problem with this is that Palin is self-destructing on her own without Obama needing to pour salt on the wounds. Plus, both guys picked running mates who typify qualities that they have criticized the other for, as Biden has been in Congress a full decade longer than McCain. Why draw attention to that by calling him out on Palin?

 

 

"You know who else had a liberal voting record? The Founding Fathers in voting for change. Now I know, Senator McCain, I know...you knew the Founding Fathers. You worked with the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were friends of yours, and I'm no founding father. But I'll do my best to live up to the example they set and the Constitutional freedoms they lay down...freedoms that your good friend, George Bush, has stampeded over."

 

Whether its politically expedient or not, that's just a tacky thing to say.

 

Oh please.

 

Republicans have been hanging themselves with their own words for-fucking-ever and it hasn't made the slightest dent in the shared point of view. You going to try and tell me that after 8 years of defending any and everything George W. Bush conservatives are NOT going to continue to drink the Kool-Aid?

 

Self-destructing or not she BELIEVES what they do.

 

So yeah. Obama should be (albeit "politely") burning this guys campaign to the ground because it is the right thing to do and you KNOW he can. If Obama is going to live up to his word (CHANGE-ENOUGH) he has not only to defeat the McCain/Palin ticket but 8 retarded years of Bush. The more he shows those things being the bad choice, the less of a chance there is of status quo in Washington. So if a twist on a famous American quote is the way of putting that into peoples minds and have it make sense? Then go... for... it. Because no matter how smart the American voter is they will remember it.

[SuperJerk 0]

My hope is that Obama can continue to attract independent and first-time voters by taking the high-road. I could be wrong, but that's what I think works best for him (yes, I know he doesn't always stick to it).

 

 

In other news...

 

This is probably perfectly legal, but someone calling themselves a reformer recieved gifts from merchants doing business with Wasilla, Alaska, while she was mayor...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080928/ap_on_el_pr/palin_ethics

 

But mostly, like other Wasilla elected officials at the time, she took an active role on issues that directly affected and sometimes benefited her. Her efforts to clear the way for the $327,000 sale of the Palin family home on Lake Wasilla is an example.

 

No mention if a little dog named "Checkers" was one of the gifts.

 

 

So, does this make her a crook? Probably not. But it doesn't make her the reformer she claims to be either, one of her main selling points as candidate for VP.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Actually it's the first thing I've seen that qualifies her for public office.

[snuffbox 0]

Playing nice is such a winning strategy for the Democratic party.

[At Home 0]

There's a whole mess of shit that doesn't make her a reformer. Spoils systems, earmarks, bridge to nowhere, being a dumb piece of shit, etc. I'm glad that the pick is starting to bite them in the ass, finally, but it's still sad that the pick came with a pretty large poll bump. That one dude in the video a couple pages ago who just denounced her for what she is was nice, but the media isn't doing that as a whole. They're letting the viewers decide for themselves, which wouldn't be happening if Joe Biden was making these kinds of mistakes. I've said it before, but it's kind of like when your teacher asks a question to the dumbest student in class and the only answer they can come back with is "well, that was a good try, but..." and put their tail between their legs because they can't scold them.

[SuperJerk 0]

Tough works better than nice, but there's a difference between being tough and being tacky. Consistently attacking someone for his voting record and public statements is being tough. Telling someone he's so old he knew the founding fathers is tacky.

 

 

Good video...

 

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

My hope is that Obama can continue to attract independent and first-time voters by taking the high-road. I could be wrong, but that's what I think works best for him (yes, I know he doesn't always stick to it).

Jerk, I am completely with you that hope and the high road are attractive places to be and be going. I just think people need a knock out punch here and I don't think they will care that much WHERE the punch lands (even if it's low).

 

 

[At Home 0]

We're coming out of 8 Bush years, I don't think it will be hard to hammer that fact home for Obama. He just needs to do it.

[NoCalMike 0]

Obama is right about Iraq, but I think he is dead wrong about sending thousands of troops into Afganistan. If that region has proved anything during the past right years and during the Soviet/Taliban wars, it is that those guys will stop at nothing to drive foreign forces out. I think doing this would start out similar to the Iraq war, where we would go in and blow up a bunch of stuff, claim victory, and then stay, and stay, and then stay some more. Obama is right on Iraq but should use those lessons to get the hell out of the region all together.

[snuffbox 0]

I don't think Obama's plan for Afghanistan would be nation building like Iraq is for Bush and McCain. He wants to crush al Qaeda, not spend at least three trillion dollars on a failed notion of a 51st state.

[Jingus 0]

If that region has proved anything during the past right years and during the Soviet/Taliban wars, it is that those guys will stop at nothing to drive foreign forces out. I think doing this would start out similar to the Iraq war, where we would go in and blow up a bunch of stuff, claim victory, and then stay, and stay, and then stay some more.

1. The Soviets were not fighting the Taliban. Some of the mujahideen fighters did go on to become Taliban members, but the group itself didn't exist during the Soviet conflict.

2. We did go in, blow up a bunch of stuff, and claim victory. Very quickly, in fact. It took us like a month to destroy their regime. We did in weeks what the USSR couldn't do in years.

3. We did stay, and stay, and stay some more. We've had troops there from 2001 onwards.

4. However, we've had a much smaller number of troops there than in Iraq. Which is one reason many people point to when questioned why the Taliban insergency is making a fairly strong comeback.

 

Here we toppled a brutal dictatorial government and replaced it with a democracy. Unfortunately, we haven't kept a close eye on it, and the old bad guys are trying to regain power. The illegal heroin trade has also skyrocketed there in recent years. This isn't a situation like Iraq where our wanton destruction and fuckups have actively made the situation worse. There's no raging multi-side civil war here. If anything, it's our neglect which has caused the circumstances to be worse than they could be. And you just want us to pull out, abandon our allies there, and oh yeah give up the search for Bin Ladin while we're at it?

[BUTT 0]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4837644.ece

 

McCain's campaign is hoping Bristol and Levi get married before the election. Nothing says family values like forcing two teenagers into a loveless marriage for political gain!

 

[SuperJerk 0]

2. We did go in, blow up a bunch of stuff, and claim victory. Very quickly, in fact. It took us like a month to destroy their regime. We did in weeks what the USSR couldn't do in years.

 

The main difference though is that they were fighting on behalf of the Marxist government against rebels than were getting the help of the U.S. and other sympathetic nations. We were fighting against the unrecognized government of Afghanistan already in place. We weren't trying to do the same thing the Soviets were trying to do, so its not really a fair comparison.

[Mecca 0]

I like this ad quite a bit.

 

[panthermatt7 0]

This all reminds me of the young woman I met in a very small town a couple months ago. She was living with her children in subsidized housing. She refused to vote for any Democrat because of "abortion & gays."

And clearly her religious beliefs are strong enough that she thinks that's more important that whatever small gain she might get from the tax break. Does that make her retarded? Especially since to believe this, you have to believe that some invisible wizard in the sky just said the magic words and POOF the earth was built in seven days, and if she's a good girl then after she dies she'll go up and live with the wizard in the sky forever and ever. Once someone's willing to put their faith in that, you wait until they vote Republican to call them naive?

 

To equate the Christian faith to this simplicity is like saying that atheists believe a frog hopped out of the water, stood up on two legs, and walked away. This, of course, would be after the giant explosion that occurred out of nothing.

 

And yes, I know that the Big Bang Theory and evolution are more complex than this; however, so is the Christian faith. So maybe, just maybe, you should stop talking down to people that don't have the same belief structure as you.

[At Home 0]

Matt, that's an uphill battle. Almost everyone here is an atheist, and they take whatever opportunities possible to talk about Christianity as some sort of crazy cult with a man in the sky. It's pretty disrespectful. I've asked people not to make stupid low blows like that, and the only response I've gotten to that has been, "well, it is."

[panthermatt7 0]

Matt, that's an uphill battle. Almost everyone here is an atheist, and they take whatever opportunities possible to talk about Christianity as some sort of crazy cult with a man in the sky. It's pretty disrespectful. I've asked people not to make stupid low blows like that, and the only response I've gotten to that has been, "well, it is."

 

Interesting, thanks for the heads up. I'll have to follow the trend of dismissing others' beliefs in one-sentence, out of context snippets that only serve to degrade the speaker/typer.

[panthermatt7 0]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4837644.ece

 

McCain's campaign is hoping Bristol and Levi get married before the election. Nothing says family values like forcing two teenagers into a loveless marriage for political gain!

 

The Billary strategy, Republican version.

 

Levistol?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4837644.ece

 

McCain's campaign is hoping Bristol and Levi get married before the election. Nothing says family values like forcing two teenagers into a loveless marriage for political gain!

 

The Billary strategy, Republican version.

 

Levistol?

 

It sounds like a new penis heart medication for McCain or something.

[snuffbox 0]

Matt, that's an uphill battle. Almost everyone here is an atheist, and they take whatever opportunities possible to talk about Christianity as some sort of crazy cult with a man in the sky. It's pretty disrespectful. I've asked people not to make stupid low blows like that, and the only response I've gotten to that has been, "well, it is."

 

Interesting, thanks for the heads up. I'll have to follow the trend of dismissing others' beliefs in one-sentence, out of context snippets that only serve to degrade the speaker/typer.

 

I'll mail you my wallet if Christianity is not based on an invisible man floating around up above.

[BigPoppaKev 0]

Not entirely Campaign related but the house just shot down the bailout plan. Dow Jones is down over 500 points right now. It should be interesting to see how the two candidates react to this set back.

[At Home 0]

Matt, that's an uphill battle. Almost everyone here is an atheist, and they take whatever opportunities possible to talk about Christianity as some sort of crazy cult with a man in the sky. It's pretty disrespectful. I've asked people not to make stupid low blows like that, and the only response I've gotten to that has been, "well, it is."

 

Interesting, thanks for the heads up. I'll have to follow the trend of dismissing others' beliefs in one-sentence, out of context snippets that only serve to degrade the speaker/typer.

 

I'll mail you my wallet if Christianity is not based on an invisible man floating around up above.

 

Way to miss the point.