Presidential Debate #2: 7th Oct 2008; Nashville, TN [Archive]

Donnie D

10-07-2008, 09:27 PM

Excellent job by both sides to demonstrate their positions. No major mistakes by either one.

I watched CNN and the reactions from the Ohio undecided voters. It looked to me that Obama scored higher on each question with the exception of the question on Russia.

The campaigns should watch the debate with the lines. Each time they told the crowd the other's position, the favorable rating took a dive. Obama would be scoring near the top and add here's what Senator McCain doesn't tell you and the favorable rating would drop. It looked like both should have kept to their message instead of trying to discuss the others.

Obama's weak spot to me was his defensiveness, but the scoring on the screen didn't reflect that others were as upset. He is going to have to answer about the amount of the health care fine, if any.

McCain's concept of buying up bad loans - wow more bailout? That didn't do anything for anyone. No one understood it - including Obama who didn't attack the concept.

Once again, the winner will be the one you agree with. But the question will be asked and I think since the majority of America agrees with Obama on the major issues, they are going to say that he won.

pete

10-07-2008, 09:50 PM

That was like watching paint dry. It was the exact same debate as last time, except in a less compelling format, and with John McCain seeming slightly less angry.

CNN says Obama won 54% to 30% in their poll. I'm surprised anyone stayed awake long enough to be able to answer.

McCain will have one more crack at this thing, but now it looks like the public thinks Obama/Biden is 3-0 in these things. Obama would have to behead a live puppy on stage at the final debate to lose this election, at this point.

Donnie D

10-07-2008, 10:00 PM

It would be a better format if they were allowed to talk to each other. But the handlers negotiated the format.

I didn't find him less angry, but that was my perception. The "that one" in referring to Obama was a mistake as his leaving the room right after the debate. It just looks like McCain was pissed at how it came out and walked out.

RSchmitz

10-07-2008, 10:30 PM

People want to hear the issues, thats all the dials really showed.

RSchmitz

10-08-2008, 12:47 AM

I just watched the debate without interrupt, and a few things really stood out in my mind. One, Obama's smile tonight was driving McCain nuts. Second, McCain couldn't make out a single fully coherent sentence till he got to the foreign affairs part of the debate. Third, Obama was brilliant tonight in relaying what he wanted to say to the audience. The one key difference is that Obama controlled the tone and the pace of this debate.

Everything else was the same stuff that has been repeated throughout the campaign except they talked a bit about Russia, China, and Afghanistan. One bit that was very important was Obama explaining the bailout plan in a way that people could understand instead of patting himself on the back like McCain; and I think the audience really responded to that. He also explained McCains health insurance plan was a bait and switch.

McCain is horrible in front of a camera

Sotnos

10-08-2008, 05:14 AM

RSchmitz

10-08-2008, 07:22 AM

Its the intangibles that have nothing to do with the issues. Race, whether they have reservations whether Obama is a terrorist, all the bullshit that has been spewed out.

WaiverWire

10-08-2008, 07:44 AM

Believe it or not I am still on the fence. I am leaning one way, by if the election was held today I do not even know if I would vote which would mean this would be the first election since 1970, when I reached that age of 18, that I did not cast a vote.

First, most of what has been promised, as in almost all past campaigns is just unrealistic. Both have a health care plan that is expensive and will not work, in my opinion, due to today's economy. The same can be said for the tax plans. What both are talking about today will not be the plans either would implement once they take office.

As we have seen in just the last couple of days the #1 issue is the economy. We all thought that the US was tanking and it was just our problem. Now we see that this is a global problem. What has caught my attention is the research I have done over this issue. It is true that in 2002 Bush warned about Fannie and Freddie. At that time two House reps attempted legislation which failed. This can be blamed on the republicans who hate regulation and also on the democrats as they were attempting to broaden Fannie and Freddie lending with lower credit scores and no down payments which allowed for more lower income families to have homes. This is the started of the housing rise in value.

In 2005-2006 McCain either signed onto a bill or introduced a bill that would regulate Fannie and Freddie because of the concerns that are now reality. Let me say this again, the one that all claims to be a deregulator attempted to regulate these two institutions. Now Obama claims he also attempted to warn others about this very same problem. He claims he even wrote a letter. Now it is being reported that both Fox News and the Washington Post have asked for a copy of this letter.

My concern is that if Obama felt so strong about Freddie and Fannie why did he not introduce legislation if he felt so strong about this issue? My gut tells me he did not because of old time politcs.....he did not want to go against those in control of his party as these were the same people that had asked, and received, for Freddie and Fannie a wider latitude for lending....thus now leading to where we are today.

With this in mind McCain took the action a Senator would take......legislation. Obama did not. Instead he talked and did not do what he is there to do......protect via legislation.

chad

10-08-2008, 08:14 AM

CNN says Obama won 54% to 30% in their poll. I'm surprised anyone stayed awake long enough to be able to answer.

And not surprisingly, FoxNews' poll had McCain winning 86-12.

I'm kinda new at this... does MSNBC or anyone draw the neutral crowd?

WaiverWire

10-08-2008, 08:28 AM

And not surprisingly, FoxNews' poll had McCain winning 86-12.

I'm kinda new at this... does MSNBC or anyone draw the neutral crowd?

Chad, Fox is a text in vote....you can vote as many times as you want. It also shows who watches FOX.

the_narrow_way

10-08-2008, 08:28 AM

I thought it was the most 'exciting' debate yet. I thought McCain had quite a few stumbles, including the "That one." comment, having to ask Brokaw to repeat what the 3 items were he was to prioritize, and the constant use of "my friends" really was aggravating.

I thought McCain started off fairly strong, but really lost it in the middle, and brought it back up a bit towards the end. For a while though, he seemed like he was falling behind and was struggling to keep up with the questions. He was constantly trying to jot down notes. The height of the chairs didn't help McCain's appearance either. Obama's long legs let him rest comfortably while McCain had to stretch to get his toes on the carpet. McCain's attempts at humor were awful. Even the crickets were quiet.

EDIT: I see someone voted that McCain clearly won that debate. Whoever voted that way, I'd like to understand why you thought that he won cleanly. Care to elaborate? I thought Obama had the clear win. In fact, I think it was the most lopsided victory yet.

Flycoon

10-08-2008, 08:32 AM

And not surprisingly, FoxNews' poll had McCain winning 86-12.

I'm kinda new at this... does MSNBC or anyone draw the neutral crowd?None of the network polls will be neutral after the debate. Wait for some of the independent results today.

As for McCain's $5K tax credit to buy your own health ins, that might pay for 3 months decent coverage for my wife and my self should we ever need individual policies. Both mid-50's, a few minor treated and controlled conditions.

Sotnos

10-08-2008, 08:38 AM

Can someone clear something up for me: unless I'm completely mistaken, doesn't "tax credit" imply "you pay up front & claim it later"?

WaiverWire

10-08-2008, 08:41 AM

FactCheck.org says McCain gave misleading figures in his statement about his health care.

They have said the same about Obama's and claim the numbers just are not there to make it work.

WaiverWire

10-08-2008, 08:47 AM

Can someone clear something up for me: unless I'm completely mistaken, doesn't "tax credit" imply "you pay up front & claim it later"?

Yup

Sotnos

10-08-2008, 08:50 AM

Yup
Thank you sir. I kinda thought it did but wasn't entirely sure.

How is that supposed to help people who are poor & uninsured, exactly? There are MANY people that don't have 5 grand available (or even $100) to pay for healthcare up front.

WaiverWire

10-08-2008, 09:00 AM

Thank you sir. I kinda thought it did but wasn't entirely sure.

How is that supposed to help people who are poor & uninsured, exactly? There are MANY people that don't have 5 grand available (or even $100) to pay for healthcare up front.

Sotnos, that is what many fact check sites are saying about both plans.

I hate to say it but for years, and I mean years, politicians have always talked about health care and what they would do "when they got in office". I know of none that ever followed through with their plans.....which is the case of many of their ideas.

TexasBolt

10-08-2008, 10:27 AM

Believe it or not I am still on the fence.

:pound:

the_narrow_way

10-08-2008, 10:34 AM

I heard that McCain's $5k 'credit' is payed directly to your insurer. Double-you-tee-eff! How does that help the individual?

WaiverWire

10-08-2008, 10:41 AM

:pound:

:kma: :peace: :D

TexasBolt

10-08-2008, 11:14 AM

:kma: :peace: :D

I didn't really believe you after you've regurgitated several of the right-wing smears against Obama in the last couple of weeks.

Then again, it would fit in with an anecdote like this, although it's nowhere near this nasty.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Race_and_the_economy.html

An Obama supporter, who canvassed for the candidate in the working-class, white Philadelphia neighborhood of Fishtown recently, sends over an account that, in various forms, I've heard a lot in recent weeks.

"What's crazy is this," he writes. "I was blown away by the outright racism, but these folks are f***ing undecided. They would call him a n----r and mention how they don't know what to do because of the economy."

jaydeedub

10-08-2008, 12:34 PM

:kma: :peace: :D

:hysterical:

Seriously, you guys had me cracking up here. Which is always a great thing while I'm stuck here at work 'till 11pm. So was that you who had the one "McCain cleanly" won the debate vote WW? :coolwink:

Maverick9911

10-08-2008, 12:49 PM

Gotta come clean on this one.

It was me.

:behindsofa:

jaydeedub

10-08-2008, 12:53 PM

Gotta come clean on this one.

It was me.

:behindsofa:

Haha!! Well you are the "Maverick" are you not!??! hahaha

And everyone notice, he didn't use "Maverick" once in the speech. Must have done some polling on that one and decided to end it. Wonder if they told Palin to stop "Mavericking" it up?

the_narrow_way

10-08-2008, 12:53 PM

Seriously? Why? (I'm not trying to be rude, just curious.)

EDIT: My initial suspicions were confirmed. Thanks Maverick9911. ;)

the_narrow_way

10-08-2008, 12:55 PM

And everyone notice, he didn't use "Maverick" once in the speech. Must have done some polling on that one and decided to end it.
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/06/maverick-family-to-mccain-no-way-are-you-one-of-us/?hesno

Maverick9911

10-08-2008, 12:58 PM

Haha!! Well you are the "Maverick" are you not!??! hahaha

You nailed it. I was feeling Mavericky. When McCain was doddering around the hall like a geriatric pinball, I looked into his eyes, saw his soul and it was like starbursts shot all throughout my heart. I guess you could say he winked at my heart and it closed the deal.

To hell with Samuel or Tom Cruise - that's the original maverick right there.

(and if anyone still thinks I was being serious when I said I was the one who voted for him in this poll, go back and read my posts in this room and try again lol)

Flycoon

10-08-2008, 01:02 PM

WaiverWire

10-08-2008, 01:14 PM

Hey wait..it was me.......... just because I know there are many here that would not walk across the street to help the guy if he was in trouble.

jaydeedub

10-08-2008, 01:25 PM

Barack missed his opportunity to get McCain to flash his legendary temper. All he had to do was ask Brokaw if there was a shorter stool that McCain to get up on. Who knows what Pappy would have said given his sensitivity about being vertically challenged.

Come on now, he was a fighter pilot for crying out loud (and was nearly killed twice while in the Navy). Almost all fighter pilots are of mid-height range.

Flycoon

10-08-2008, 03:06 PM

Come on now, he was a fighter pilot for crying out loud (and was nearly killed twice while in the Navy). Almost all fighter pilots are of mid-height range.

If you read a bit about the little squirt, his hyper-sensitivity about his height is a well known fact. Read that long piece Tex quoted from RS and his (alleged) character flaws and ridiculous sensitivities about his height and thin hair are all too apparent.

Flycoon

10-08-2008, 03:09 PM

Hey wait..it was me.......... just because I know there are many here that would not walk across the street to help the guy if he was in trouble.

Maybe that should McCain's new strategy, courting the pity vote.

I'd be a good Boy Scout and help him across the street.

WaiverWire

10-08-2008, 03:24 PM

Biden was introduced as John McCain today :hysterical: :roflmao: :elefant:

Sptimes.com has the you tube link on their front page

Maverick9911

10-08-2008, 03:34 PM

Could've been worse...he could've addressed us as "my fellow prisoners".

Biden blew the roof off the Sun Dome today.

Sotnos

10-08-2008, 04:45 PM

Biden blew the roof off the Sun Dome today.There's a nice long clip of it on the St. Pete Times site. He's a great speaker.

pete

10-08-2008, 05:56 PM

McCain is horrible in front of a camera

He does seem a little worn out and ragged at this point of the campaign (which is understandable) but I actually think McCain's pretty soothing on the mic when he sticks to playing the role of the nice guy rather than attacking someone a la Dick Cheney.

His biggest problem is that he's standing on a stage with Obama, and Obama's got the natural political skills that only come around once every 20-30 years into national politics. When you consider he may be leading in the polls by as much as he is despite what a Stanford University study has pegged as a 6% handicap (don't know if I entirely believe it or not) you realize just how good he is. Put it another way: McCain's John Stockton and Obama's Michael Jordan. That's why McCain looks so bad in these debates. It's not that he's a bad politician (most politicians would've been destroyed by the Keating scandal), it's that he's going up against a guy who might be one of the all time greats in terms of his ability to communicate and to project compassion, empathy, and sincerity.

pete

10-08-2008, 06:04 PM

Obama is apparently sending his two best field guys to get-out-the-vote in Florida. These guys both have top notch reputations. One is going to Tampa, and one is going to Miami.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/obamas_top_field_generals_disp.php

TexasBolt

10-08-2008, 09:17 PM

The Gallup tracking poll is really getting out of hand now - Obama has an 11-point lead in it, and the poll doesn't include post-debate surveying yet.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111040/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Over-McCain-Expands.aspx

pete

10-08-2008, 09:56 PM

Honestly, at this stage of the game, McCain's just trying to hold off a landslide.

538 is now projecting Obama wins in 90.5% of their scenarios, and they project solid wins for Obama in all the Kerry states plus Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. That's 338 EV's right there, and they're also projecting Obama winning three states in that third tier of swing states I talked about before the first debate by < 1%: Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina. If Obama were to win those states, that would be 375 electoral votes and McCain's name probably goes down in GOP history the way Dukakis' has for Democrats.

RSchmitz

10-09-2008, 07:34 AM

He does seem a little worn out and ragged at this point of the campaign (which is understandable) but I actually think McCain's pretty soothing on the mic when he sticks to playing the role of the nice guy rather than attacking someone a la Dick Cheney.

His biggest problem is that he's standing on a stage with Obama, and Obama's got the natural political skills that only come around once every 20-30 years into national politics. When you consider he may be leading in the polls by as much as he is despite what a Stanford University study has pegged as a 6% handicap (don't know if I entirely believe it or not) you realize just how good he is. Put it another way: McCain's John Stockton and Obama's Michael Jordan. That's why McCain looks so bad in these debates. It's not that he's a bad politician (most politicians would've been destroyed by the Keating scandal), it's that he's going up against a guy who might be one of the all time greats in terms of his ability to communicate and to project compassion, empathy, and sincerity.

Pete, didn't you say a few months ago that McCain was a terrible candidate? I just can't listen to him mumble, I can follow it its just not very soothing to the ears when he misses words and forces out his speech.

Anybody volunteer yet? I'm suppose to be holding up signs in Lakeland this weekend.

Donnie D

10-09-2008, 12:17 PM

Real Clear Politics has, for the first time, Obama with more than 270 solid (221) or leaning (56) votes when it moved Virginia into the Obama camp based on recent polling. They have only 7 toss up states with Obama ahead in 6 of them.

pete

10-09-2008, 08:47 PM

Pete, didn't you say a few months ago that McCain was a terrible candidate?

He is, but not for the reasons you stated. He has an easily provokable temper, he's gaffe prone, and he sucks at raising money. But in terms of when he gets in front of a crowd, he's not terrible.

pete

10-09-2008, 08:55 PM

538 is now projecting a close race in West Virginia following a poll that had Obama up there by 8 points by ARG. Now, ARG is a horrible pollster. They almost make Zogby look credible. However, seeing the leads that Obama has racked up in Pennsylvania and Virginia, it's plausible that the race in West Virginia has tightened up quite a bit.

RSchmitz

10-09-2008, 09:16 PM

Pete, your saying McCain is good in front of a camera? I haven't watched him throughout his career, but even around April I didn't think he was that great.

WaiverWire

10-09-2008, 09:55 PM

Well here we go.

"Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is breaking federal law by not giving county elections boards the chance to determine whether new voter registrations are fraudulent, a federal judge ruled this evening."......Columbus Dispatch

Seems as many as 65,000 of these new voters came from ACORN.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/09/acorn.html?sid=101

pete

10-10-2008, 12:34 AM

Dag nabbed evil vote registerers!

Meanwhile, back in Alaska, the Troopergate report comes out tomorrow. According to the NY Times:

ANCHORAGE — The 2007 state fair was days away when Alaska’s public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, took another call about one of his troopers, Michael Wooten. This time, the director of Gov. Sarah Palin’s Anchorage office was on the line.

As Mr. Monegan recalls it, the aide said the governor had heard that TrooperWooten was assigned to work the kickoff to the fair in late August. If so, Mr. Monegan should do something about it, because Ms. Palin was also planning to attend and did not want him nearby.

Somewhat bewildered, Mr. Monegan soon determined that Trooper Wooten had indeed volunteered for duty at the fairgrounds — in full costume as “Safety Bear,” the troopers’ child-friendly mascot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/10trooper.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

Can America afford to have a woman who doesn't respect the uniform (of "Safety Bear") a heartbeat away from the presidency?

http://www.dps.state.ak.us/ast/images/safetybear/Safetybear.gif

Seriously, once you lose the man-in-a-woodland-creature-costume vote, can independents be far behind?

pete

10-10-2008, 12:39 AM

Pete, your saying McCain is good in front of a camera? I haven't watched him throughout his career, but even around April I didn't think he was that great.

I find him to be far more soothing than the average Republican bomb thrower. He's much closer in style to Tom Dascle or Harry Reid than he is to, say, Saxby Chambliss (to pick a generic, southern partisan Republican turd).

He could read a storybook to your kids without giving them nightmares, as long as the storybook didn't involve "bears" or "safety."

TexasBolt

10-10-2008, 02:18 AM

I enjoyed Palin's Officer Barbrady report about Troopergate before the real one comes out. To paraphrase:

http://www.godspeed.dk/officerBarbrady.gif

Maverick9911

10-10-2008, 06:51 AM

No Safety Bear? What a monster.

I'll bet she's got somethin against Sexual Harassment Panda too :mad:

Bolthed

10-10-2008, 10:24 AM

I watched CNN and the reactions from the Ohio undecided voters. It looked to me that Obama scored higher on each question with the exception of the question on Russia.

Did you see later on though, they did a poll of who they'd vote for & the majority said McCain when most had had no reaction whatsoever to 90% of what he said. Made no sense to me...

This is what concerns me. People talk about the "theory" that race/racism could play a major role in this election, but it's very hard to quatify or predict in any way. It's just talk.

So that struck me, unscientifically, as evidence. Not necessarily of racism, but it was a head-scratcher to me that the same people who turned their little dials up all night for Obama and seemed to leave McCain flat-lining much of the time ... 15 out of 25 of them STILL said they would vote for McCain. It was a genuine WTF moment for me, and it immediately made me uneasy about this election. I just hope Obama is cruising into Nov. 4 with a 10-point lead or more. Then maybe I won't be so worried (but I still will).

After the debate, in CNN's pundit roundup, James Carville suggested that it would be "terrible for the country" if Obama goes into Nov. 4 with a 5-point lead and somehow loses. I'm not sure what's to fear more - the nebulous effect of race/racism or the Republicans' expertise at stealing/erasing votes.

Flycoon

10-10-2008, 10:36 AM

Donnie D

10-10-2008, 10:54 AM

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Trying to head off a potentially embarrassing state ethics report on GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, campaign officials released their own report Thursday that clears her of any wrongdoing.

Lawmakers were expected to release their own findings Friday. Campaign officials have yet to see that report — the result of an investigation that began before she was tapped as McCain's running mate — but said the investigation has falsely portrayed a legitimate policy dispute between a governor and her commissioner as something inappropriate.

In related news: O.J. just released a report that stated that he was not involved in kidnapping and should be released from jail.

This could start an alternative to the overburdened legal system. Just release your own report and be done with it.

WaiverWire

10-10-2008, 11:01 AM

Obama's crew needs to det started slingin the mud about Charles Keating. Unfortunately, here in Gooberville, being bought to the tune of $1.2 million by a guy who spent 4 years in jail is much less egregious than having a wacky minister (USMC Veteran) and an alleged terrorist are far worse than. Need to get to Caribou Barbie and the first dude's activities with a secessionist group in AK for 7 years.

Please Flycoon, even though the event happened McCain and Glenn were exonerated by the democrat that was leading the commission investigation. McCain then apologized and received a letter.

astro

10-10-2008, 12:26 PM

Donnie D

10-10-2008, 03:26 PM

Obama's crew needs to det started slingin the mud about Charles Keating. ..

Sorry, but I totally disagree. No need to get off the subjects of the economy, war and jobs when all of those issues are on your side. The issues are why Obama's ahead - they are why McCain is bringing up the crap - he doesn't want to discuss the issues.

Plus it seems that the democrats always lose a mud slinging contest - they just aren't as good at it as the GOP. Their morals always get in the way.

WaiverWire

10-10-2008, 05:23 PM

Wow..interesting read if this is really true......In July Obama asked the Iraqis to not negotiate a withdrawal plan with the Bush Administration, but wait until he is in office.

"Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America. "

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m

Sotnos

10-10-2008, 06:01 PM

This being somewhere besides a right-wing source (which is all I've been able to find) would make it more believable. I mean, Foxnews isn't even touching this one.

WaiverWire

10-10-2008, 06:24 PM

Washington Post is now saying the same thing.

I first heard on Fox and because of the source went and Googled it and sure enough found articles.

Google "Obama Iraqi Delay".

And ff you still question the source, take it up with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari who has been quoted several times.

Avery86

10-10-2008, 07:19 PM

Donnie D

10-10-2008, 07:21 PM

The Swiftboating even becomes too much for McCain - forcing him to defend Obama against charges that he is an Arab and a terrorist. The crowd turned on McCain and booed him.

Sotnos

10-10-2008, 07:29 PM

I do question the source. It was reported exclusively in the NY Post, all other outlets are essentially re-phrasing what was already written by the Post, or writing about who is making the accusations.

Essentially, it's one source, and I don't buy it.
Yep

I put that man's name into google news and EVERY link that came back was sourcing the NY Post. I see nothing about it in any legit, non right wing news source (washington times =/= washington post). When this shows up on CNN or something, then maybe it'll have some weight.

Though I guess this might be part of the "liberal media" conspiracy. :D

pete

10-10-2008, 09:41 PM

The bipartisan commission empaneled to investigate "Troopergate" has voted unanimously (Republicans and Democrats) to release the findings of their investigation and has found that Sarah Palin abused her power in violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John McCain's Republican ticket.

Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.

The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.

The panel found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed. "I feel vindicated," Monegan said. "It sounds like they've validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I'm not totally out in left field."

Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6051927.html

I admit, I'm not entirely sure if this statute carries any teeth in terms of criminal charges against Palin. I would think, however, that Monegan now has plenty of ammunition to go after Palin and the state in civil court.

"Safety Bear" - 1
Aerial Wolf Hunter - 0

If you have several hours to kill, here's the official report of the commission:

http://download2.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf

I just browsed two pages in it and already spotted testimony of Todd Palin asking for access to the trooper's file illegally.

WaiverWire

10-10-2008, 09:47 PM

Even though it is from the NY Post I do find it hard to believe that they would allow a writer to quote high ranking foreign government officials if it was not said.

I also have not heard any other news source even bother to say it was not true or that the Iraqi government denied it.

Having been in a profession that many followed their leaders no matter what was printed or said, I must say you would make a good LEO.

Avery86

10-10-2008, 09:55 PM

The New York Post in itself is a conservative news outlet. They opposed Clinton's Senate run in 2000, and they're owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News.

Look, I'm not saying the interview never happened and the journalist is a liar, but whatever was said by the Iraqi representative was most likely taken out of context.

"The New York Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for what many consider its lurid headlines, sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias."

Lurid headlines? Sensationalism? Advocacy of a conservative bias? And the fact that the Post is the only source that's reporting first hand of this claim? Sorry, I don't buy it.

WaiverWire

10-10-2008, 09:57 PM

Interesting read Pete. I find it strange that the investigation of the trooper is confidential and that not even the governor of the state could have access to it. Very glad we have the Sunshine Law here.

What I find strange is that the investigator finds that she has violated Alaska ethics laws, but the panel has not endorsed the findings.

"But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension. There was no immediate vote on whether to endorse its findings."

Here is a link to the Alaska Ethics Law. It seems that this is just a first step. If the panel signs off then it goes to the AG who then has to sign off. If he does then he would put it into a written complaint and forward to the President of the Alaskan Senate who would then have full hearings.

http://www.law.state.ak.us/doc/ethics/Statutes-AlaskaExecutiveBranchEthicsAct_AS39.52_.doc

Will be interesting as to how they will proceed with this.
I would not mind if she stepped and they do something smart like bring on Romney like they should had.....but then you are talking about us republicans as being smart :ohmy:

pete

10-10-2008, 10:21 PM

It was a Catch-22. If they had picked Romney, it wouldn't have created any buzz (and it would've alienated the evangelical base). But they had to do something to throw water on the fire after Obama's speech at Mile High.

I dunno. The problem is that the Republicans' bench of VP candidates sucked even worse than their bench of presidential candidates. I mean, Biden would've been like my tenth choice for VP and he was still better than anything on the GOP side. In retrospect, I think their best play would've been to pick Hutchinson and have her pretend she had a 24 hour conversion on abortion a la HW Bush in 1980. Even though she was quasi-pro choice in rhetoric, she never met a restriction to access that she didn't vote for. To me, it wouldn't be that hard a sell to the evangelicals and, in fact, she might've been able to do the soft shoe a la McCain and claim moderate credentials on that issue to try to appeal to Hillary voters. That would've created some buzz because she was a woman, and she is at least qualified to be VP.

I mean, between the situation with Bristol Palin and some of the crap in this report, the Palin's really look like they belong on Jerry Springer more than they do in the second highest office in the land.

There's rumors that the RNC is pulling the plug on McCain and will be plowing their money into holding on to as many House and Senate seats as possible. Considering McCain's been running 10-12 points behind Obama for days now in the Gallup and R2000 tracking polls, that's probably sound strategy on their part.

Of course, if you look at the Senate map for 2010, it may be a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will have a fillibuster proof majority there from 2010-2012, at which point Obama gets whatever he wants in Congress.

WaiverWire

10-10-2008, 10:23 PM

WaiverWire

10-10-2008, 10:27 PM

"I mean, between the situation with Bristol Palin and some of the crap in this report, the Palin's really look like they belong on Jerry Springer more than they do in the second highest office in the land."

Come on Pete....your smarter than that.......it is Alaska, it is the way of life there :D

Avery86

10-11-2008, 09:07 AM

Avery this is true about the Post. But let me ask you this........ If the story is false then why is there not another paper, are even a liberal paper, asking those quoted if the quotes are true and/or acurate?

I'm not saying it's false, I'm saying that the quotes from the Iraqi representative were probably taken out of context in order to create a sensational story. And because it's so damn coincidental, people will buy it. The Post is borderline tabloid.

WaiverWire

10-11-2008, 09:52 AM

And I am saying that those that have been quoted have not, to this day, said they were taken out of context.

Did Obama have anything to gain from these talks? Obama's main issue has to bring the troops home. If this the Bush administration had come to an agreement this issue would no longer be an issue.

It also says to me that he is willing to talk to the Iraqis as to when he would pull the troops. It seems he would listen to there concerns if it was an all out pull out as he first said when starting his campaign. It appears to me that no matter who is in office the pullout date will be about the same as the Iraqis have a clear voice in this issue.

I do not believe one paper other another or one website over an other. Both are a good "starting point". It is nice, and sometimes refreshing, to see both views. From there you research and then make your own opinion. I do not read just one side, right or left, and form my opinion. I like throwing things out there in order to get others opinion here, it is refreshing as though you will have those that will just slam you.....which is what they always do to anyone, but there are those here that are very well informed and can be educational.

And one thing I have learned over my many years, being silent when something has been said, or in this case quoted, says something.

Sotnos

10-11-2008, 10:37 AM

Avery this is true about the Post. But let me ask you this........ If the story is false then why is there not another paper, are even a liberal paper, asking those quoted if the quotes are true and/or acurate?
How do you know they haven't investigated it & decided it's a waste of time to give the story any legs by addressing it?

WaiverWire

10-11-2008, 10:43 AM

That could be said for almost any story that is in the media.

Why do you think that the Iraqi goverment has not said the story was false or mis-quoted?

TexasBolt

10-11-2008, 01:56 PM

That could be said for almost any story that is in the media.

Why do you think that the Iraqi goverment has not said the story was false or mis-quoted?

I love the way you argue such stupid stuff to the death and then try and pass yourself off as undecided or impartial. This came from a paper owned by the same man whose news network has practically attached a tracking device to Bill Ayers for 24-hour-a-day surveillance in a box on the corner of the screen.

WaiverWire

10-11-2008, 03:11 PM

Oh Please TexasBolt. I love how if is is printed in a left wing paper it is gospol, any other paper is false and is out of line.

All I said was that the article was printer, then I looked for other information and found it strange that no one that was quoted ever came out and said they were mis-quoted. The only response has been from an Obama advisor who said he was there and the statemens were never said.

At least I tried to find another source before ever saying maybe it was true.

But then what should one expect when many respond about ACORN, voter fraud and $835,000 from a campaign fund to assist ACORN with............so.

Donnie D

10-11-2008, 03:16 PM

I read the story WW, and while I wouldn't expect it to be on MSNBC, I also haven't seen it on CNN or anywhere else for that matter. (Then again, I'm not Sarah Palin - I don't read all of them.)

At the same time I don't think the Alaska issue is going to have any legs either. The McCain spin doctors have done their job saying that both of the chairs (GOP and Dem) are Obama supporters - you know because Palin is a maverick and stands up to her party too. And there is the quote that she acted legally in firing the pubic safety director.

It really doesn't matter. McCain keeps falling further and further behind in the national polls. What should be safe states for the Republicans are toss ups and Obama is 5% or more up in enough states to get to 270 electoral votes. He has to get through the last debate and keep from making a mistake. Oh and hope there isn't an attack on the USA or that they find and kill Osama.

WaiverWire

10-11-2008, 03:36 PM

"At the same time I don't think the Alaska issue is going to have any legs either. The McCain spin doctors have done their job saying that both of the chairs (GOP and Dem) are Obama supporters - you know because Palin is a maverick and stands up to her party too. And there is the quote that she acted legally in firing the pubic safety director."

And so far this is nothing more than a report from a Chief Investigator as the panel he reported to has of yet to even support it. And this morning how many papers had by-lines that leads you to believe that she was found to be guilty of the charges?

This is the headline of the article Pete ran as a link Panel: Gov. Palin abused power, but firing was legal

The article clearly states that the panel did not vote to support or not support the report. But today you find headlines in most papers. You do not learn the truth until you read the whole article or do your research.

After a court fight to block the report failed, the panel of lawmakers voted to release it — though not without dissension. The panel did not vote on whether to endorse its findings.

"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."

In Today's Cleveland Plain Dealer you find this headline Alaska panel declares Palin abused power
. Read the article and they never even bring up the fact that the panel only voted to release the report but did not take a vote to support it!

the_narrow_way

10-11-2008, 03:42 PM

Read the article and they never even bring up the fact that the panel only voted to release the report but did not take a vote to support it!
But what kind of crap is that? What the heck does that mean?

Hey look, here's our report and its finding, but we're not sure if we agree with it?

Huh?:noidea:

WaiverWire

10-11-2008, 04:06 PM

Sorry.....what was meant was that the headline that was posted by the one paper in Cleveland read : Alaska panel declares Palin abused power,............................ but when you read the article they never even mentioned that the panel only released the report but never took a vote to support the investigators findings.

The report is nothing more than a report that was written by the chief investigator. His report went to the panel. They voted to release the report, but according to Pete's link they never voted to support it.

These posting are not to show any support of Palin. They are to show that one paper, no matter which side they support will and do print misleading information. Thus one can not just go by the source, nor can one say that an article in a liberal paper must be fact, but you must look to other, multiple, sources.

Pete........Fox is running a scroll that says a panel of federal judges over turned on Friday the the one federal judge that said the Ohio Secretary of State was violating federal law and need not validate the absentee votes.......did you see anything as I can not find this anywhere.
?

Never mind. Found it in the Columbus Dispatch where a 3 judge panel ruled 2-1 for the State of Ohio.

Donnie D

10-12-2008, 10:40 AM

In response to Pete's above statement, the Rep. has to prop up the top of the ticket or risk losing support for the rest of the candidates. So while they may not choose to spend as much on McCain, suport for McCain is essential if they want to win some of the lower ticket races.

Interesting comment on ABC this morning. Cokie Roberts opined that McCain's comments on Friday were as a result of realizing that there was little likelyhood of winning and that he wants to escape with his reputation in tact.

pete

10-12-2008, 12:11 PM

In response to Pete's above statement, the Rep. has to prop up the top of the ticket or risk losing support for the rest of the candidates. So while they may not choose to spend as much on McCain, suport for McCain is essential if they want to win some of the lower ticket races.

Oh, sure, they're not going to overtly turn on McCain. But if they don't back him up with money, with McCain on public financing, this is over. Obama's already outspending McCain 3:1 in TV ads.

Bolthed

10-12-2008, 12:17 PM

I think he did it because he realized he has a bottom-line responsibility to not let the country he loves descend into civil war. This is dangerous stuff, and to me, what McCain did was necessary and correct - he put country before politics, which has very much been a slogan up 'til then.

He maverick'd his own campaign. Maverick ... drink!

WaiverWire

10-12-2008, 12:32 PM

By Pete:

"Of course, if you look at the Senate map for 2010, it may be a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will have a fillibuster proof majority there from 2010-2012, at which point Obama gets whatever he wants in Congress."

This is very true unless the democrats do not get everything on track by the 2010.

I like a government that is not under the control by one party. The next two years the Dem's will be looking at some tough times under their watch. Any failures on their part will make it rough on any incumbent in 2010.

Bolthed

10-12-2008, 01:14 PM

Seriously dude, after the 'Pubs had control from 2000-2006, why NOT see what the Dems can do with full control?

WaiverWire

10-12-2008, 01:33 PM

pete

10-12-2008, 02:13 PM

The dem's are taking over at one of the worst times in this country's history. If they do not move closer to the center then things will not get better.

The Democrats are at the center. That's the problem. The political pendulum has swung so far to the right since 1980 that there is a vacuum at the left of American politics. That is why you get a $700 billion dollar bail out of Wall Street with only token opposition in Congress from the Democrats and you don't see the kind of large scale re-regulation policies that are needed.

What's needed on energy policy isn't, by any means, a moderate or conservative solution. What's needed is a WPA style infrastructure program that involves upgrading the electrical grid nationwide while bringing wind, solar, tidal, geothermal etc online. To do something as big as is needed, Congress needs to move left and have government take the managerial role in such a program. If they don't, we won't get what we need.

And no, environmentalists aren't going to stand in the way of a good energy policy. They're the ones who have been screaming for a good energy policy for 30 years.

Bolthed

10-12-2008, 03:44 PM

Because I do not think that people will wait. Voters will not return those in office unless they are able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The dem's are taking over at one of the worst times in this country's history. If they do not move closer to the center then things will not get better.

I see the energy issue as a way to get this country turned around. A great energy policy not only gets us away from the mid-east but it also creates millions of jobs here. The Dem's will be in control and I think that they will have their problems with this very important issue......I hope not, but would not be surprised if they get bogged down. I can see it now that as they try to bring a policy into play the environmentalist of their party will do everything to stop them......and they may just win. If so we will have no energy policy and we will still be buying oil from the east with money borrowed from China.

A two party system working together would bring things more to the center which would leave those on the right and left without much of a say.......which is good for all.

You have every right to your opinions, but I find it surprising that you actually think the two parties can work together and be "good for all." How naive. If the numbers aren't in one party's favor, they just deadlock each other regardless of the issues. It's today's politics ... and yes, it sucks. I cannot fathom how you could possibly want any more of it.

Face it, the Republicans have had their chance and now the Democrats should get theirs. I'm not a Dem and I hate the two-party system. I hate both parties for playing politics when we need action, which is why I favor the lesser of two evils -- I no longer want deadlocked government. I want Obama and I want him to have a majority in Congress. They may not do everything right, but at least they will do something and it won't be all about corporations anymore.

Don't you want something to change from the way things are and have been going, WW? Well, IMHO, this is the only real choice we have. Every other scenario is sure to bog down in partisan bickering as usual.

Sotnos

10-12-2008, 04:08 PM

All I said was that the article was printer, then I looked for other information and found it strange that no one that was quoted ever came out and said they were mis-quoted. The only response has been from an Obama advisor who said he was there and the statemens were never said.
Here ya go: Obama did not ask to delay security agreement (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/12/obama-did-not-ask-to-delay-security-agreement-iraqi-fm-says/) from CNN's political ticker.

:bravo: You're welcome.

Thus one can not just go by the source, nor can one say that an article in a liberal paper must be fact, but you must look to other, multiple, sources. I don't get where you're coming from with this when most of your sources are consistently biased (in the other direction).

WaiverWire

10-12-2008, 06:34 PM

Thank you for the CNN link.

I don't get where you're coming from with this when most of your sources are consistently biased (in the other direction).

Could you them please list what sources will accept? :D

Oh wait.....CNN, Communist News Network, I don't accept CNN as a non biased source :D: :D: :D:

Maverick9911

10-12-2008, 06:40 PM

I prefer The Onion.

They had a fascinating article recently about how, after all these years, Twisted Sister may actually take it.

Oh wait.....CNN, Communist News Network, I don't accept CNN as a non biased source

Aside from Cafferty, they've been downright Fox-ian all summer/fall. Wolf Blitzer especially.

pete

10-12-2008, 06:48 PM

Wolf Blitzer especially.

Wolf Blitzer must've been pissed when Tony Snow got the gig for Bush's press secretary over him.

TexasBolt

10-12-2008, 08:02 PM

Obama is now running ads on my local TV stations. In Texas. I've seen his tax ad at least 10 times today during football. I'm amazed.

Actually I wonder if he's doing it more for the benefit of Rick Noriega, who could probably take out John Cornyn if he had enough money. That toolbag doesn't open his mouth unless Bush and his minions tell him what to say.

pete

10-12-2008, 08:12 PM

I'm in Texas and seeing his tax ads too. Are you sure they're not national ads he's bought for during the football games?

Maverick9911

10-12-2008, 08:13 PM

I've seen a bunch during the Cowboys-Cardinals game on Fox and now during the Sunday nighter on NBC.

pete

10-12-2008, 10:22 PM

Yeah, I think they bought national spots on all the football telecasts.

Maverick9911

10-12-2008, 10:27 PM

Speaking of national spots, did anyone else hear about the 30 minute prime time blocks he bought for the evening of the 29th? (all but Fox I think, because of baseball...potentially).

Can't wait to hear his numbers for September.

Just saw one of his new bio ads on Fox baseball...one of the answers to the whole "he's not one of us" bullshit tactics.

pete

10-12-2008, 10:34 PM

I saw a rumor it was $66M. I suspect it's higher, though.

Maverick9911

10-12-2008, 10:36 PM

$66 was his August number I think. I saw that on cable news in New York and spat out my coffee in shock...there's one rumor about how his September was over $100.

In passing I saw some figure from Plouffe about how before the convention he had contributions from 1.5 million donors. As of now, the figure (estimated, it was an estimate and I saw it by accident as I have been on blog boycott) was 4 million.

pete

10-12-2008, 10:50 PM

Yeah, if I had to guess, it was probably between $75 and 80 million. The thought was that Obama would raise $100M one month before it was over, but I've been reading that a good chunk of Clinton's big dollar donors refuse to play nice.

pete

10-13-2008, 01:59 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163457

This is an excellent column from Newsweek which I think accurately describes why McCain's selection of Palin was a sign of his weakness as a leader, and how he's basically being crushed by the weight of a dying party that he can't get out from under.

I disagree with any implication that Lieberman would've been a good choice for VP, but I do think there were people far more qualified than Palin who were passed over for their views on abortion or other issues (Hutchinson and Ridge come to mind). The selection of a running mate is the first executive decision that any president makes. What McCain's selection showed was that he was incapable of escaping the control of the fundamentalist Christian right sect of the GOP and the doctrinaire anti-government conservatives (the "drown government in a bathtub" crowd). And I think that mistake has become an underlying part of this campaign's narrative. If McCain's not strong enough to have control over his own campaign and party and turn it away from what has defined it during eight years of Bush, how can he possibly be a strong enough leader to turn the country around as president?

pete

10-13-2008, 02:10 PM

Interesting. Apparently McCain attended and spoke at an event co-sponsored by ACORN in 2006 promoting his immigration reform bill.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/10/13/142649/68

pete

10-13-2008, 05:19 PM

For Bolthed:

http://www.physorg.com/news142862643.html

Researchers at the University of Washington are now contending, based on the data collected from the Democratic primaries, that there is a reverse Bradley effect and that Obama has a hidden 3-4% that isn't showing up in polls because of his race.

This seems to counter (although the two aren't mutually exclusive, I suppose) a study done by Stanford University that suggested Obama was suffering as much as a 6% penalty in the polls because of his race.

And then there's also the suggestion cell phone only users aren't being polled and that is causing a 2-3% hidden element of the electorate for Obama that isn't showing up in polls.

Long story short: we have no idea what will happen in November. We've never done this in America.

However, my gut instinct is that there probably is a hidden percentage of support among whites for Obama in polling. I don't have an Obama bumper sticker on my car for fear some racist douchebag will key it, and I know a lot of people who also won't put an Obama sticker on their car for the same reason. So, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar phenomenon going on in polling. If I was to guess, Obama is probably doing 2-4% better among whites than what is showing in the polls: especially in the South. Florida. North Carolina. Virginia. Georgia. I bet he outperforms the polls by a considerable amount in those states. That would translate to a 1-2% hidden bonus for Obama nationwide.

As far as the cell phone thing goes: I still think it's overrated. There's maybe a 1% hidden bonus for Obama there, if that.

So, if you held a gun to my head, I'd guess Obama's actually 2-3% better off than the polls are showing right now.

Bolthed

10-13-2008, 05:30 PM

Thanks. That and fivethirtyeight.com are raising my spirits. But I'm like Hollywood elite writer Dana Gould, who said on Bill Maher's show last Friday, "I won't stop worrying (about this election) until Year 2 of Obama's presidency!" :D

pete

10-13-2008, 06:48 PM

At this point, my focus is shifting to the Senate and hoping Obama has long enough coattails to get the Democrats to 60 Senate seats, preferably without Lieberman.

Right now, the Democratic caucus has 49 Democrats, plus Bernie Sanders, plus Lieberman.

If the election were held today, I believe that the Democrats would definitely pick up the following 6 Senate seats: Virginia (Mark Warner), New Mexico (Tom Udall), Colorado (Mark Udall), New Hampshire (Jeanne Shaheen), North Carolina (Kay Hagan), and Oregon (Jeff Merkley). That would put the number at 55 Democrats, plus Sanders, plus Lieberman.

The second tier races are in Alaska (Begich) and Minnesota (Franken). These, in my opinion, are the true toss-ups. Begich is running against an indicted Ted Stevens, but Palin has coattails that might save him. Franken's a comedian running in a bizarre three-way race against the incumbent, Norm Coleman, and independent candidate Dean Barkley, who temporarily held this seat in the wake of Paul Wellstone's death upon appointment by then governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura. If you held a gun to my head today and asked me, I'd say Franken wins and Begich loses because of Palin. The Democrats need both of these seats to have any real chance of getting to 60, though. That would get them to 57 Democrats, plus Sanders, plus Lieberman.

The third tier races are the ones that have suddenly moved strongly into play because of Obama's surge and economic collapse. These are Mississippi (Musgrove), Georgia (Martin), and Kentucky (Lunsford). These races are ones the Democrats might win by a nose if Republican turnout is depressed by top-of-the-ticket blues and, in the case of Mississippi and Georgia, by record African American turnout. Sweep the second tier and win just one of these seats and the Democratic caucus is 60, but to have a fillibuster-proof majority that doesn't include being extorted by Joe Lieberman, Democrats would have to win 2 of 3. I really believe in Jim Martin in Georgia. I think he's got a real good chance of stealing the win. But, I don't think Musgrove or Lunsford have the juice to pull off wins, and Obama's coattails are probably nonexistent in Mississippi and Kentucky.

I think the Democratic caucus will be 58-59 after the election, including Lieberman. I think Martin can pull the upset in Georgia, but I think Begich falls short in Alaska, and Musgrove and Lunsford both lose by around 4-5%.

Then the question is, can the Democrats get a handful of Republicans to play ball with them to get legislation passed. Judd Gregg in New Hampshire, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and Olympia Snowe in Maine are the ones I would target for some arm twisting.

In any event, as I've said, the way the 2010 map sets up, Democrats could easily have 65-70 Senate seats after the midterm elections. But for Obama to really accomplish everything he needs to accomplish, he really needs the Democratic caucus to get to 60 now in the Senate so obstruction isn't an option for the GOP.

TexasBolt

10-13-2008, 08:54 PM

In any event, as I've said, the way the 2010 map sets up, Democrats could easily have 65-70 Senate seats after the midterm elections.

That would be shocking that either party could ever control that many seats.

TexasBolt

10-13-2008, 08:55 PM

I'm in Texas and seeing his tax ads too. Are you sure they're not national ads he's bought for during the football games?

I thought they might have been local buys because they aired during parts of the game where the network breaks for local commercials, like between quarters, and during halftimes. But I guess they could have been national.

pete

10-13-2008, 09:19 PM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/2939476582_7b1cf99e83.jpg

Dude. Seriously?

:doh:

And in Pennsylvania, watch a racist trying to be clever caught on video!

6U54xJFEOzk

bKUovpF9LWU

WaiverWire

10-13-2008, 09:51 PM

Pete, I was wondering about this as didn't Obama win a straw vote in Iowa and when it came time for the primary Clinton took the State by over 10%?''

But let me ask you this.....isn't this an issue on both sides? Don't we have people voting for Obama just because of his color? Either way is sad.

pete

10-13-2008, 10:48 PM

Obama won the Iowa caucus. Edwards finished second. I don't understand what you're getting at.

And the reverse racism charge is ridiculous. Look at the exit polls from 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Kerry won 88% of the African American vote in 2004. It doesn't matter if it's a tall skinny white guy or a tall skinny black guy, African Americans will still vote for the guy with the D beside his name by a 9:1 margin. And, the reason is simple: because the Republican Party is the home of the segment of our society that does racist (expletive) like putting an Obama bumper sticker on a stuffed monkey.

Maverick9911

10-13-2008, 11:13 PM

And in Pennsylvania, watch a racist trying to be clever caught on video!

These are the people who scare me most on election day, not so much because they will tip the race to McCain (call me overly optimistic but I don't see it happening) but because I fear they will be so incredibly enraged when the race is called...lord knows what they'll do. I hear reports about signs being riddled with bullet holes, people getting shot for wearing Obama shirts, etc. and its sick. I can't even wear my buttons or Superman shirt in public, not because I'm ashamed of whom I support for President but because I don't want some crazy ass starting crap with me.

I know this is a small sample size and not representative of the whole by any means but every single AA voter I have spoken with about the race (and through volunteering and the rallies I have spoken to many), all of them have educated opinions about Obama's platform and their core issues. They'll acknowledge the historical impact of Obama's candidacy at times but it's not their selling point. I have, unfortunately, encountered many strangers and friends who care nothing about the issues but swear that they would never vote for a black man (putting it politely). A girl I used to work with is voting McCain because, even though she is a staunch democrat, her Korean father would "roll over in his grave if we elected a woman or a negro".

I just wish it didn't matter so much in this age. I'd vote for a ticket of Verne Troyer and Flavor Flav if they had a strong plan for America.

WaiverWire

10-13-2008, 11:39 PM

We are not talking about 2004. We are talking about 2008.

Are you saying that if a white person votes for McCain based on race they are a racist and if a black person votes for Obama based on race that are not a racist?

Maverick9911

10-13-2008, 11:44 PM

Don't know if thats for Pete or myself, but ill throw my two cents in.

I want people deciding on the issues, the platform and the man - not race. Doesn't matter who they choose, if race is the primary concern its wrong.

pete

10-14-2008, 12:35 AM

Are you saying that if a white person votes for McCain based on race they are a racist and if a black person votes for Obama based on race that are not a racist?

I'm saying it wouldn't matter if Obama was white or purple, African Americans still vote 9:1 Democratic. I am absolutely in disbelief every time a Republican says, "Well African Americans are only voting for Obama because he's black." It wouldn't matter if it was Clinton, Gore, or anyone else as the nominee. Don't believe it? Look at the exit polls from 2004. Last I checked, Kerry was a tall, skinny, wooden, white guy, and he still carried almost 9 out of every 10 votes cast by African Americans. Didn't make a damned difference what color he was. African Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and the reason is partly because there is a sect of the Republican Party that is safe harbor for racists.

But it another way: in Maryland in 2006 the Republican Party nominated an African American, Michael Steele, to go up against a white Democrat Ben Cardin. Guess who won 74% of the black vote Waiver Wire? I'll give you a hint: it was the guy with the big "D" beside his name.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/MD/S/01/epolls.0.html

The whole idea that African Americans will automatically vote for the black guy is as stupid as the idea that women will automatically vote for McCain because Palin is on the ticket, and it shows a cartoonish understanding of the American electorate.

pete

10-14-2008, 12:48 AM

And by the way, there's absolutely no moral equivalence between what you're talking about (which, as I said, is completely bogus), Waiver Wire, and some of the amazingly bigoted things that are being said and done at McCain and Palin's rallys by their supporters. And, McCain and Palin won't refute them as strongly as they should and continue to foment their anger by continuing to imply Obama is a secret terrorist because they know the only way they could possibly win this election is to polarize the electorate along racial lines and keep Obama to 30-35% of the white vote. That's their only chance. They lost African Americans decades ago. They lost Hispanics in 2005 with their hard line stance on immigration. And, they've lost Independents on the issues in this election because of the GOP's complete and utter failure to govern effectively. This is the only card the GOP has left to play, and it's an ugly one that's been stuck at the bottom of the deck since 1988 when they ran the Willie Horton ads.

timothy

10-14-2008, 12:57 AM

I'm saying it wouldn't matter if Obama was white or purple, African Americans still vote 9:1 Democratic. I am absolutely in disbelief every time a Republican says, "Well African Americans are only voting for Obama because he's black." It wouldn't matter if it was Clinton, Gore, or anyone else as the nominee. Don't believe it? Look at the exit polls from 2004. Last I checked, Kerry was a tall, skinny, wooden, white guy, and he still carried almost 9 out of every 10 votes cast by African Americans. Didn't make a damned difference what color he was. African Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats

The difference is the number of African Americans that will vote in this coming election. The ratios may be the same; the total votes casts by African Americans for Obama will be considerably higher than for John Kerry.

dmitry

10-14-2008, 01:11 AM

I would be willing to make the wild bet that there will be far more blacks voting than ever before, and they won't be coming out for McCain.

pete

10-14-2008, 02:44 AM

The difference is the number of African Americans that will vote in this coming election. The ratios may be the same; the total votes casts by African Americans for Obama will be considerably higher than for John Kerry.

And there will also be a record number of 18-25 year old voters who turn out for this election. Does that make the Obama campaign agist too?

Look, the fact of the matter is the Obama campaign has spent the most time and money in the history of American politics to build the most comprehensive and sophisticated field operation this country has ever seen. They've put an incredible amount of resources into registering, mobilizing, and yes, organizing hundreds of thousands of people who have never participated in the political process before. That doesn't just include African Americans. It includes young people, Hispanics, and women as well. And you watch, all those segments will turn out in record numbers on election day, too.

The Obama campaign had to build this elaborate grassroots machine because they were locked in mortal combat with the Clinton campaign week by week, state by state during the primaries to get the nomination. While John McCain was posing for photo ops with Phil Gramm because he had the nomination sewn up about a month into the process, Obama and his campaign were busting their humps all over the country to sign up people of all colors and backgrounds to vote, because it was a matter of political necessity and survival. And they did an amazing job of it, because they defeated almost the full array of the Democratic machine establishment that was behind the Clintons. And once they figured out how to do it in the primaries, they knew they could keep on doing it for the general election (and, eventually, they got to absorb the fruits of Clinton's registration and mobilization efforts into their own).

So I find it incredibly offensive that anyone would dare denegrate the hard work of that campaign to claim what they've accomplished is the product of "reverse racism", "sexism", "agism" or any other kind of "ism." The fact is, Obama's campaign has simply outworked everyone they've come up against.

And, again, I'm sorry, but the whole idea that the kind of bull (expletive) that the McCain campaign is somehow equivalent to what the Obama campaign is doing in registering and mobilizing people to exercise their Constitutional, God-given right to vote is a sick joke. I don't see people at Obama rallys screaming "kill whitey" or holding up signs saying that John McCain is a secret terrorist. Wanna know why? Come closer to the monitor when you read this one, because it's really frickin' important. It's because roughly three out of every five people who will cast votes for Obama in four weeks are white, contrary to what the press, the Republicans, and the talk radio airheads are going to claim about Obama being carried into office on a wave of minority support alone. The math don't lie, people. Open your eyes. Something amazing is happening.

Sotnos

10-14-2008, 05:42 AM

RSchmitz

10-14-2008, 07:37 AM

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 08:29 AM

Your not arguing that there aren't racist black people are you Pete?

Thank you as that is my point.

A simple "yes" or "no" would be nice.

Donnie D

10-14-2008, 10:17 AM

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 10:32 AM

If your theory is that Blacks are voting for Obama only because he is black. I don't remember Black folks voting in droves for Allen Keyes, so I would say that the reason they are voting for Obama is not just because he is black but because he is a democrat and backs their policy.

Don't spin my words Donnie, I never said it was a theory.

I asked the following:

Are you saying that if a white person votes for McCain based on race they are a racist and if a black person votes for Obama based on race that are not a racist?

That sir is not a theory, it was a question.

dmitry

10-14-2008, 10:59 AM

And there will also be a record number of 18-25 year old voters who turn out for this election. Does that make the Obama campaign agist too?

Look, the fact of the matter is the Obama campaign has spent the most time and money in the history of American politics to build the most comprehensive and sophisticated field operation this country has ever seen. They've put an incredible amount of resources into registering, mobilizing, and yes, organizing hundreds of thousands of people who have never participated in the political process before. That doesn't just include African Americans. It includes young people, Hispanics, and women as well. And you watch, all those segments will turn out in record numbers on election day, too.

The Obama campaign had to build this elaborate grassroots machine because they were locked in mortal combat with the Clinton campaign week by week, state by state during the primaries to get the nomination. While John McCain was posing for photo ops with Phil Gramm because he had the nomination sewn up about a month into the process, Obama and his campaign were busting their humps all over the country to sign up people of all colors and backgrounds to vote, because it was a matter of political necessity and survival. And they did an amazing job of it, because they defeated almost the full array of the Democratic machine establishment that was behind the Clintons. And once they figured out how to do it in the primaries, they knew they could keep on doing it for the general election (and, eventually, they got to absorb the fruits of Clinton's registration and mobilization efforts into their own).

So I find it incredibly offensive that anyone would dare denegrate the hard work of that campaign to claim what they've accomplished is the product of "reverse racism", "sexism", "agism" or any other kind of "ism." The fact is, Obama's campaign has simply outworked everyone they've come up against.

And, again, I'm sorry, but the whole idea that the kind of bull (expletive) that the McCain campaign is somehow equivalent to what the Obama campaign is doing in registering and mobilizing people to exercise their Constitutional, God-given right to vote. I don't see people at Obama rallys screaming "kill whitey" or holding up signs saying that John McCain is a secret terrorist. Wanna know why? Come closer to the monitor when you read this one, because it's really frickin' important. It's because roughly three out of every five people who will cast votes for Obama in four weeks are white, contrary to what the press, the Republicans, and the talk radio airheads are going to claim about Obama being carried into office on a wave of minority support alone. The math don't lie, people. Open your eyes. Something amazing is happening.

Forget about all of the swooning masses, you're missing the entire point. If you're trying to attribute all of the new black voters just to the hard work of the campaign then you're kidding yourself.

Maverick9911

10-14-2008, 11:12 AM

The real answer lies between what Pete and WW are saying - Yes, a record number of AA voters will be turning out this year and Obama's race (half of it anyways) appeals to many whom would never consider getting energized to go to the polls. However as Pete detailed, this is a bloc that nearly always votes democratic anyways - many who don't vote still would if properly energized, which is where the field organizers come in. The campaign has done an amazing job getting unregistered voters from this very bloc registered in record numbers (300k+ in Georgia last I checked). Race plays a role, yes, but its not Obama's saving grace as many pundits would like to believe.

Democrats always had the AA vote, as mentioned. The Obama campaign, regardless what the mainstream media would have you believe, is registering a record number of female and hispanic voters as well. The hispanic voters in South Florida who mysteriously had a problem with Obama? Don't hear so much about that anymore do we (When the Diaz-Balart brothers and Illeana Ros-Lehtinen are in danger of being booted out, you know there's a problem down there - and it isn't with the dems).

Yes, we are going to see voters cast their ballots for Obama primarily or solely because of the color of his skin. I don't find that right either. Yes, we are going to see some traditional democrats cast theirs against Obama for the same reason. The honest republicans will walk in holding their nose but McCain's their only choice. Right now his campaign's only tactic is to appeal to the seriously conflicted voter with scare tactics about the black boogeyman terrorist who wants your women.

And the media harping on how race will doom Obama doesn't help either. You can't call for making history and moving on as a country and then playi the same fear card you supposedly loathe.

pete

10-14-2008, 11:37 AM

Your not arguing that there aren't racist black people are you Pete?

The whole idea that the Obama campaign is somehow built on "reverse racism" is a frame I simply refuse to dignify.

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 12:40 PM

The whole idea that the Obama campaign is somehow built on "reverse racism" is a frame I simply refuse to dignify.

who here ever said that?

I agree with Mav. We have whites from both parties that will refuse to vote for him just because of his skin color. That is just wrong. But it is also wrong for any black person, even if they had always voted democrat their entire life, to look at this race and vote for a person just because of their skin color.

Everyone should be looking at the issues and voting for what is best for them. If this includes what they want for their parents and/or their children so be it. But do not allow ones race to enter into the picture.....no matter who you are.

And what started this was a post that said don't count this in the bag as of yet, as some may be saying one thing and voting another.

RSchmitz

10-14-2008, 01:12 PM

The whole idea that the Obama campaign is somehow built on "reverse racism" is a frame I simply refuse to dignify.

If that is what WW is saying than I whole heartedly disagree with him. Obama hasn't brought up race at all until the Wright thing blew up in his face. But I don't believe that was his point of contention. Its not fair for him to admit that there is a Bradley effect and that there are tons of racists coming out of the woodworks, while at the same time your denying that there are a ton of African Americans ready to vote for Obama, where the color of his skin has a profound influence on their decision to make their way down to the voting booths.

You don't have to call it racism. As an example, one of the first things they instruct you on being a teacher is that you have to have a multi-cultural perspective in your classroom, and teach about every race. The point being, you associate more with your own race, and it becomes more meaningful. It makes sense.

And Maverick, I agree with everything you said. But your ignoring the fact that there is an aura of excitement around the African American community that isn't there for the hispanic and female community. For women, its there for Palin. For African Americans, its there for Obama. I don't see whats so hard about admitting that. Obama may not be focusing his campaign around that, but its there regardless.

Sotnos

10-14-2008, 01:22 PM

But your ignoring the fact that there is an aura of excitement around the African American community
And really, is there anything wrong with that? Not IMO.

For women, its there for Palin.
Uh, no. Not at all. Maybe women who think like her find her "exciting". Overgeneralizing a wee bit there. ;)

RSchmitz

10-14-2008, 01:38 PM

And really, is there anything wrong with that? Not IMO.

Nobody has voiced their opinion whether it is right or wrong. The fact is, its there.

Uh, no. Not at all. Maybe women who think like her find her "exciting". Overgeneralizing a wee bit there. ;)

Its not an over generalization, when one of the biggest reasons McCain selected her to be VP was to appeal to the "Hillary vote" :)

pete

10-14-2008, 01:53 PM

Nobody has voiced their opinion whether it is right or wrong.

Waiver Wire, at the very start of this kerfluffle, tried to establish moral equivalence between what's going on in McCain and Palin's rallys and the fact that Obama has been registering and mobilizing African Americans to exercise their right to vote.

And he's continuing to try to establish moral equivalence between the two, even despite the facts that have been laid out, unchallenged, in this thread.

I challenge anyone here to find me an instance of anyone at an Obama rally screaming "Kill whitey!" or carrying a sign questioning John McCain's religion or his patriotism. I defy anyone to produce me anything approaching what we're witnessing from our friends in the GOP. There is. No. Moral. Equivalence. Period. It's pretty obvious which campaign is built on Fear and, dare I say, tinged with Hate, and which campaign is built on Hope. 18 months ago when Obama came out with the whole "Hope" slogan, I thought it was marketing schtick. But, to my surprise, it's become in many ways the substance of this campaign.

And, I'd like to further elaborate on why the whole "Black people are only voting and/or turning out in record numbers for Obama because he's black," frame is bogus. Al Sharpton. Carol Moseley-Braun. Jesse Jackson. We've had African American candidates before and none of them were anywhere near as successful at mobilizing the African American community as Obama (although Jesse did really well for the time in the '80's). Why is that?

The reason is because Obama 1.) had the money and resources to devote to the cause, as I've mentioned, and 2.) Obama is possibly the greatest communicator of our time. So, like I said, if you accept an oversimplification like "Black people are only voting for/turning out for Obama because he's black," you're missing the big picture and you're sleighting the Obama campaign for their hard work and you're sleighting Obama's incredible natural political skills, and those things transcend race.

Maverick9911

10-14-2008, 02:11 PM

But your ignoring the fact that there is an aura of excitement around the African American community that isn't there for the hispanic and female community. For women, its there for Palin. For African Americans, its there for Obama. I don't see whats so hard about admitting that. Obama may not be focusing his campaign around that, but its there regardless.

There is the aura around the AA bloc, definitely, and I certainly admit that. The difference, at least in my eyes, was that these are people that would (as Pete cited) overwhelmingly vote democratic regardless of whether it was Barack Obama or John Kerry. The color of his skin may be helping to get some of these previously apathetic voters fired up to vote for him but the majority of them would be voting for that D on the ballot anyways - not to say there aren't some that just look at his color and make their decision based on that. If this were Alan Keyes getting this kind of support on a Republican ticket, then I'd change my tune. The excitement is definitely there and it has and will certainly contribute to his record vote totals but it isn't supporting his entire campaign as some of these frustrated cable news pundits try to claim - his grassroots mobilization is the real reason. A lot of the media attention goes to his commercials, the rallies and his fundraising numbers but the true heart of his entire campaign are these field offices opening daily all over the country that have thousands of people lined up at dawn just for a chance to volunteer. Here we are three weeks to the election and I'm getting notices about new offices opening in North Tampa and more are on the way.

One of the many things I respect about him is that (as you described) aside from the landmark race speech, he hasn't been walloping voters over the head with his race. It drives me insane when I hear pundits say he plays the race card by citing how he isn't the typical candidate - he ISN'T, for reasons including and beyond his skin color. McCain wants to play the "different stranger" card and when Obama attempts to respond, he's playing the race card. They use coded language and insist he isn't "one of us" and if Obama dares to bring up his white family, he's pandering. Pandering to me is picking Sarah Palin out of irrational judgment and then parading her around in television ads with former Clinton surrogates, trying vainly to say it isn't an attempt to pick off disgruntled female voters.

Donnie D

10-14-2008, 03:33 PM

One of the many things I respect about him is that (as you described) aside from the landmark race speech, he hasn't been walloping voters over the head with his race.

In all fairness, it wouldn't be in his best interest to be doing that. He doesn't need or want his race to be an issue.

RSchmitz

10-14-2008, 03:45 PM

I was under the impression we were talking voter turnout. We already know that the conservative media stirs a lot of hate. But that isn't limited to the African American community. Every year the democratic candidate becomes the next anti-christ, at least according to my brother in law. Thats how they get a lot of their votes, misinformation and bigotry. However, I think the overwhelming support Obama is going to get from the African American community is going to be enough to trump the racist vote.

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 04:08 PM

Waiver Wire, at the very start of this kerfluffle, tried to establish moral equivalence between what's going on in McCain and Palin's rallys and the fact that Obama has been registering and mobilizing African Americans to exercise their right to vote.

And he's continuing to try to establish moral equivalence between the two, even despite the facts that have been laid out, unchallenged, in this thread.

What!!!!!!!!!!! Where have I ever said anything like this Pete? Please do not put words in my mouth. All I have talked about is one's vote.

You are the one tossing out numbers and the past. I am not talking about the past. I am talking about this election the year 2008. In our debate history means nothing how one voted in the past.

And you still have refused to answer the question:

Your not arguing that there aren't racist black people are you Pete?

Pete. I invite you to go back and re-read what has been posted. You are the only one that has said anything about McCain and Palin and the remarks some have said at their rallies.

Sotnos

10-14-2008, 04:10 PM

Nobody has voiced their opinion whether it is right or wrong. The fact is, its there.
I disagree totally, but Pete said it better than me already.

Its not an over generalization, when one of the biggest reasons McCain selected her to be VP was to appeal to the "Hillary vote" :)
And has it worked? Not really. Again, the only ones excited about her are people who share her values, and you speaking for all females when you aren't one (as far as I know) is extremely presumptuous.

Maverick9911

10-14-2008, 04:35 PM

In all fairness, it wouldn't be in his best interest to be doing that. He doesn't need or want his race to be an issue.

You are correct, it would not be in his best interest and I am glad he is staying above the fray. It would be tempting to take the race bait (no pun intended) and attack McCain with the R charge but instead he's running the Obama campaign the way Barack Obama wants instead of the one the media desires. Let the surrogates get dirty - if you get off message and get into a mudfight, you're playing into their hands.

Every year the democratic candidate becomes the next anti-christ, at least according to my brother in law.

That's the template: _________ is a troop hating, baby killing, tax raising, big government advocating wimp who was the most liberal member of Congress, is married to a nut and may very well be the antichrist.

And has it worked? Not really

Not that she needed him but Tina Fey should send John McCain a bouquet on November 5th.

RSchmitz

10-14-2008, 05:04 PM

And has it worked? Not really. Again, the only ones excited about her are people who share her values, and you speaking for all females when you aren't one (as far as I know) is extremely presumptuous.

Polls disagree. You singling me out for making generalizations in a political thread is rather ridiculous. Nothing I said was inflammatory.

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 05:17 PM

Well now it seems that last week Jesse Jackson was running his mouth which has now caused the Obama campaign to release an offical statement saying Jackson is not speaking for Obama when Jackson states "he promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy".

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0

pete

10-14-2008, 06:19 PM

Well now it seems that last week Jesse Jackson was running his mouth which has now caused the Obama campaign to release an offical statement saying Jackson is not speaking for Obama when Jackson states "he promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy".

Oh my goodness! You mean African Americans aren't a monolithic entity in American politics solely motivated by the color of a candidate's skin? Whaaaaat???

Maverick9911

10-14-2008, 06:22 PM

South Park told me that Jesse Jackson is the Emperor of black people. True story.

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 06:30 PM

point is pete Jackson is not apart of Obama's campaign and should not make such remarks. I was glad that a statement came out as soon as it did.

pete

10-14-2008, 08:16 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/14/opinion/polls/main4522273.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline

CBS/NYT says Obama has a 14% lead, 53% to 39%.

Nate on 538 says he thinks CBS/NYT's poll has skewed to Obama by about 3% and guesses Obama's lead is really about 8% right now.

In case you're wondering, that would be the worst butt whipping in a presidential election since Reagan pummelled Mondale in 1984.

Maverick9911

10-14-2008, 08:20 PM

I know Republicans who still hate Minnesota with a vengeance just for being the lone 84 holdout.

I want them to hate Florida this year. And Ohio. And Virginia...etc.

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 08:26 PM

I'm wondering how many seats the republicans could be losing in Tallahassee.

pete

10-14-2008, 08:38 PM

I want Obama to keep chopping wood. Reagan won in 1980 by 9.7%. That's the number I want to see Obama beat. That would send the ultimate message to the GOP that modern conservatism is dead.

Maverick9911

10-14-2008, 08:42 PM

Here's hoping he knocks down the last big log tomorrow night.

I'm wondering how many seats the republicans could be losing in Tallahassee.

I know she isn't up for re-election yet but I'll dance a jig if we can get Ronda Storms out. My feelings for her make the ones I share for Sarah Palin feel all warm and fuzzy.

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 08:54 PM

Well here we go again. Now the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the State of Ohio and thus over turned the panel of 3 judges.

State has till Friday to put a plan in place to verify all new registrants.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20081015/D93QKFS81.html

Mav.I know many fellow coworkers of her that wish the same thing. And in 2010 they may be getting Jim Norman!

pete

10-14-2008, 09:09 PM

In 2004 my choice was between voting for Rhonda Storms or the tranny who has a show on the public access channel.

I undervoted.

Maverick9911

10-14-2008, 09:15 PM

The woman was/is a nightmare. I was doing some volunteer work at the government access station the summer she had their funding revoked just because a public access host (White Chocolate and his puppets) offended her. The station was about two seconds from taking up arms to go murder her.

WaiverWire

10-14-2008, 09:18 PM

Oh the stories I could tell you. I laugh all the way home each time I am up there and hear another story :whistling:

pete

10-14-2008, 09:54 PM

America Junior held their election today.

As of 10:45 ET, CBC is projecting that the Conservatives will maintain a minority control of the government up north.

Maverick9911

10-14-2008, 10:31 PM

I love the Daily Show lampooning idiots.

"Americans are thirsty for a change to this economic crisis and they are drinking sand...and that sand is Senator Barack Obama"

TexasBolt

10-14-2008, 11:25 PM

As of 10:45 ET, CBC is projecting that the Conservatives will maintain a minority control of the government up north.

If the Liberals weren't so incredibly pathetic up there they could have easily put Harper away. At least they didn't let them get a majority.

pete

10-14-2008, 11:50 PM

For those of you who hate the two-party system, consider that the Conservatives are going into government having carried just 37% of the national popular vote up in Canada.

RSchmitz

10-15-2008, 07:48 AM

Parties in general are terrible

the_narrow_way

10-15-2008, 08:48 AM

State has till Friday to put a plan in place to verify all new registrants.
Kinda late in the game to do this, isn't it? And does anyone know how the current system is 'not verifying' new registrants?

Flycoon

10-15-2008, 08:59 AM

Pappy suggests that long term capital gains be dropped to 7.5%. More handout to the wealthy.

WaiverWire

10-15-2008, 09:07 AM

From what I read, which may not be correct, it should be easy for her to comply. I think the problem was that when someone registers the elections official in that county would forward the information to the Secretary of State. She would then do the checks that were required by Federal law. However she then refused to send the information back to the county election officials. They in turn could not purge their list. In Ohio these lists are set to be final, per law, in just a few days and thus any bad names would remain on the lists. I think all the Secretary of State has to do to comply is release the names she could not verify to the counties that summited them.

What makes matters worse in Ohio is that they had a one week period in which you could go to a place of registration, register to vote, and then receive an absentee ballot, vote and turn it back in all at the same time.

Thus if someone who is not allowed to vote did this, the name will be separated from the ballot and cast in just a few days when the voter lists are certified. If the SOS for Ohio would give the counties the names of possible fraudulent registrations then the counties could set those registrations aside, with there ballots, for a later challenge.

WaiverWire

10-15-2008, 09:49 AM

Pappy suggests that long term capital gains be dropped to 7.5%. More handout to the wealthy.

Actually for the times it is a very good idea. Everyone is in the market. Have a 401K? IRA? Do you have a pension at work? They are all in the market with your money.

Once a week a large number of my former co-workers get together for lunch. Some are retired and some are close to retirement. In our profession we have the option of taking a monthly check or a onetime lump some payout. Those that are taking the monthly check have also taken the DROP option and thus have about $250,000 coming to them when they retire. But no matter what plan we are in we are all hearing the exact same thing from our financial advisor's. Watch the Capital Gains Tax. If it goes up we all need to remove our money from the market and place it in something safe until we see how the market reacts as we expect a lot of people removing their funds in order to save by paying the current, smaller, capital gains tax. The problem is that so many will be doing this the market is going to take a huge hit and you will not be able to just get out and then jump back in until the market settles........which take some time.

When this happens, those not in the market will a also be effectived because of a trickle down effect to Main Street.

Me, I know who is going to win and I have already moved some of my holdings out of the market.