The Base Loves Her

The key to comprehending the brilliance of Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate is in understanding the difference between the conservative mind and the liberal mind.

As the media circled like hungry jackals around Sarah Palin's daughter, eager to make a public spectacle of tearing a non-political pregnant seventeen-year-old to bits in hopes of embarrassing the McCain campaign, some might begin to wonder how a group of such intelligence could have been convinced to make themselves seem so brutal and obviously partizan. It was not merely the fact the press couldn't believe they had been so dismissed that McCain didn't even choose one of the men they had placed on their own short lists. No, that is too simple. It does not explain the obvious glee with which they savaged young Bristol. The only explanation for this feeding frenzy is an intellectual incapacity to respect the value structure of the conservative family in general. Unable to believe intelligent people would hold conservative opinions they cannot imagine the horror with which their examinations will be received by what polling shows is a largely conservative-leaning nation.

The media is dominated by people who would describe their attitudes as liberal. That is to say they would believe their attitudes bespoke "tolerance" and free, unfettered, thinking, encouraged cooperation rather than competition, and a seeking after understanding rather than the passing of judgement. All of these attitudes might surprise the unititiated witness to this week's media firebombing of the Palin family. It is certainly no surprise to long-time political conservatives.

Liberals define themselves as tolerant. Therefore what they do is evidence of their toleration. They describe themselves as free thinking. Therefore all their repetitions of the thoughts of their social circle are untainted by the zeitgeist. They define themselves as cooperative. Therefore the methods they use to win are inherently cooperative. Any self respecting liberal would certainly comprehend, no matter how condemned young Bristol may feel, these people were only seeking to feel her pain. Above all else media liberals never seem to cast a critical eye on the fundamentals of their practice of liberalism itself.

Early mainstream news reports on the choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate sought to trivialize the Alaska governor as a "former beauty queen" first introduced to the country in Vogue Magazine. She has been characterized as an NRA member, hockey mom, mother of five, small town mayor, governor of a “small” state, climate change denier, and creationist. All of these things are used as terms of diminishment in a media culture that sees the contributions of common citizens not groomed to government "service" by an Ivy League education and fealty to northeastern establishment sources of "prestige" as amateurish and embarrassing. Those things are important to people who really look to group identification and prestige as the foundation of individual validity and certification for leadership. This value structure, this dogma, is invisible to a self-described "tolerant" and "free thinking" people.

It is knowledge of this bias in the culture of modern media that prompted the McCain campaign to introduce Sarah Palin to the country at noon Eastern time- as Rush Limbaugh’s radio show was airing. Knowing this would be important enough for Rush to join the announcement in progress the speeches were coordinated so well with radio time that breaks in the schedule fell at normal advertising time slots. That gave listeners to the radio show an introduction to key facts very important to a people deeply concerned about Republican insensitivity to the conservative base and corruption in the party.

Conservatives were treated to these facts: Palin had been a reformer and tax cutter early on as a small town mayor- cutting property taxes, for example, by 60%. As a popular small-town mayor, she had been appointed by the Republican governor of Alaska to chair a committee overseeing the oil industry in the state, where she discovered corruption on the part of the Republican Party chairman. When she sought to enlist the governor’s aid in confronting this corruption he refused. She resigned her position, exposed the criminal behavior, and started major reforms of Alaska’s government. Then she ran for the governor’s seat, beat him 51% to 19% in a primary, and won the general election against a popular two-term former Democratic governor.

The group-identification path in the events above would have been to accept the party’s position of “going along to get along”. Palin did not take this path and conservative rank-and-file, hungry for leadership that will fly in the face of Bush-style ”submit-to-the-party-or-else” bullying applaud her for that. Such leadership is important to conservatives in part because John McCain himself is not well trusted among conservatives. He is seen as tainted by corruption on the one hand and excessively friendly to liberal arguments on the other. Conservatives see someone with Palin’s courage as the antidote to McCain’s seeming moral weaknesses.

News important to conservatives continued beyond this. Palin is a former fishing boat captain, which says to us “small business entrepreneur”. We also were told her husband is a blue-collar oil-production worker and a union member, which means to us (especially those of us who recognize the Republican Party as a political "union") he operates under the thumb of a parasitic bureaucracy. These facts, and those listed above of special interest to conservatives were either glossed over in mainstream media reports, often with no more than the vague term “reformer”, or they were completely ignored.

One thing means the same thing to both liberals and conservatives alike, the irrelevant beauty queen reference, which is interchangeable with outright insults in their eyes and ours.

Where we agree on importance, for different reasons, is on the subject of abortion. Governor Palin is the mother of a four-month-old baby with Down’s syndrome. In the United States 80% of babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome are aborted, largely on the grounds that they would have an “unacceptable quality of life”. Among conservatives this practice is referred to as a form of eugenics. In at least two instances of which I am aware, male newscasters critically asked if it would impair the special-needs care of this baby for Governor Palin to take on the trying task of running for the vice-presidency. Desperate liberals, aware of the hypocrisy of this approach, have tried to preserve this line of argument by attributing these questions to conservative females.

The group-identification path here is to be concerned with the appearance and potential problems associated with the “imperfect” child. Palin’s actions will also be seen within the abortion community as a dangerous window on the possible moral hazard of exposure of eugenics-like uses of abortion. Conservatives, however, applaud that the child was given the chance to experience life, and granted the resources necessary to have a chance to fare well in that life.

It could easily be anticipated that what conservatives outraged with Republican corruption would see as courageous stances on Palin’s part would be trivialized or ignored in the mainstream coverage of the announcement of her nomination, thus ensuring that the fifteen or so million conservatives listening to the original announcement would be both angered and energized by what they would perceive as bigoted coverage of the governor’s career. Thus McCain could count on untold millions of dollars worth of impassioned word-of-mouth advertising as conservatives sought to correct the record. It could also be anticipated, though, that reporters would be brutally intolerant and gleefully predatory of anything less than fairy tale perfection from an uppity, unknown, conservative mother of five and her children. That, too, would inscense a conservative base so long treated as morally corrupt by a media that doesn't even hold itself to the standard by which it defines itself. Thus that base would be cemented to the McCain-Palin ticket.

The more the media swoops in to scavenge the flesh of Palin's children the more McCain's choice looks like a work of genius.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at September 4, 2008 11:05 AM
Comments
Comment #261442

Lee,
You write: “… In the United States 80% of babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome are aborted, largely on the grounds that they would have an “unacceptable quality of life”.

Source? I beliieve closer to 91% of DS pregnancies end in abortion. It’s not just a ‘quality of life’ issue, although that will apply if the pregnancy goes through birth. Most DS pregnancies are spontaneously miscarried. If the mother waits until late in the pregnancy, the miscarriage can threaten the health of the mother. Furthermore, after birth, many DS babies die soon afterward. Among the survivors, the vast majority are unable to function. Many are categorized as ‘severely retarded,’ which is a horrifying state.

If a mother wishes to follow through with a DS pregnancy, that is her choice. Most women do not choose to do so. It is an awful choice to have to make, one way or another. It is a subject best left to the privacy of one’s family.

In the public sphere, the problem here is that Palin wants all abortions outlawed, even in the case of rape. She opposes birth control and sex education, instead favoring abstinence only.

Many conservatives never adjusted to the advent of the pill, and the ability of women to control their own reproductive systems. They have fought this fundamental right every step of the way. In other words, they want to take away the right of women to choose, and impose their own moral decisions.

It’s a controversial issue, which is, by definition, one on which reasonable people can disagree. In cases like this, government should not participate in the decision making process made within the family. As a true conservative, surely you would appreciate that.

Does Sarah Palin? Or John McCain.

Posted by: phx8 at September 4, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #261448

Lee in his usual eloquent prose writes “As the media circled like hungry jackals around Sarah Palin’s daughter, eager to make a public spectacle of tearing a non-political pregnant seventeen-year-old to bits in hopes of embarrassing the McCain campaign, some might begin to wonder how a group of such intelligence could have been convinced to make themselves seem so brutal and obviously partizan.”

Lee can you point to any specifics in the article you linked to that would back up your claim that “the media circled like hungary jackals around Sarah Palin’s daughter” and “make themselves seem so brutal and obviously partizan”?
Truthfully I just dont see it. ABC news, supposedly a liberally biased media outlet, seems to have gone to the other side in the article you linked to. They have treated the daughter quite well and spoke to the true issue which is abstinence only sex education. It makes your arguement sound foolish and without merit.
No attacks just facts, and opinions from the repubs at the convention. Why do you feel the need to vilify the liberals and the media so inaccurately?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #261453

Lessee the last time we heard about the evil media making fun of a candidate was…..Oh, yeah GW. How’s that working for ya?

Want a repeat? Go for another divise, misleading, no content candidate. Appeal to the redneck. Tell them anything to placate the masses by telling them they are great and it’s only the liberals holding them back. The destruction of competence in government had nothing to do with poiticization of FEMA, FCC, Justice DEpartment, State Department, Intelligence agencies, the SEC.

Want another candidate who offers nothing but simpleton noise and is a pawn of the corporations? Sure there are two kinds of change. Bad Change and Good Change. We’ve seen the change Bush brought with his purely polemic candidacy. The continuation down that road is not the change anyone should want. Tell Americans they can have it all, don’t worry, don’t overthink it. Make the same pony promises while telling Americans depth of understanding doesn’t matter. Just a good heart and religious conviction. It’ll all work out.

Whether Barrack, Joe, John or Sarah are experienced is not informative. Whether they can see the damage done to this country in the last eight years is informative.

Gidget’s campaign is serious cynicism. Make no mistake about it. They think you are stupid. Voting for more distractions will assure them you are.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 4, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #261455

The base loves her (Al Qaeda?), but her husband’s business partner apparently really loves her. Gidget has a affair.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 4, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #261457

j2t2, I agree.
No one is attacking Palin’s daughter, we’re attacking Palin. A mother who completely failed her teenage daughter, and is now forcing her to get married to an immature boy in order to maintain her own image. (I’m sure that marriage will be working out just great.)
Sarah Palin is working overtime to come off like Christian Extremist Mother of the Year, and in the process has been dragging that entire family around with her like they’re a freaking circus act — including a Down’s infant with an extremely susceptible and weak immune system!
Yes, all of us “Ivy League liberal elitists” think her actions are unbelievable and outrageously stupid, thus, we’re looking down on the obviously vain, abrasive and utterly divisive Ms. Palin in disgust. Not because she’s a Republican, but because this woman is acting like Half-Baked Alaskan trailer trash, and we don’t want that kind of person being the vice president of this nation.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 1:29 PM
Comment #261460

VV I find it amusing to think that anyone, especially Lee, would mistake me for an Ivy League liberal elitist. However after seeing the many misconceptions here in the red column lately perhaps I shouldnt be so amused by this thought. The thing about Palin that I find most worrisome is the $20 mil in debt she left for that small town she served as Mayor in. The Bush borrow and spend economic system has failed the country yet the repubs think more of the same is the answer. Any politician can cut taxes, She proves that, but balancing the budget is the issue not cutting taxes.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2008 1:47 PM
Comment #261462

j2t2,

I agree, we need a leader who is going to pay off our debt and bring the dollar back into the standing it once had.

And unfortunately, neither party has offered that person up yet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #261469

Lee states “Unable to believe intelligent people would hold conservative opinions they cannot imagine the horror with which their examinations will be received by what polling shows is a largely conservative-leaning nation.”

Interesting data Lee. Seems a small majority of people want to be called conservative yet a majority of people want bigger government/more services, accept homosexuality, are pro choice, and prefer to focus on the problems in this country rather than fighting wars for the corporations of this country. Go figure. IMHO this anomaly is due to the far right conservative bias in the media for the past 2 decades. Its not fashionable to be a liberal due to the constant onslaught of attacks on liberals by the talk radio crowd and the repub politicians. However moderation seems to be the true ideal of most Americans based on this information you presented.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2008 2:13 PM
Comment #261471

j2t2,

And the only candidate running this year that could be considered ‘moderate’ is…?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 2:19 PM
Comment #261478

It’s rather easy to cut taxes in a state flush with oil revenue. Is this supposed to be an accomplisment?

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 4, 2008 2:36 PM
Comment #261485

McKinney/Clemente,Green Party which can be seen to be to the left of the Dems.
Barr/Root, Libertarian Party which can be seen to be to the right of the repubs,
McCain/Palin, Republican Party which has dominionist views as well as the neocon views of Bush/Cheney
So IMHO that leaves Obama/Biden as the moderates of the group IMHO.
What say you Rhinehold?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #261486

j2t2,

McCain voted with his leadership 90% of the time. Obama voted with his leadershoip 97% of the time.

Which one is more moderate? Unless you think that the left is more moderate than the right by nature, then I would suggest looking at reality a little harder…

BTW, your assessment Libertarians are ‘right’ of the Republicans shows your lack of understanding of how the parties fan out. Libertarians are pro-choice, pro-aclu, pro-gay marriage, etc…

Maybe you should be re-examining your assumptions because they appear to be at odds with reality.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #261487

The media circling like hungry jackals. What did you expect?

McCain’s campaign knew EXACTLY how the media would react to the news of the pregnancy. Just a few months ago everyone was ranting and raving over Jamie Lynn’s pregnancy, screaming “Where was her mother?!” There is no way that the media wasn’t going to go into a frenzy over all this, and the GOP knew that. That’s one of the things that bothers me the most about all of this. It’s like the Republicans are saying “Look over here, over here!” while the real issues are a sub-story.

The experience argument and the ridiculous “celebrity” arguement have completely dissolved in the past week. Which one is the dysfunctional party now?

Posted by: Cara at September 4, 2008 3:21 PM
Comment #261488

The experience argument has ‘dissolved’? The POTUS candidate on the left is comparing (not successfully to about half of the people) his experience with the VP of the right.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 3:29 PM
Comment #261495

“It’s rather easy to cut taxes in a state flush with oil revenue. Is this supposed to be an accomplisment?” Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 4, 2008 02:36 PM

The accomplishment is in the return of money to the people rather than to be squandered by the state.
I have read comments elsewhere that suggested the surplus should have been kept by the state in a “rainy-day” fund. The problem with that idea is that for liberal government, every day is a rainy day requiring tax paid umbrellas for the masses.

Posted by: Jim M at September 4, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #261496

Rhinehold I didnt realize that the number of times you voted with your party was the determining factor for moderation. Does the same apply when the repubs/cons claim Obama is the most liberal Senator, because this 97% figure seems to indicate the repub/conservative spin is just that, spin without merit and not based in fact.

“BTW, your assessment Libertarians are ‘right’ of the Republicans shows your lack of understanding of how the parties fan out. Libertarians are pro-choice, pro-aclu, pro-gay marriage, etc…”

I agree Rhinehold the Libertarian party is hard for me to get a grip on. They are also small to no government, Dog eat dog economic policy, Ayn Rand corportion as god, pro-drug legalization, so perhaps they are harder to describe in a linear left to right spectrum as they appear to be on both ends but Ive never heard moderate come up with the word Libertarian.

I dont want to get off the topic of this thread with a detailed response to your question however.
Perhaps this is a good subject for you to expound on in an article Rhinehold. Political neophytes like myself might learn a thing or two.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment #261499
Rhinehold I didnt realize that the number of times you voted with your party was the determining factor for moderation.

That is the criteria that Obama is using in his numbing talking points.

Does the same apply when the repubs/cons claim Obama is the most liberal Senator

No, they are using the National Journal rankings, found here: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #261502

To those who talk about the democratic party lying about the issues (*cough, LO, *cough), ‘McChange-so-you-like-me’ is bombarding the airwaves with lies saying “Obama is going to raise your taxes” and “increase spending without balancing the budget”

Last I checked, the tax increase will only affect the rich (the 5% margin, statistically different from the other 90% in the middle, I’d call that rich) and in my large metro, that is still a small number. His straight talk is straight fear mongering!

As for balancing the budget, no one could balance it in one term after Bush’s grand folly. As far as increasing spending, it may go up in some areas but will go down greatly in others (e.g. take that $250 mil. a day from our latest colony project to apply to special interest groups like schools, health care, social security, children, and poverty.) Something very lacking from George W. Failure.

McSpin wants to tell you we are close to success in Iraq… that is if you want to call getting kicked out of your self-made sh*t storm success. If Muqtada al-Sadr is a terrorist, and his0 ceasefire is dependent on us leaving, and we leave, and they hold their word, isn’t that the same as negotiating with terrorists? How does McJump-to-the-nearest-conclusion feel about placating terrorist?

Posted by: Loyal Ignorance at September 4, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #261507

Don’t forget how “Putting America First!” is codeword for ‘putting corporate and wealthy interests first’, and the democrats lie?

The only real lie I have seen from the democratic politicians is accepting the responsibility to uphold the constitution and letting Bush wipe his a$$ with it.

Posted by: angrymob at September 4, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment #261510

Loyal I says, “Last I checked, the tax increase will only affect the rich (the 5% margin, statistically different from the other 90% in the middle, I’d call that rich) and in my large metro, that is still a small number. His straight talk is straight fear mongering!”

Sorry Loyal missed Fred Thompson’s speech the other night. He likened that familiar old liberal ploy to just taking water from one side of the bucket.

Posted by: Jim M at September 4, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #261514

I predict that Sarah Palin’s finger wagging and pointing will be a joke on SNL this weekend.

She should have stayed off Truman, which reminded us that JMcC is old enough to catch pneumonia at the inaguguration and die a month later.

The ministry of applause sounded like it was straight out of China, you could watch an entire program in the applause breaks.

Taxes! Boooo! should be the motto of the Rpblcn party.

IMO, the best line was “In politics there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers…”

“presidential campaign a journey of personal discovery” was considered to be a tough line by the audience.

JMcC should avoid cameras filming him when he is moving, no wonder they keep having to remind everyone of the POW times.

Jon Stewart on Hypocrisy Now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1lCMH8rlHE

Posted by: ohrealy at September 4, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #261518
Last I checked, the tax increase will only affect the rich (the 5% margin, statistically different from the other 90% in the middle, I’d call that rich) and in my large metro, that is still a small number. His straight talk is straight fear mongering!

That is true if you view the economy as small hidey-holes of money. It isn’t. The money increased on those making over 250,000 (which would include small business owners who are Scorped and their income is reported on their presonal income) will be sucked out of the economy and businesses will add the cost of that to their prices, effectively passing them on to, you guessed it, the middle class.

In fact, Factcheck tells us:

Obama said: “I will cut taxes … for 95 percent of all working families.” And he said McCain proposes “not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans,” a claim his running mate, Joe Biden, made the night before.

Obama is right about his plan’s effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain’s tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.

The TPC’s calculations factor in what’s in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of “loophole closings.” Individuals wouldn’t experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.

Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain’s plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck’s request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.

We’d also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama’s tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.

So, as usual, there is truth and lies on both sides of the issue.

As for balancing the budget, no one could balance it in one term after Bush’s grand folly. As far as increasing spending, it may go up in some areas but will go down greatly in others (e.g. take that $250 mil. a day from our latest colony project to apply to special interest groups like schools, health care, social security, children, and poverty.) Something very lacking from George W. Failure.

BS. If someone wanted to balance the budget it could be balanced day one. Of course, they would not get re-elected in 2012 most likely because a lot of hard decisions would have to be made and we already know that the Democratically controlled House has no interest in that.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “without substantial cuts in government spending” Obama’s plan – and McCain’s, too – “would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years.” … Obama’s proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center’s projected deficits. Obama’s new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.

The real elephant in the room is that our debt is increasing, no one wants to do anything about it and as a result the value of our dollar is declining. Because of these facts, we are entering a flat, very flat, growth period. Yay. We are already bankrupt and unless we increase the value of our dollar, there will be no benefit to our debtors (read: China) to not call in that debt.

That’s what we get when we play partisan political bullcrap.

McSpin wants to tell you we are close to success in Iraq… that is if you want to call getting kicked out of your self-made sh*t storm success. If Muqtada al-Sadr is a terrorist, and his0 ceasefire is dependent on us leaving, and we leave, and they hold their word, isn’t that the same as negotiating with terrorists? How does McJump-to-the-nearest-conclusion feel about placating terrorist?

So why isn’t Obama saying all of this? Oh yeah, he’s capitulated already. He took down his website page that criticized the surge because he knows that it is working. In this regard, McCain was right and Obama was wrong. I know you don’t want to admit it, but facts are facts. And perceptions are perceptions…

Confidence on War on Teror and Iraq at Highest Levels Ever

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #261520
Taxes! Boooo! should be the motto of the Rpblcn party.

Is should be the motto of the Democratic party as well. That it isn’t is unfortunate.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #261539

Rhinehold -

On the surge - know what? If the logistical, financial, and manpower support for the insurgency was taken away (as it was in the Sunni Awakening in the months prior), OF COURSE the surge would work. Under such circumstances, even a surge run by Alfred E. Neuman would work! In fact, a surge run by someone even DUMBER than the MAD magazine’s front guy would work.

Oh yeah - it DID, ‘cause compared to ol’ George W., Alfred’s a prime candidate for Mensa.

But of course you’ll ignore WHY the surge worked, because that would take away your ‘talking point’ against Obama. The conservatives have gone from Reagan’s “Facts are stubborn things” to “If the facts don’t agree with what we think, the facts must be wrong!”

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 4, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #261540

And WHY isn’t the conservative base jumping all over the fact that Palin’s husband belonged to a political party that wanted to SECEDE from America? Here’s a clip from CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBj8_xWO7Q8

All over Michelle Obama’s “finally proud of America” statement, the conservatives were, but Palin’s husband?

The silence is deafening.

Hypocrites!

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 4, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #261542

Jamison: you are parroting the party line on all things Palin (she’s a maverick! a breath of fresh air! a reformer!), conveniently ignoring the numerous articles that came to light almost instantaneously after the Palin announcement, which painted a different picture of her. If you disagree with these news stories, please back up your stance with facts.

Hype her up all you want, but the truth is Sarah the Mayor loved pork so much, she hired a lobbyist for that little town and was proud of every earmark she finagled out of U.S. taxpayers. She loved the Bridge to Nowhere just before she kinda didn’t love it (when it became a national joke). She kicks oil companies’ butts except for when she’s cozying up to them.

As to attacking poor Sarah and her family, Jon Stewart answered your hypocritical assertions much better than I could:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

Methinks the Palin hype machine has a Rovian smell to it and Rovian politics has had its day. Let’s see how well she polls next week when the debate has been returned to the issues. Obama’s focus has always been trained squarely on the issues. Let’s see if McCain-Palin have the class to do the same versus descending into the usual republican swift-boating, character assassination mode.

Posted by: pianofan at September 4, 2008 6:14 PM
Comment #261543

ohrealy: forgive me, I didn’t realize that your Jon Stewart link was the same as mine.

Bears repeat watching though.

Posted by: pianofan at September 4, 2008 6:21 PM
Comment #261549

The Jon Stewart video will disappear from youtube soon. I think comedycentral has a channel on dailymotion, but I didn’t have the time to look there. Someone else already posted the same link 2 more times on the blue side, so I guess Jon Stewart is our newsman now.

On Taxes Boo, I said a long time ago that the Democrats do a better job of representing the red states, where they want votes, than the blue states, where they have votes, and vice versa for the Rpblcns. Lower taxes would benefit Democratic constituencies more than Rpblcn ones. Prosperous old line suburbs here are more Democratic, newer mcmansion suburbs are more Rpblcn and trending Libertarian. Right now, I’m trying to determine if the McCormick Foundation has any partisan preference. They have an interesting forum on international relations.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 4, 2008 6:56 PM
Comment #261552

The Base loves gun animal hunting, gun toting mama’s, who would deprive their children of a voice in the decision of whether to become a mother or not, even in the case of rape, and who believes T. Boone Pickens is full of it because Alaska has all this gas and oil which could make Alaskan’s rich if only the Federal government would give ANWR over for Alaska’s profits at the expense of high oil and gas prices to the citizens in the other 49 states?

Yep, I can see that. The Base loves a competitor who throws the rule book out the window in order to get the job done, lie, cheat, kill, fire people they don’t like, whatever it takes, like invading Iraq at a cost of a trillion dollars to taxpayers and 4000 dead Americans so Iraqis can have a surplus from oil while America goes further and deeper in debt.

Yep, I can see that. The base loves a woman who raised taxes on the oil and gas corporations so her and other Alaskan families could profit from it, while this same woman brow beats Obama for suggesting a raise in taxes on the oil and gas corporations.

Yep, I can see that. No wonder the GOP base is such a minority of American voters. Americans on average are just plain more intuitive than the majority of the GOP base. In the weeks ahead, Americans outside the GOP base will be demanding specific answers to real challenges facing our nation, and the debates will help provide them some of those answers. I truly hope McCain and Palin answer to their base, while Obama and Biden answer to the rest of American voters.

The contrast should be unmistakable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 7:06 PM
Comment #261553
Bears repeat watching though.

Yes, it does, displays the hypocrisy on the left and right so well in a quick 4 minute segment.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 7:08 PM
Comment #261556
The contrast should be unmistakable.

You have a typo there, David. It is spelled ‘invisible’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 7:10 PM
Comment #261564

Rhinehold,
Just got on this post after a grueling day at the office. You mentioned that the libertarian party was not to the right of the GOP and that they supported gay marriage, the ACLU, and reproductive choice. Where does Bob Barr stand on these issues? His record as a republican doesn’t seem too libertarian especially his support for the failed war on drugs. Was he just trying to be a thorn in his former party’s side? I was surprised when I saw his name come up as their presidential candidate.

Posted by: tcsned at September 4, 2008 7:35 PM
Comment #261567

tcsned,

He’s been working to end the war on drugs for years now, even becomming the director of the drug rights group that he fought against in getting a law passed, and is now working to overturn his own law.

Criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals. (Jun 2008)
Applying habeas in Guantanamo reaffirms fundamental liberty. (Jun 2008)
Authored Defense of Marriage Act. (May 2008)
Threats to liberty in post-9/11 world require libertarianism. (May 2008)
The Nanny State is getting increasingly intrusive. (Apr 2008)
Earmarks are an outrageous abuse by Congressmen to buy votes. (Apr 2008)
Remove both earmarks and cut the underlying spending. (Apr 2008)
Eliminate billions in corporate welfare. (Apr 2008)
Favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. (Jun 2008)
No national nannies: leave smokers alone. (Jun 2008)
Don’t let California home schooling ban spread. (Apr 2008)
Restore habeas corpus and protect citizens from government. (Apr 2008)
Restore military to defense; commit to non-intervention. (Apr 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Be aggressive in securing our borders. (Apr 2008)
New tax revolt: both reduce and simplify taxes. (Jun 2008)
Lower taxes by dramatically cutting back size of government. (May 2008)
The FairTax replaces the IRS plus payroll taxes. (Apr 2008)
Repeal the 16th amendment & eliminate the income tax. (Apr 2008)

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment #261572

I love how the surge is working. When Iraq explodes into civil war in a couple of years, will it still have worked, or will that be Obama’s fault for following the agreement Bush just made to withdraw?

Just want to get the input of the great sooth seers here, on the record.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 4, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #261576

That damn elitist Obama. Who does he think he is?

Of course this is just an observation, not code words, unless you happen to be a Georgia cracker.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 4, 2008 8:30 PM
Comment #261577

thanks Rhinehold - it looks like he has changed his stripes since his days in Congress.

Posted by: tcsned at September 4, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #261581

Uppity? You’ve got to be kidding me…

Looks like we’ve brought out the sexists on the left and the racists on the right.

Gotta love this country.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #261591

Hey, Rhine: Sexist is when you push away 5 other more qualified people to tap someone to be your running mate only because she has the right “junk.” Or is that sexist cynicism? Cynical sexism?

It’s not sexist when you question the credentials and history of an unknown. If Palin were a man, she’d still be getting the intense scrutiny.

Republicans are having a good time manufacturing outrage over legitimate questions. Get over it.

Posted by: pianofan at September 4, 2008 9:54 PM
Comment #261598

FactCheck on Palin’s night at the Convention:

Sarah Palin’s much-awaited speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night may have shown she could play the role of attack dog, but it also showed her to be short on facts when it came to touting her own record and going after Obama’s.

We found Rudy Giuliani, who introduced her, to be as factually challenged as he sometimes was back when he was in the race. But Mike Huckabee may have laid the biggest egg of all.

* Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.

* Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.

* The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.

* Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.

* Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.

* Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.


Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 10:16 PM
Comment #261599

Rhinehold, Barr sounds like McCain, change whatever positions necessary to get elected. And then what?

GW Bush is the answer to “Then What?” when you elect someone who will shift positions to get elected, as opposed to modifying positions in light of better and more accurate or pertinent information. We all want our leaders to learn and adjust as they learn. But, to do 180’s on value issues doesn’t quite seem to fall into that category.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 10:20 PM
Comment #261600

Rhinehold, invisible? As in, to libertarians whose partisanship is as blind as the duopoly parties? I do get that! Even if you don’t.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 4, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #261613

John McCain may not be the best speaker but he has a great American hero story.

Posted by: Tom Besly at September 4, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #261615

The snarkiness and downright pettiness in regards to both Palin and her daughter is an extremely poor strategy (not to mention personal failing for many) and I predict it will backfire tremendously. Palin did a great job as coming across as an average American who had succeeded in nearly everything she has chosen to do, and people of both genders and all parties and affiliations can connect with that.


And Lee, a well researched and well thought out article. Common sense, integrity, justice and liberty deserve to be both defended and advocated in these troubled times. Thanks for doing your part.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 4, 2008 11:33 PM
Comment #261624

David H., you are right that going after Palin’s family is an extremely poor strategy. As to whether it will backfire or not, that is speculation.

The important thing is that Palin is only valuable to McCain’s winning by virtue of bringing the religious right on board and bringing much of the remaining base together.

For the folks who will determine who is president, the moderates and independents, Palin is not an issue; John McCain and his policies and temperament toward our nation’s problems, are.

His speech tonight revealed that temperament with the use of the word ‘fight’ 25 times. McCain’s presidency will be defined by that word he has made central to his candidacy. Putting McCain in office is akin to drafting an Army platoon sergeant or Marine Captain into the Oval Office.

War is what McCain was trained for, fighting is how he approaches challenges, and conflict is what motivates him. He made that abundantly clear tonight. The only war he got to fight in cost him more than his POW horrors, it cost him the vindication of victory. He is a man still seeking that vindication. It is what drives him, as his speech tonight made so very, very clear. His Viet Nam experience is never out of his mind, and never escapes an interview or public speech. The man is fighting a war America put behind it 3 decades ago.

The moderates and independents could not have asked for clearer or starker choice in presidential candidates. One who is living in the present and seeking to address the challenges of the present, and one who seeks in the last years of his life, justification for the suffering he experienced 40 years ago which he simply cannot move past.

It fills his thoughts, his emotions, his policies, and even has made him a combatant toward his own party as he indicated tonight by condemning its actions under President Bush. McCain is a man in conflict, and he wants all of America to share in that conflict with him.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 12:42 AM
Comment #261628

“John McCain may not be the best speaker but he has a great American hero story.”

Haha! Just like George W. Failure! You know, silver spoon, daddy got you into ivy league, national guard, cocaine abuse, most vetos in history, lowest approval rating ever, phonic phailure.

Posted by: angrymob at September 5, 2008 12:50 AM
Comment #261631

“Palin did a great job as coming across as an average American who…”

exploits the story of some of her kids to tug on american heart strings but shields the others?

I’ll exploit the fact I have a trisomy child because of my perfect values, but hid the failure of my abstinance only teaching.

Question: If the abstinance only education doesn’t work for a sheltered upper-middle class suburban (suburb of anchorage), catholic, extreme right wing white family, why would it work on a large scale for people of the various cultural mores that comprise the rest of the nation?

Posted by: horse at September 5, 2008 1:04 AM
Comment #261636
The key to comprehending the brilliance of Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate is in understanding the difference between the conservative mind and the liberal mind.

The key to understanding the stupidity of this pick is that it contradicts in one fell swoop every argument you’ve made against Obama being president. You’ve put a young person, inexperience in state and federal government, and are prepared to put her one step away from the presidency, with a man whose risk of dying within his first term are considerable.

So, do you actually care about experience? Well you’re certainly willing to gamble on it for political gain.

You criticize Democrats for being intolerant. You accuse them of being sexist, coming off a convention where two strong women, mothers both, were honored. What pisses Democrats and Liberals off about Sarah Palin is that she’s essentially a political hack in reformers clothing. There’s a difference between being strong and being obnoxious.

You trivialize Obama’s education and experience. Hell, Sarah Palin did, right out. And you lie to us about Palin’s record, calling her a tax cutter when raised taxes, a reformer, when she worked for and continued the work of the earmarkers and th lobbyists, and a maverick when she’s essentially a Bush Republican in word, deed, and even political style.

There’s no brilliant choice here, only sustained and heedless pushing of talking points. That might succeed here and there, but ultimately, reality catches up to rhetoric, and it strains people’s ability to remain dedicated advocates of the party.

If you were more concerned about the things you folks do instead of the little fights you have with the media, you would win more arguments in the media. You would see peple turn to you to work things out. The trouble is, anybody who tries to be that real kind of maverick gets shot down by a party long conditioned to prefer orthodoxy in positions to creativity in politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 1:35 AM
Comment #261637

John McCain says, “I don’t work for a party,”


then why would he specifically pick a VP to placate the interests of and solidify the ‘base’? Why not be a maverick and pick himself for VP and president, there’s some real change for ya. He is just as much a puppet of the party these days as Bush was for Rove/Cheney. “Hey listen to me, I’ll tell you what you want to hear when its on a teleprompter!!!”

Posted by: pig at September 5, 2008 1:57 AM
Comment #261641

“reality catches up to rhetoric…”

unfortunately by then the election has been stolen by the supreme court, you have invaded a sovereign nation with minimal international support, you nominate harriet myers for justice, had attorney general-gate that no one cares about for some unbelievable reason, recieved the lowest approval in recorded history (besides the french revolution), and you are caught lying to the country hundereds of times, it is the end of your eight years of tyranny and too late to impeach you, and you literally get away with murder.

Posted by: goat at September 5, 2008 2:07 AM
Comment #261642

While it is great sport to pick at the splinters in Palin’s eye while ignoring the logs in Obamas, Sarah Palin hit a home run with over 40 million tuning it to watch her speech last night. That’s amazing, especially for a veep candidate. Some 2 million more women watched it than men and 4.9 million more women watched it than watched Obama’s coronation. That is telling as well and a potential disaster for Obama if he starts to bleed middle class white women voters to McCain/Palin.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 5, 2008 2:11 AM
Comment #261672


I hope all you red neck and white trailer trash types come out and vote for us liberal elitists Ivy leagers. You no we love and care about you. We would like to serve you but, we are just so busy gobbling down large servings of New World Order with the Republicans.

Don’t worry, we will make sure that the crumbs keep falling. A word of caution though, remember that you have to share with your little brown brothers from the south so be frugal.

And the redneck said, if the liburls aint gonna help us beat um then we might as well join um.

Posted by: jlw at September 5, 2008 8:18 AM
Comment #261674
Hey, Rhine: Sexist is when you push away 5 other more qualified people to tap someone to be your running mate only because she has the right “junk.” Or is that sexist cynicism? Cynical sexism?

It depends on what you consider to be the qualifications, doesn’t it? If McCain had nominated one of those ‘other 5’ he would been accused of naming ‘just another white man’ to the ticket as well. And when you make your own assumptions and then argue against them, do think that argument sways anyone else?

It’s not sexist when you question the credentials and history of an unknown. If Palin were a man, she’d still be getting the intense scrutiny.

I never said it was and there is no reason why she should not be ‘scrutinized’. But the notion that she is being treated equally by everyone is to close your eyes to reality for the sake of party. There is no shame in admitting when someone is being sexist just as there is no shame in admitting when someone is being racist.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 8:22 AM
Comment #261676
Rhinehold, Barr sounds like McCain, change whatever positions necessary to get elected. And then what?

First, McCain has a history of working with the other party to get good (and bad) legislation passed. You can pretend that history doesn’t if you want, that’s your right.

But to say that Barr is ‘changing his views to get elected’ assumes many things that aren’t valid. One would be that he is delusional enough to think he will be elected. He is working to advance the party and win electoral votes. So it makes no sense to ‘change your views to get elected’ when you know you aren’t going to get elected, doesn’t it?

And he has been working down this road for several years, not just the past 12 or 18 months. He is leading groups to change his own legislation, groups he fought bitterly with in the past. That’s not the MO of flip-flopper.

But your current view is part of what’s wrong with the country. Any politician who tries to put his country before his political career is going to get tagged with that argument. It matters on why and how they do it. And unfortunately it happens on both sides these days.

For example, Obama is tagged with being ‘pro killing babies’ because he worked to get the ‘born alive’ bills blocked in Illinois because he wanted to protect women’s privacy rights. He could have buckled but didn’t. And he is accused of saying that Iran was a ‘tiny threat’, but that’s not what he said.

Obama is not the only one who has his record taken out of context by the opponent, McCain is accused of saying that one was rich when they make $5,000,000, which isn’t accurate, it was obvious from the full text that he was making a joke. He was also accused of wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years, again a huge distortion. He is accused of being out of touch with the economy because of remarks made over 9 months ago, and his comments were still accurate (we are not heading into a recession, according to how the word is defined) and said at the time that we were in a ‘rough patch’. He is also accused of costing Ohioans 8,000 jobs and supporting Ralph Reed, neither of these are true.

It’s all the game that gets played and you are now falling into that same trap that you once used to rise above, or at least I had thought. Perhaps that was just a mistake on my part.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 8:41 AM
Comment #261683

It’s funny. Republicans and those on the right have been virtually consistent in treating Democrats and others like whiny babies when they complain about misogyny and racism in the things they say. But when it’s a Republican…

Perhaps the question about her children needs to be one asked of male politicians as well as female, rather than one not asked at all. Of course, if the question is asked fairly, we have to revise our conception of work and productivity, which is maybe something we need to do. What point is there working your fingers to the bone if you can’t care properly for your kids on that account?

David Huntwork-
Palin’s instant Obama, a young unknown politician who supposedly bucks the system and brings change. That’s at least what you want her to be. She got 37 million viewers, which is respectable, but not better than Obama’s ratings.

It was window shopping, David. Not every Obama or Palin viewer came away wanting what they were selling. I’ll tell you what, though, If this is how strong she is as a candidate, the Obama-Biden ticket has little to worry about.

I know you’ll immediately claim that this is because the poor little lady got so beat up by the press. But you’re talking to somebody who saw their inexperienced politician step up to the plate and talk to a press that relentlessly played videos of his pastor, that troubled him over Ayers and Rezko, which perpetually bloviated on the subject of his electability, his experience, and everything else. The press has given Obama his share of grilling. But instead of secluding him away, he gets out there and answers questions.

Are you folks afraid that there will be a question she cannot answer, or that she shouldn’t? Are you afraid that some latent wingnuttery might surface and alienate voters? If she’s the snowmobile driving, Moose Annihilating ethically heroic wonder woman you’re making her out to be, she should have absolutely no problem taking questions from the press, hostile or not. Obama can keep his cool, why can’t Palin?

The Republicans run from the press. I wonder why. Even if it is a losing battle, why don’t they defend their ideas on the merits?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment #261686

Here’s the link, sorry.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 9:58 AM
Comment #261687

BTW, it seems odd to me that Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll is not out yet, it usually hits at 9:30 EST and I haven’t seen my email. When I check the site it doesn’t display any content and when I use the direct link to the poll it still display’s yesterday.

I am probably reaching here, but I wonder if they have to recheck the polling information a little closer because of what they are seeing, and is that good or bad for McCain?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 10:10 AM
Comment #261691

Hmm, must have been some weird quantum thing. The daily is out.

46-45, 48-46 with leaners included. Pretty much back to where we were.

But, an interesting twist:

Both Obama and McCain are now viewed favorably by 57% of the nation’s voters. However, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is viewed favorably by 58%—a point more than either Presidential hopeful. Forty percent (40%) have a Very Favorable opinion of her.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #261717

David Remer,

You mention that McCain used “fight” twenty some odd times like that is a bad thing. I took it a different way. First off, I really believe he appreciates the sacrifice of US lives more than any other President of recent history. I don’t think he will be abusive with the military.

My point of reference on “fight” is that he’ll actually try to stand for something. Between Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II I’m frankly sick of Republicrat/Demopublican rule.

I was a leaner until last night. McCain finally convinced me that he will be the better candidate to change the Presidential position to one of leadership. I view Obama as a back room operator, not standing for anything, willing to cut deals and tell us everything is great by giving a feel good speech.

I guess the change I’m ready for goes above typical partisan politics….and I’m willing to roll the dice that McCain can pull that off over Obama. Frankly, its always a roll of the die at this stage of the campaign.

Posted by: MT Cross at September 5, 2008 12:23 PM
Comment #261732

MT Cross-
In my experience, Obama’s not being telling us everything is great. He’s been acknowledging what many other people know already: things aren’t great. What is “feel good” about his speech is that he tells us that we’re up to facing this challenge together. And to be honest, we could use somebody who can broker some deals. Americans want results.

McCain can’t change Washington. Palin’s evidence of that. His recent record was evidence of that.

He was ready to choose a former Democrat or a Pro-Choice governor for Vice President. Instead, he’s forced to pick Palin, and pick her before he even really knows who he’s getting in the bargain. The closer he’s gotten to this election, the more he’s sided with Bush on legislation.

If he had true power to change Washington, he’d be doing it now, and would be touting his achievements in that regard. Instead, he’s let the party change him.

When he finally gets into office, do you really think a man who let himself get pushed around like that will unleash his maverick potential, or do you think that he will keep on going along with these people in order to maintain his coaltion of support for the next election.

Barack Obama’s political support has superceded the party he took over in many ways. He has more information, a more devoted following, and the support of the current leader of the party. He’s generously supporting folks down the ticket. He may not be able to do everything, but he’ll be the boss of his party, not the party be the boss of him.

The critical problem with today’s Republican Party is that it has no flexibility, no give on its party orthodoxy, and its followers are all too willing to reinforce that.

The Republican party insists that it was right all along, and that all it needs now to succeed is more time to deliver more of the same on policy. That’s not change, that’s the status quo, with elaborate excuses made for it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 1:51 PM
Comment #261733

Huntwork, Jim M, jlw, rhinehold, et al -

Again, I see NO conservatives on this thread showing any outrage about Palin’s husband belonging to a political party advocating Alaska’s secession from America!

After all the conservatives pounded Michelle Obama for her “for the first time I’m REALLY proud of America” comment, one should expect them to jump all over Palin’s husband, for his VOLUNTARY ACTIONS far outweighed one single solitary statement made by Ms. Obama.

WHERE are the patriots here?!? Where indeed? There was all the indignant patriotic furor over Ms. Obama’s ONE statement, but NOTHING over Mr. Palin’s FIVE YEARS OF VOLUNTARY ACTION supporting an organization that advocated secession from America!

Sirs, any conservative who does not have the integrity and courage to vent righteous anger at the log in Palin’s eye after shouting to the heavens about the splinter in Obama’s eye, then I tell you that conservative is NOT a patriot.

Go ahead, rage against me for calling conservatives unpatriotic - but at the same time, explain why there is NO outrage about Palin’s husband’s five years of belonging to the Alaskan Independence Party.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 5, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #261739

Glen

Go ahead, rage against me for calling conservatives unpatriotic - but at the same time, explain why there is NO outrage about Palin’s husband’s five years of belonging to the Alaskan Independence Party.

You have a right to rage. I will answer for them. It is called double standard and the resultant image of hypocrisy that accompanies their silence on the matter.

Posted by: RickIL at September 5, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #261741

Stephen,

Are you in favor of Obama’s tax policy?

That was the primary reason for me being a leaner (and to be honest I think his judgement on staying involved with that church while not a “non-starter” clearly made me wonder about a sense of his selling out of his soul).

The US has rapidly crept up the list of the most heavily taxed nations in the world. No other way to say it than it creates a drag on our competitiveness. This has been done under the watch of two Republicans and a “moderate” Democrat.

What happens when Obama is in charge? Tax policy in this country is a silent killer. I’m not a flat tax person or blow up the tax system person but more taxes - of any kind and on anyone or any entity - should not be part of any solution to a problem this country faces.

So are you looking forward to an increased tax burden under Obama? When tax rates have been cut - gov’t revenue has gone up. Do you expect gov’t receipts to go up when rates rise?

On your other points - I could obviously point to a number of issues where Obama is just carrying the water of the party. The point I made is that both do it - essentially for the political expediency of “winning”. But after years in the Senate and given his age, yes I would bet that McCain is “more likely” to buck the party. Obama’s voting record doesn’t support any type of “maverick” inclination. Unless it would be lurching farther left than moderate democrats I guess.

Posted by: MT Cross at September 5, 2008 2:15 PM
Comment #261749
After all the conservatives pounded Michelle Obama for her “for the first time I’m REALLY proud of America” comment, one should expect them to jump all over Palin’s husband, for his VOLUNTARY ACTIONS far outweighed one single solitary statement made by Ms. Obama.

Can you find any evidence anywhere that I said anything negative about Michelle and that comment? If anything, IF (which I doubt), I might have said it was not the smartest thing to say during an election. I also said that if she wanted to insert herself as an attack dog into the campaign, that makes her fair game. I have noticed that since Obama said she was off limits she has gone back to supporting him without attacking McCain, which I am glad to see and makes her off limits again, IMO.

If you are going to accuse me of hypocrisy, it usually helps to have some evidence to that hypocrisy.

Now, are you going to jump all over her for her husband and then defend Michelle? The hypocrisy on this one goes BOTH ways, Glenn. If you aren’t attacking her because of her husband, then great! I just wish some others on your side of the aisle would follow suit…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 2:35 PM
Comment #261771

I was interested in the secession party issue, not just because the New York Times had to print a retraction of its report that Sarah Palin herself had been a member of the party, but because it shows she is not her husband’s tail to wag. Personally I have talked occasionally of the concept of Texas seceding from the union, since it is a state by treaty and has never been a territory of the United States.

It is interesting that both Biden and Obama voted for a bill that, as I understand it, would open up the possiblity of Hawaii, also a former independent nation, seceding from the union.

I guess that leaves McCain the only candidate not advocating for someone to secede…

My article seems to have failed in its principle mission, though, which was to point out liberals really do say they believe something, and they really can be hypocritical about those things.
As I pointed out to a friend a little while ago it is not irrelevant that the person screaming about the plank in my eye has a plank in their own as well.

Conservative must learn not to be defensive about believing something.

The issue was raised earlier about sourcing my hungry jackals. I had originally thought to choose one of the ABC blogs, and had saved the URL after reading through three pages of the piece, but was surprised to find a day after my original research that the same URLs access content that changes from day to day. I had to scramble to replace my original source because I didn’t know how to access the previous day’s content and I was on a deadline for the stuff that feeds my family. The same issue also affected a couple of other sources dealing with the media’s snowballing bad sources on such things as Bristol’s supposedly having mothered Trigg. (By the way, has it occurred to anyone what an illogical ploy that was supposed to have been? What is the point of, for political purposes, faking a pregnancy so your daughter can have a baby with Down’s Syndrome? And how the heck would a sitting governor keep that secret?)

Posted by: Lee Jmison at September 5, 2008 3:24 PM
Comment #261773

Oh, one other thing on Bristol’s pregnancy. The townsfolk in Wasilla said the pregnancy was common knowledge, which means Bristol felt sufficient trust and confidence in the love of her family that she revealed it to them before it showed. I’m sure there was trauma involved in the event, but I’ve known many people who did not have that sort of faith in their own families. That fear was then the proximate cause of several abortions.

The true test of love is not that people stay perfect. It is that people know when they fall from perfection they still can have a home, nurture, and healing.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 5, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #261787

The only thing that interests me about Palin now is how much we’ll see of her unscripted, off the teleprompter, answering reporters’ questions. If she’s up to speed and possesses the broad fund of knowledge that McCain claims, why not let her loose and prove it?

Before we can take Palin even HALFway seriously, we have to see that she’s up to speed on the issues and can think on her feet. My suspicion is that there’s a Harriett Meiers situation going on behind the scenes, where a platoon of advisers are frantically trying to give Palin a fund of knowledge she didn’t acquire in her 6 years at 5 colleges (or was it 5 years at 6 colleges?).

She’s scheduled for a slew of fundraisers in front of prescreened friendly groups resembling those carefully gathered for Cheney fundraisers. Plus, this Sunday, all of the candidates, except Palin, will be making the rounds of the political talk shows. Not a promising start.

Posted by: pianofan at September 5, 2008 4:34 PM
Comment #261789

Lee,
Sarah Palin was not a member of the AIP. She addressed their convention, and physically attended the one in 1994. So was she her husaband’s tail to wag, or not? Why did Sarah Palin give a friendly address to a secessionist party?

The AIP is primarily a conservative’s dream, with the federal government cut out once and for all.
As for loyalty? “Country First”? Well, not so much.

By the way, the founder of the AIP, John Vogler, was murdered in 1993, in what the murderer later confessed was a plastic explosives deal gone wrong. Not many founding fathers get offed while putting together deals for plastic explosives.

Moving right along, there is profound difference between the AIP and the secession movement in Hawaii. Alaska joined the union voluntarily, and the primary beef of the AIP is that the federal government owns too much of the state, and imposes federal regulations involving education, gun control, and so on. Alaska joined the union before the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay, and it’s worth noting the AIP did not start until 1973, when there was enough wealth to consider indpendence. Alaskan native populations are remote and dispersed and to some extent protected by geography and climate, so their experience is much different from the native Hawaiians.

The native Hawaiians were conquered, primarily to satisfy corporate interests and colonial expansionist dreams. Stealing land from a people and doing everything possible to destroy their culture is a considerably different from the Alaskan experience of voting to join, and as a result, sharing federally held land with the rest of the country.

Posted by: phx8 at September 5, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #261809

MT Cross said: “The US has rapidly crept up the list of the most heavily taxed nations in the world.”

While true, one also has to acknowledge that the US has become absolutely the largest spender on military programs, space technology, and world cop with more than 700 outposts manned around the globe.

When a nation chooses such spending, that nation must elect also to have the highest taxes to pay for such spending. Were the billions given to Pakistan worth our heavy tax load? Was the invasion of Iraq worth the trillion dollars plus we will have spent on that lark? When paying the interest on nearly 10 trillion dollars of national debt, can we really afford to increase taxes for space exploration, a defense shield for the former Soviet Western breakaway nations?

America has a choice to make, and it doesn’t want to make it. Will it spend its resources on its own people and internal infrastructure and security, and put an end this path to bankruptcy of the nation, or will it choose instead to invest in the other nation’s and people’s of the world banking on their gratitude to save us when our bankruptcy arrives?

It is not such a tough decision for common sense to make, but, nearly an impossible one for politicians to make.

There is a middle road of course: scale back on the role of world cop and constant redundant military technology development without abandoning our contributory role in an international policing organization, and radically cut the subsidies and tax breaks for corporations and businesses as incentives to do what they would have to do anyway to remain competitive in the global marketplace, and install common sense taxation which is progressive and permits maximum consumer discretion for all wealth classes (i.e. a flat tax for all income groups).

One last thing. Let states compete for population migration and tax revenue by allocating the exact same per capita federal support to each and every state. That was afterall, inherent in the original design and founding of our nation with the exception for times of war and civil disorder. This would end the pork barrel spending competition and wars in the Congress for federal tax dollars to representatives states. One dollar amount per state resident for all the states. The states are free to spend those dollars however they choose. But, if they spend wisely, they will draw population to their state and increase their revenue on a per capita basis, or spend unwisely and lose population to competitive states and the concurrent revenues attached.

It is actually a brilliant plan. Wish I could take credit for it, but it was discussed at the founding of our nation by someone or another. I just have the good sense to revive it for modern day consideration.


Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #261816

MT Cross-
I think you need to diversify your sources. Our tax burden is relatively light. We distribute it differently, so it shows up as heavy by certain measures, but it’s really not that bad. Tax shelters, and other constructions, in all actuality, actually make it to where many corporations aren’t paying all that much in taxes at all.

The truth of the matter is, by any objective measure, our fiscal policy doesn’t work. My thinking is that beggars can’t be choosers.

I don’t know whether Obama is going to shape his tax policy strictly by what he’s promised. But I hope that when he gets into office, he doesn’t pass up the opportunity to help balance this budget on account of part of the solution being an elevation in taxes.

I get the sense that the Republicans will simply apply the party dogma, like they’ve come to do on a constant basis. And I sense we’ll never get out of deficit spending given that course of action.

As for Maverick inclinations? Obama’s inclination was to bypass his party, and the donors that supported it, to establish his candidacy on his terms, not the establishment’s terms. He unashamedly defended liberal policies in a party whose orthodoxy had long been centered on Clinton’s moderated Reaganism.

The old Maverick McCain, on the other hand, skewed his political profile towards the dogmatic main positions of every main faction of his party.

I call the man who bucked his party’s conventional wisdom and vested interests a maverick, before I call the man who gave in one.

Lee Jamison-
Barack Obama supports a bill which would give Native Hawaiians the same rights and privileges accorded to other aboriginal tribes in the continental US and up in Alaska. The secession of Hawaii from the union is not a deliberate goal of the bill. At worst, it’s an improbable technicality. So the equivalence is nothing more than spin.

Todd Palin, meanwhile, deliberately joined with a party that advocates for a clear break with the United States as a nation. Witness have seen her at their conventions. They just can’t say that she was an AIP member in good standing.

It may be a distinction without a difference, The way Ron Paul not being a registered Libertarian hardly affects his real attitudes. Sarah Palin recorded, as governor, as a Republican, a rather warm, and if you listen closely, a rather sympathetic greeting to the AIP’s convention.

The question is, if Sarah Palin were allowed to say what she really thought- hell, if most Republican politicians were allowed to, would you guys have any followers left?

As for the Pregnancy rumors, those were rumors that followed her south from Wasilla. The Mainstream media didn’t much run with it, and justifiably so, but the Bristol Palin story was actually brought out on account of an upcoming Enquirer story.

Now, you could conceive (no pun intended) of a very good reason for not wanting people to know your daughter was pregnant: poor choices by children reflect on their parents, and she’s running, if not for the VP spot, then the Governorship. It doesn’t get better if the person’s a Republican, either. Your party’s long history of moralism on the subject has made you a target for those looking for hidden hypocrisy.

It use to be that there were things folks didn’t question about a person. Military honors. sad stories about medical care, things like that. But your party decided that anything was fair game. A few Democrats have decided, after years of seeing your people bombard us with such slime and hatred that turnabout is fair play.

Now the real question, if you find it all distasteful, is whether or not looking at all this, you decide that it is better to just leave some subjects off limits. I really have no dog in the fight about what Sarah Palin and her family do about their newest additions, child and adult, and most Democrats don’t either.

But we can’t tell everybody what to do. The more the Republicans would mind their own business the more they would hold off on kicking people in the political nuts, the less they’d have to fear from the blogosphere. The Democrats have come up with a counter to the politics of personal destruction. We use the internet to quickly knock down rumors, and quickly spread information back the other way. Live by the sword, die by it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 5, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #261817

Unfortunately, the way the system is rigged now, with so much power centralized in Washington, DC, there is little reason for states anymore these days. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #261819
not the establishment’s terms
Nor on the terms he agreed upon and fought for while in Congress Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #261821
But your party decided that anything was fair game. A few Democrats have decided, after years of seeing your people bombard us with such slime and hatred that turnabout is fair play.

Some of the finest revisionism history I’ve seen in a long while, I applaud your fiction writing skills, Stephen.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #261826

Rhinehold,
At what point did I snap?

It could have been the talking point about Sarah Palin having more “executive experience” than Obama. Maybe it was the talking point about Sarah Palin having experience dealing with foreign countries because Russia bordered Alaska. Or maybe it was the one about her having military experience because every state has a National Guard.

I dunno. But somewhere in there, the cumulative pile of stupid talking points broke me. There was just too much stupidity, too fast. I couldn’t take it. I just couldn’t.

The Bush administration toughened me up. I learned to become inured to the most ridiculous statements from Global Warming deniers, people insisting Iraq shipped its WMD’s to Syria, the endless years of constantly, relentlessly winning in Iraq. Much of the stupidity continues to this day. After all this time, you’d think I’d get used to it. But no.

(Voices in the background chanting ‘the surge worked’!)

I’d better hurry. More dumbness is closer than I thought.

Palin did me in. So sorry if I snapped, Rhinehold. I’ll try to toughen up. Chin up, and all that.

Posted by: phx8 at September 5, 2008 7:19 PM
Comment #261832

phx8, Stephen,

Republican hatred and rage directed at the innocent, talking points, etc. is all very interesting, but the focus on the familial stuff that started with the Bush girls is clearly out of hand. There were reports of Democrats’ kids who did dumb stuff, but I don’t recall the furor over, say, Al Gore’s son being caught with drugs dragging on into a long discussion of his family values, in spite of the fact that he and Tipper had made such a crusade out of the lyrics in the music business when he was a senator from Tennessee. (That was also back when it was expedient for Gore to be viscerally opposed to abortion, you may recall.)

If it does become fair game let it be fair game for both sides. That is not what the media wants, though. This is a campaign directed very specifically at Republicans because the media thinks liberals are immune on values. I’m just saying it is not so.

Liberals in media profess tolerance but they tolerate no philosophical diversity. They profess free thinking as long as you think what they feel free to think. They eschew judgemental efforts unless, in thir opinion, there is the least chance you might judge them. And they will cooperate rather than compete unless they don’t think they will get exactly what they want and you won’t be on your knees when you give it to them, whimpering.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 5, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #261833

By the way, do we know if Chelsea Clinton has ever had sex out of wedlock or an abortion? to my knowledge we don’t.

Why?

Because Republicans don’t really care.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 5, 2008 7:57 PM
Comment #261838

Lee, you’re kidding right? Republicans would be on Chelsea’s sex life like flies on feces if the Clinton’s didn’t have high priced security and secret service protecting her privacy.

I would suggest Republicans look a little closer at the sexual antics of those within their own party since so many have fallen upon scandal in this regard in the last 16 years. Verboten! Right? No internal blemish watch in the Republican Party, just a gigantic closet for hiding them in.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 5, 2008 9:41 PM
Comment #261840

David:

As a conservative, I love Senator McCains pick of Governer Palin. She holds many of the same values that I hold. I wish she was the one on the top of the ticket. I am not wishing to jump around to take your arguements out of context, but as I am late to this conservation I am going to comment on several of your points. If you think I am cherry picking, let me know and I will try to rectify my mistakes. We will not agree, but maybe we can demonstrate the differences in philosophy that we have.

“The Base loves gun animal hunting, gun toting mama’s, who would deprive their children of a voice in the decision of whether to become a mother or not, even in the case of rape, and who believes T. Boone Pickens is full of it because Alaska has all this gas and oil which could make Alaskan’s rich if only the Federal government would give ANWR over for Alaska’s profits at the expense of high oil and gas prices to the citizens in the other 49 states?”. Yes, we love that more than men that deny our right to bear arms, support killing babies after they are born, believe that America does not have the resources to keep us from sending our money to tyrants overseas and disagree with Mr. Pickens when he says that producing more domestic oil is necessary until we can provide the alternative fuels, therefore lowering energy costs in the mean time.

“Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.” In your own source, you confirm that Senator Obama has not authored a single piece of leglislation or reform. “Helping push through” and “authored” are two distinct things. Please explain where they are not. If you cannot, the charge is true.

“The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.” She did not tell a lie, nor even spread misinformation, but she is given credit for it because of something she did not say. Depends on what the meaning of ‘is” is. I question the credibility of this charge, and therefore the other charges this source made.

“The important thing is that Palin is only valuable to McCain’s winning by virtue of bringing the religious right on board and bringing much of the remaining base together.” On this, i have to agree. I had resigned myself to voting for the Constitution Party, but am rethinking my position. I live in a state that will go to Senator McCain, so my vote will probably not change, but I do love Governor Palin.

“For the folks who will determine who is president, the moderates and independents, Palin is not an issue; John McCain and his policies and temperament toward our nation’s problems, are.” IMHO Senator McCain and Governor Palin’s values are closer to blue collar Americans than Senator Obama and Senator Biden’s. IMHO Governor Palin will provide a major boost.

“His speech tonight revealed that temperament with the use of the word ‘fight’ 25 times. McCain’s presidency will be defined by that word he has made central to his candidacy. Putting McCain in office is akin to drafting an Army platoon sergeant or Marine Captain into the Oval Office.” I will reply to a Liberal talking point with a conservative one: In his speech, Senator Obama talked about Iraq, but the only time he used the word victory he was referring to his campaign for President.

“War is what McCain was trained for, fighting is how he approaches challenges, and conflict is what motivates him. He made that abundantly clear tonight. The only war he got to fight in cost him more than his POW horrors, it cost him the vindication of victory. He is a man still seeking that vindication. It is what drives him, as his speech tonight made so very, very clear. His Viet Nam experience is never out of his mind, and never escapes an interview or public speech. The man is fighting a war America put behind it 3 decades ago.” As a combat veteran, surely you can appreciate the story of when a man goes from being a “hot shot’ pilot to “insignificant” in the grand scheme of things. IMHO in this, fighting for what one thinks is right cannot be held as a shortcomming, but a virtue, even if we disagree on what is right.

“The moderates and independents could not have asked for clearer or starker choice in presidential candidates.” The last time Americans had this distinct choice, President reagan carried 49 states.

“When a nation chooses such spending, that nation must elect also to have the highest taxes to pay for such spending. Were the billions given to Pakistan worth our heavy tax load? Was the invasion of Iraq worth the trillion dollars plus we will have spent on that lark? When paying the interest on nearly 10 trillion dollars of national debt, can we really afford to increase taxes for space exploration, a defense shield for the former Soviet Western breakaway nations?” I said in another post, “I hope someone, somewhere will have the audacity to ask both Senators what will be the dollar amount of their first proposed budget, and what will be the upper spending limit for any budget they will sign. I hope both canidates will have the audacity to answer. I hope that both party’s activists will encourage this debate. I hope that the blogosphere and media will take up this line of thought and force the canidates to be specific about their budget plans and help put fiscal responsibility back in the spotlight. I hope.”

Your reply, in it’s entirety, was: “submarinesforever, you know not what you ask. If you think either McCain or Obama is going to give a dollar amount, you will be waiting a very long time for a response. First there is the matter of their not knowing all of what is required for a budget until they are in office. A good small chunk of our budget is hidden, cloaked by national security. Second, as in the investment world, sometimes there are far greater gains to be had by borrowing today and reaping the rewards for the investment later, than to pinch today and forego investments with high returns tomorrow. There are measures requiring spending in next year’s budget that are essential to lowering deficits and debt in the future. Investment in alternative energy sources for example. Third, at the last reading of my Constitution, I observed that it is the Congress in control of spending allocations and taxes, not the White House. The White House suggests and parlays, but, it is the Congress that allocates and levies. Hence, the only accurate and honest answer you could hope for from either candidate is that they will veto gross Congressional irresponsibility in spending or taxation. But, as for a dollar amount, what President would hamstring him/herself from negotiating room by answering your question while on the campaign trail? I certainly wouldn’t. As I am reading your posts, the amount of spending of the federal government is still unknown to the canidates, yet we should be taxed at the highest rate of the spending to pay for the spending. How is it different to pay for the programs that Senator Obama has proposed as opposed to the spending for the war on terror as it is now? Care to compare the additional spending amounts proposed by Senator Obama versus just continuing the war on terror? Given that Senator Obama has stated that the surge “has suceeded beyond our wildest imaginations”, will he still end it to save the money? Did the surge, in Senator Obama’s words, excced Senator McCains imagination, or was Senator Obama just flat out wrong?

“You criticize Democrats for being intolerant. You accuse them of being sexist, coming off a convention where two strong women, mothers both, were honored. What pisses Democrats and Liberals off about Sarah Palin is that she’s essentially a political hack in reformers clothing. There’s a difference between being strong and being obnoxious.” I guess the liberals/Democrats equating those who believe that god created the Earth and all life upon it as “flat earthers” and unfit to hold office; those that believe that all life has the right to BE as extremests, and those that believe that the science of global warming is faulty as “deniers” are inclusive.

“If you were more concerned about the things you folks do instead of the little fights you have with the media, you would win more arguments in the media. You would see peple turn to you to work things out. The trouble is, anybody who tries to be that real kind of maverick gets shot down by a party long conditioned to prefer orthodoxy in positions to creativity in politics.” IMHO the reason that the Republicans have lost ground with most people is that they decided to be “moderate” to win peoples’ minds through the media, to no avail. The conservatives need to do what President Reagan did and go over the media’s head straight to the American people.

Posted by: submarinesforever at September 5, 2008 9:45 PM
Comment #261855

Lee Jamison-
Reading your stuff about how Democrats started these attacks on family members reminds me of the old joke about walking into a revolving door ahead of somebody and them coming out ahead.

Your candidate once made and then subsequently apologized for a joke where he said the reason Chelsea Clinton was so ugly was that Janet Reno was the father. That was more than ten years ago. During that time, the Republicans have increasingly justified going after the families of dissenters as a matter of course. Insinuations were made about the means of Graeme Frost’s parents. Republicans took it upon themselves to presume to speak for Cindy Sheehan’s dead son, because she dared protest against President Bush for getting her son killed. Then there was the matter of that one guy’s CIA wife.

After quite a few years of this, there are a number of people in the party who think turnabout is only fair play. Personally I think we should do better than that, but in my party, people take suggestions more than marching orders. Anyway, you’re getting a dose of your own medicine from those folks. Bitter pill to swallow, isn’t it?

The Media’s no one’s friend but their own. We’re simply better right now at giving them what they want: meaningful drama. You can distract them for a moment with your VP Pick, but where’s the fresh produce, much less the fresh meat after that? Look, we got a rock star, too! She’s a lady, just like that other candidate! She’s young and grossly inexperienced executively experienced!

But in the end, the question is, who can honestly lay out their principles without fear of alienating the voters. Who can talk with reporters without unreasonable fear of saying something destructive to the campaign. If Sarah Palin’s going to be an effective help to your campaign, She’s got to be capable of dealing with a reporter without the help of an advance team, otherwise she will be a liability.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2008 12:10 AM
Comment #261871

“… Senator Obama has not authored a single piece of leglislation or reform.”

submarinesforever: Obama has co-sponsored 427 bills in the U.S. Senate and authored 152. He sponsored 820 in the Illinois State Senate.

Go here for more info and while you’re at it, compare Obama’s record to McCain’s (forget about Palin):
http://thomas.loc.gov/

Now - let’s compare this to Palin, who according to Todd Harris, a GOP strategist close to the McCain campaign, won’t be “available” to the press for 2 weeks. Harris says,” If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that [voters will] care about, and that’s something that will haunt [McCain] for awhile, so I think this is a smart move.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AV_54517R8

Posted by: pianofan at September 6, 2008 3:19 AM
Comment #261872

Pianofan,
Thanks. I knew about Obama’s record of bipartisan legislation & reaching across the aisle, but it gets to be too much, rebutting the stupid talking points of the GOP, and we wouldn’t want me to snap again, eh? This particular talking point was presented by Lieberman. It was a truly despicable lie, and he knew it.

Posted by: phx8 at September 6, 2008 3:57 AM
Comment #261873

Pianofan:

Senate resolution 152 is a resolution “Honoring the lifetime achievements of Jackie Robinson.”, and is the only piece of leglislation that you state he authored. It was submitted by Mr. Bunning for for himself, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. KERRY, Mr. OBAMA, and Mr. CARDIN. Earth shattering leadership pushing through such a tough, bipartisan compromise there. Again I say that there is a major difference between authoring and “pushing through”.

Posted by: submarinesforever at September 6, 2008 5:02 AM
Comment #261877

820 is the number of bills Obama sponsored in the State Senate. 427 is the current number of bills that Obama has co-sponsored as a Senator.

152 is the number of bills he’s authored.

Even this year, Obama’s ahead on the numbers, having sponsored 129 bills to McCain’s 38.

I’m beginning to wonder whether you guys have a story that you’re trying to write about Obama irrespective of the actual truth. He’s just got to be dilletante, doesn’t he, while the Maverick can show up on an uneven schedule and do less work. Obama’s a hard worker. No lazy pop star could have managed a campaign like his and beat the opponents he’s beaten.

So the question to you is this: if you’re wrong about him on this count, what else might you be missing about him?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2008 8:12 AM
Comment #261879

Stephen, you just don’t understand. You probably think Sadam had nothing to do with 9-11. Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 6, 2008 8:33 AM
Comment #261883

Stephen:

DOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH!

My apologies for misreading that. I am a little cloudy at 5:00 am on a Saturday morning. I am not much better the rest of the day either. I know my last post had to be frustrating for you and I really do apologize. Thanks for the link, I will go do some checking in between the football games today and try to get back with you.

“I’m beginning to wonder whether you guys have a story that you’re trying to write about Obama irrespective of the actual truth. He’s just got to be dilletante, doesn’t he, while the Maverick can show up on an uneven schedule and do less work. Obama’s a hard worker. No lazy pop star could have managed a campaign like his and beat the opponents he’s beaten. So the question to you is this: if you’re wrong about him on this count, what else might you be missing about him?” I will answer more thoroughlly later, but for now I just want to say that I do not think Senator Obama is lazy and I do commend his primary campaign victory. Quite frankly I did not think that anyone could unseat the Clinton machine and am impressed with that achievement. Lazy, not at all. But again I say that cosponsoring and authoring leglislation are two distinct actions. I am going to try to check and see what he authored to get a better feel for his leglislative achievements. That should be fair enough.

Posted by: submarinesforever at September 6, 2008 9:33 AM
Comment #261885

Stephan, I did not know the numbers for Obama, but what was your source? Is that a .gov site you could share?

We can all assume that sponsoring a bill has very little to do with writting it, with any candidate.

I have more concerns with most of his time as Senator being on the road campaigning. As someone who lives in Illinois, and with a Dem Gov, Dem Congress and two Dem Senators I would like to see more focus on our state and less on the campaign. The Illinois legislature is in turmoil. It would be good to see Obama use some of his ability to pull things together back in his home state.

In stead he comes in to announce a VP then is out again on the trail. Would have been nice while he was in Springfield and made some hard comments on the “state” of Illinois.

Posted by: Honest at September 6, 2008 10:10 AM
Comment #261890

Here you go.

As for the rest? I think it’s unfair to ask him to clean up their mess. He’s got his hands full, and not unreasonably so.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #261895

Stephen,

Of those bill that have been authored out of his office how many, apart from perfunctory stuff like honorific postage stamps, have become law?

Zero (actually, I’m not even sure any of THOSE made it to floor votes.)

The vast majority of the real bills, including some that actually look pretty good to my eye (a bill to encourage alternative fuels [which does not seem to help wind or solar power] for example) on first glance, are in committee. Only a handful have come to a floor vote of either house. Getting bills through the whole process requires a great deal of nose-to-the-grindstone effort. Obama just hasn’t done that homework.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 12:09 PM
Comment #261898

Lee Jamison-
There’s very little that’s come out of that Congress of any kind, thanks to Bush and the obstructionist Republicans. The Republicans have been obstructing legislation at a record pace. Bush, too has been getting in the way, finally figuring out what his Veto Pen is for.


Would it not be convenient for the man complaining about Washington Gridlock be the same one manufacturing it? And that’s not just me talking. McCain has voted with his party to hold up several bills, as a matter of fact. Probably the only thing that’s prevented him from siding with more of these obstructions is his being on the campaign trail.

Obama had the misfortune to spend most of his time in either a Republican Congress, or one where the Republicans were holding legislation hostage. Still, he’s done far more than the speakers at your convention have alleged.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2008 12:27 PM
Comment #261900

Stephen,

I think Obama sponsored or cosponsored an ethics bill and others while in the Illinois legislature. Those bills either passed or came close even though he was fighting a majority Republican legislature…shows he can work across the aisle…and, that Bushco is the stopper today, as no one can get any cooporation under the current situation in D.C.

I’m pretty sure that would continue under a McPain administration. He hasn’t shown the balls to separate himself from the lock-step bunch. He wasn’t even allowed to select his own running mate.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #261905

Stephen,

Maybe he seems like he’s been there forever, but Obama has not spent a day in a Republican Congress.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 1:36 PM
Comment #261915

Woops, my bad.

He didn’t have a bill to his name before 2007, but Obama was elected in 2004.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 2:54 PM
Comment #261929

I still cannot believe that Palin will not answer any questions from the press for weeks. What is even more astonishing is that some conservatives support this and think it’s a great move. I’m sorry, but is this country still a democracy in which the people should be able to ask their possible leader a couple of questions? Even if she does make herself available for questions in the near future, what does it say about her that she has to prepare for a few weeks just to be able to handle questions from the people she intends to lead?


Posted by: tom at September 6, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #261936

“820 is the number of bills Obama sponsored in the State Senate”

820 is the number of bills authored by others, handed to BHO to sponsor by Emil Jones jr, to help him get elected to the US Senate, in a race where his primary and general election opponents were sandbagged with the help of the Ex-wives club. Jones also arranged the state senate schedule around BHO’s fundraisers and campaign appearances.

There is so much misinformation circulating about this candidate’s record, that you can’t even respond to every piece of it. For example, someone recently stated that BHO was in the US Senate 2 years before beginning his run for the offic of POTUS. His campaign actually began the day after his election to the Senate. He never expected to get re-elected to the Senate,(re what happened to Carol Moseley Braun) and his advisors and strategizers thought he would be able to get the VP spot in 2008.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 6, 2008 4:47 PM
Comment #261937

ohrealy,

I have to bite on the comment about his never expecting to be re-elected. Do you have a source for that or is it just logical conjecture based on the self-evident fact that he was being pushed, even before he was in the Senate, for presidential consideration by powerful people?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #261940

Lee J, the source for almost everything I write is the Chicago Tribune, unless I credit someone else.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 6, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment #261949

Lee Jamison-
There are things people say because they want a nice big effect, and are unconcerned with the accuracy of their statements. Even in a cursory examination, there was evidence that Obama was more than just some funnel for somebody elses’ legislation.

Oh by the way, In the period you refer to, Obama was the primary sponsor on 66 bills and 86 amendments, co-sponsor on 255 bills, and co-sponsor on 172 amendments. The accounts don’t seem to favor him seeming like just a conduit for other people’s legislation. I doubt McCain’s been anywhere near as active.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2008 6:03 PM
Comment #261950

Thanks for the link, searched by senator and got your number, 38 for McCain that he sponsored … I thenk got 129 that Obama Sponsored. Where did you get 152 that he sponsored? You provided no link for Illinois so I have no idea if your 800 plus number is valid. The 129 versus 154 might be authored versus sponsored, however there is no explaination of the difference.

Posted by: Honest at September 6, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #261951

Credit where credit is due- Stephen did post a link earlier to a site that shows what each legislator has been doing.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 6, 2008 6:16 PM
Comment #261958

ohrealy, just because Obama was not Speaker of the House, or SOLE sponsor of any bills, takes nothing away from the bills he did co-sponsor. To be a sole sponsor of a bill, is to be a Maverick whose bill will not pass due to lack of co-sponsors.

Maverick = unpredictable. Does anyone want someone who is KNOWN as unpredictable to command the Oval Office of our nation? Haven’t we had quite enough of that with the current president? A man who campaigns saying what people wanted to hear to elect him and who acted completely contradictory to what he campaigned on to get elected. We don’t need nor want another GW Bush in office for another 4 years, so McCain will have to lose, again, on Nov. 4.

I love his new strategy, co-opting Obama’s platform on the issues and change. What’s next? McCain in black face singing Mammy to win over voters? I wouldn’t put it past him if he thought it would work.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 6, 2008 6:49 PM
Comment #261964
ohrealy, just because Obama was not Speaker of the House, or SOLE sponsor of any bills, takes nothing away from the bills he did co-sponsor. To be a sole sponsor of a bill, is to be a Maverick whose bill will not pass due to lack of co-sponsors.

Maverick = unpredictable. Does anyone want someone who is KNOWN as unpredictable to command the Oval Office of our nation? Haven’t we had quite enough of that with the current president? A man who campaigns saying what people wanted to hear to elect him and who acted completely contradictory to what he campaigned on to get elected. We don’t need nor want another GW Bush in office for another 4 years, so McCain will have to lose, again, on Nov. 4.

I love his new strategy, co-opting Obama’s platform on the issues and change. What’s next? McCain in black face singing Mammy to win over voters? I wouldn’t put it past him if he thought it would work.

David, you crack me up. :) But you have a good point —- Never can I remember an election where the side that’s down attempted to usurp the banner of the opposition. This really has been a one of a kind race. Obama had youth and a thinner record that could be used against him as pros in his campaign, and the repugs, despite months of pandering those as weaknesses, now appoint Caribou Barbie in an attempt to steal the same perceived weakness.

I think you’re right, the repugs should stop sending McCain money and start mailing him bottles of black shoe polish for his big show number! :)

Posted by: QueenBee at September 6, 2008 7:24 PM
Comment #261990

Stephen,

You said, “I think you need to diversify your sources.”

Thanks for the backhanded slam comment that I don’t know what I’m talking about…..you know sometimes it really seems that the “old timers” on this blog get a free pass in terms of the the rules here. I’ve been a lurker for a long time - but not a poster and sometimes its hard to read through the snide undertone to get to the points/facts/issues.

Couldn’t you just state your point and ask where I got my resources. It seems a number of you in this blog have your fingers tied directly to your partisan heart….and use those fingers to poke others in the eye. As McCain said - don’t we as Americans have more in common than we do have differences?

I’m just here to attempt to have a discussion.

By the way my resource on almost all things tax related is the bipartisan Tax Foundation. And regarding corporate tax rates the US is SECOND highest - no need to diversify sources its just a fact…a % that ranks above all except Japan .
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1466.html

And when I think that countries below us provide national health care it is even more darning.

Are there other ways to look at it? Or other issues to consider? Of course. As a % of GDP we look in much better shape.

But when the rubber hits the road we are heavily taxed. Why do I say that? Small business is the real engine of the economy. The firm I work at does consulting for these companies and I can tell you that “loopholes”, “tax shelters” don’t play a significant role. When you start a samll business in the US you are VERY, VERY quickly thrown into the top tax rate - which is the second highest in the world. That is not a good place to be and any increase simply makes it work.

I agree with David R. that something has to give. There has to be hard choices. But a bad choice is to increase taxes. Govt revenue has surged in the past when there have been tax reductions. Isn’t that the point? We want govt revenue to not take a hit. We have big issues in front of us that are going to be costly. But further stifling small business and reaching into individuals pockets is not the answer. We need to spend less on military, less on foreign aid and take care of our own house.

Also, I’d argue that us citizens AND the US govt can’t afford it from a bigger picture perspective. If you want to see the final nail in the coffin of consumer spending then raise taxes (yes even if its only on the top 5% or 10%). Those top 5% - 10%? The American economy needs them to keep spending….they don’t need them to be sending that money to an inefficient US govt. A deep recession - even if partly triggered by faulty tax policy - is the absolute last thing you and I need and the last thing the govt needs.

And if you do think the tax burden is relatively light I suggest you go out and try to start a business. You will likely find, as many of my clients do, that taxes currently are a burden “too high”.

Regarding your comment about Obama being the maverick. I looked at Clinton as being the maverick. He was different. I almost voted for him. (twice!)

Him leaning more toward the left may be a maverick position to him but I don’t think that kind of maverick-ism will sit well with the majority of the country…but that is just my opinion. (sorry no source to quote there :))


Posted by: MT Cross at September 7, 2008 12:23 AM
Comment #261991

Even though the base loves her, I’d have to ask Republicans anyway, is this woman seriously the running mate?

There has to be more experienced female Republicans that can be touted as better reformers, and hold better Republican values than this woman.

I might be mistaken, but when, excluding the last 8-10 years, did the Republican party go so pro-Christian/Religion, to have this woman represent a large portion of it’s base. Maybe out west in “small town America” it’s like that, I don’t know, I live in the suburbs of Philly, but there’s small towns in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, as well as Lousiana, Missouri, and Alaska.

So is this campaign really going to push separating America into little neat sectors of small town vs. big city, or Republicans vs. Democrats vs. Everyone else? To borrow and turn a movie quote:

“I thought what we were here, racial differences notwithstanding, was just a couple of Americans.

So here’s to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here’s to America’s colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather.”

I really don’t like this woman, not for her affliation at all, there’s a lot of good Republicans making their states, counties, cities much better to live in, but making fun and just appealing to people because she’s a hockey mom, or her stance on her family, or her personal story just fall dead to me when I hear stories of her not paying attention to building and staffing libraries, or rebuilding the cultural institutions to educate more Americans.

Has she been to North or West Philadelphia lately (or has any politician really), it’s like a goddamn warzone. Add Detroit, LA, Chicago and Atlanta to that as well.

Until these campaigners address issues like why in July, we, in Philly had not 1, not 2, not 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 but NINE, 9, NINE shootings in 2 days
or why that dealer on Snyder Avenue was found with sub-machine guns in his house, adding to the economic and social problems that spawns these problems in the first place.

That’s one of the many problems I have with Republicans, especially this year, emphasizing small town America, like big town America, the cities and suburbs where folks live don’t matter. Or that god forbid any Republicans live in cities.

So call on this woman for interviews, just take all the candidates personal lives and have all the media bare it all for us, the people, to see, because that’s the price they have to pay to be in office, complete transparency for the people they want to work for.

Posted by: Jon at September 7, 2008 12:40 AM
Comment #262004

The Problem is not the Base of the GOP:

The most accurate polls available take into account the draw of votes by the other two candidates for President, Bob Barr, and Ralph Nader. Here are the latest results from differing organizations since Mid-August to 9/03/08:

Average 08/15 - 09/03 Obama by 3.8%

Democracy Corps (D) 09/01 - 09/03 Obama by 5%

CNN 08/29 - 08/31 Obama by 2%

ABC News/Wash Post 08/19 - 08/22 Obama by 6%

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 08/15 - 08/18 Obama by 5%

LA Times/Bloomberg 08/15 - 08/18 Obama by 1%


Source: RealPolitics.com

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2008 5:08 AM
Comment #262005

MT Cross said: “There has to be hard choices. But a bad choice is to increase taxes. Govt revenue has surged in the past when there have been tax reductions. Isn’t that the point?”

That is part of the point. The other part is that tax cuts have increased our national debt by more than 80% since Bush took office and Republicans got control of the whole Senate. This cannot be overlooked or argued away. Because while tax cuts in the short run CAN stimulate economic activity, they HAVE also increased taxes on future workers by dramatically elevating the debt and interest on that debt, (430 billion in 2007).

What is needed is cutting wasteful and unnecessary spending which does not enhance the nation’s solvency going forward, a tax reform that removes taxes from small businesses entirely and minimizes them on corporations, but taxes personal wealth at rates at least equal to that of the lowest wage worker rates (flat tax would accomplish that) without loopholes of any kind save for one, where taxes would drive a wage earner into the poverty level.

It is a simple recipe actually! But, not simple at all politically. As long as the partisan incumbents keep getting reelected, they will gridlock and delay any reforms of this kind. Ultimately, it is up to the voters to reject the incumbents on the basis of their failure to reform the spending and tax system in a way that will restore America’s future solvency. Because we are going headlong into bankruptcy with this doubling of the national debt in less than a decade (by 2010), and will continue to do so for another couple decades given the 53 Trillion dollar unfunded mandates and debt obligations of the Federal government.

Cutting taxes by itself is no solution at all. It just increases taxes for future workers by increasing the national debt and service on that debt.

I agree with you entirely and it makes eminent sense when you say: “We need to spend less on military, less on foreign aid and take care of our own house.”

But, again, this will only buy a bit of time before the national debt requires dramatically higher taxation to stay solvent. Our total foreign aid package is only in the 10’s of billions, and Iraq accounts for only 120 billion per year plus replenishment costs of perhaps another 50 billion. Cutting these costs will help, but, won’t make a huge dent in the $53 trillion unfunded federal obligations as of this date in time: they are growing by 2 to 3 trillion per year.

A complete reform of spending and tax policy is required as I outlined above, in order to address the coming insolvency over the next 2 to 4 decades. And that will not happen until voters reject the incumbents who refuse to make these reforms in lieu of partisan battles for power. It is up to us.

Vote Out Incumbents Democracy has the answer, but, almost no one has ever heard of it and they are grotesquely underfunded, a $1500 budget at last check. One would think such common sense as voting out your representatives when you don’t like the results of government wouldn’t require selling. But, this is America! Everything of value has to be sold and common sense is hard to find on election day.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2008 5:35 AM
Comment #262006

Thanks QueenBee, I am not normally so sarcastic when discussing issues, nor prone to use much humor, but, what is happening in the McCain campaign is truly laughable, and to his credit, somewhat novel in its scope and breadth of tactics and strategies.

However, the net result is that Americans won’t and don’t know where he stands on solutions to the problems that most voting Americans want addressed, the economy present and future, inflation, jobs, wages, and whether Soc. Sec. and Medicare will be there for them after paying into it all their work lives.

McCain’s answer to Soc. Sec. and Medicare is to end the programs, same as Bush. But, he doesn’t want that to get around to anyone outside his base. And there is one issue where the media has utterly failed the voters.

The reason Republicans nearly doubled the national debt was to end entitlement programs. There is no more effective way to accomplish that. Make the tax cost of federal debt so high, that workers can no longer afford to pay into those programs. That was the true price of Republicans having had power for 16 years.

Those programs could have been made solvent and salvageable during those years with relatively minor adjustments. But that window of opportunity is now closed. It will take major hardship and sacrifice to save the national debt and future economy from busting now, even if the political will to do so can be found.

McCain may be singing Mammy on one knee before this is over, but, if he wins doing his Jolson routine, the American workers and their families will be crying Uncle McBush, for decades to come.

The really bizarre thing about all this is, once Americans realize how devastating Republican rule has been on our economic future, the Republican Party will be toast. But, the GOP leadership just plain doesn’t get that, along with a whole lot else.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2008 5:56 AM
Comment #262027

“There are things people say because they want a nice big effect, and are unconcerned with the accuracy of their statements” Yes, S.D., I am glad that you are finally pointing out the Kossacker big lie strategy that has been repeated in this blog for the whole year. It’s really getting old to have arguments resurface months after they were originally discussed while you pretend that you are presenting “evidence” of your candidate’s qualifications.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 7, 2008 3:50 PM
Comment #262037
I am not normally so sarcastic when discussing issues, nor prone to use much humor,

Huh?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 7, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #262038

David,

BTW, why are quoting polls from before the conventions, especially the Rep one? Do you think that they represent the way things are seen today?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 7, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #262042

jon,

The “war zones” you describe are all represented by people who claim to have the interests of the poor in mind, Democrats, since the party strategy is to keep people poor and pet them while they take advantage of their resentment. Has inner city Philly been represented by any other party in recent times? Probably not. Einstein said the definition of madness was to fail at the solution of a problem and then continue to attempt to solve the problem the same way over and over.

OK, some might say Conservatives also practice the same madness. To the extent that we turn to a party that tells us it will reign in spending and reduce the size of government- and then proves over and over it has LIED to us (the REAL reason we have ever growing deficits, David) indeed we have. But what does the other party offer us?

Democrats tell us up front they will grow the government. They tell us up front they will sap the businesses that actually produce the stuff that is real wealth, that feed people, that house people, and that get goods and services to market, of the resources they need to do those crucial things and employ people doing them. They then tell us up front that they will redistribute those resources to people who don’t create goods and services, meaning less stuff will have to go around to more people.

This process, David, is what creates debt. It inherently destroys capital, just vaporizes it to nothing. That is hard to represent to people on a balance sheet. “This money will be taxed away from you and turned into nothing…” So we treat it as though there is some promise involved in the use of it to the future. We spirit it away from various “trust” funds (and, honestly, WE knew it was happening even all those years ago so don’t just blame it on the thieves we elected to steal for us from ourselves while we conveniently away) and promised ourselves that our grandchildren would pay it back. That “debt”, though, is just empty folly. The real cycle of the economy is the stuff cycle. It does not happen in promises. It happens in real time. What happens in promises is the WILL to create goods and services, the hope that those will be compensated for in a manner worthy of the service people did to create the things that are real wealth. The farther the government stretches out promises the greater the likelihood those productive people liberals love to hate and Democrats love to bleed will despair of recompense, at least in the U.S., and become unproductive, at least in the U.S.

At that point the U.S. will become hell and, as always, “the poor will suffer most”.

Economics, by the way, is really simple. Stuff (things and ideas) is wealth. Money is an icon of promise, a fantasy we all willingly participate in. All the operations you do with money are manipulations of promises.

Naturally, from that point it gets mind-boggling.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 7, 2008 6:15 PM
Comment #262050

Lee, your sources are JUST PLAIN WRONG!

Obama has said consistently that he will support familiy businesses and small business. His income tax increases would affect only those making more than $250,000 per year or the top 5% income earners in America. That’s not growing government, that is raising revenue to reduce the deficit or at least keep it from growing.

Your sources are lying to you to protect their own wealthy interests. Just as McCain is lying to protect his wife’s wealth interests. Cutting taxes on middle class and poor consumers INCREASES American consumption which accounts for more than 60% of our entire GDP.

McCain has yet to specify one single specific spending program he would cut, but he has been very clear he will not try to raise government revenues by raising taxes.

Another inconvenient truth.

You have $100 a week in expenses to keep yourself alive, and John and George both pay you $50 a week for part time work. Then George says, sorry, I can only pay you $25 a week or fire you and hire Jane who will do the same work for $25. No matter how you spin this situation, you are going to come up $25 short.

McCain’s intention to keep the wealthy Bush tax cuts in place, no matter how you spin it, is going to cost taxpayers in the other income groups more in taxes. By refusing to increase revenues from the wealthiest, he is adding to the problem of our debt and deficits.

And don’t even begin to try to say he will cut $455 billion dollars in current deficit spending in his first term without specifying just where those spending cuts will be applied. Education, roads and bridges, military, food stamps?

Because, though you choose to call low wage workers unproductive, though you choose to imply that Medicare recipients are leaches, though you choose to call students persons who contribute and produce nothing, these people are the one’s most likely to suffer as a result of McCain’s UNSPECIFIED spending cuts.

Republicans grew government contracting and service jobs at a faster rate than Democrats ever even dreamed of, with the Medicare Rx drug plan with non-competitive bidding, with the war in Iraq, with black military budgets in the untold billions which representatives don’t even get to vote on with any specificity, with radical transfers of American wealth and taxes to adversarial nations like, Pakistan and China.

No, Lee, that old Rovian trick of taking one’s own weaknesses and failures and attacking one’s opposition with owning them, just is not going to work anymore.

The Biggest Spenders and tax cutters for the wealthy in America are Republicans.

The Biggest government size increasers are Republicans.

The Biggest gifts of tax payer dollars to foreign nations and investors are Republicans.

The record is VERY, VERY clear on these accounts.

Republicans deficit spend and cut taxes to benefit 5% of the American people. The Democrats deficit spend less, and raise taxes more on the wealthy, to benefit the the lower 95% of Americans.

The majority of Americans benefit more from Democratic policy than Republican policy as any comparison of Bush’s 8 years to Clinton’s 8 years clearly demonstrates.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2008 8:01 PM
Comment #262051

Rhinehold, those ARE the latest polls of this kind, which include the Barr and Nader in the polling.

A simple Google of later polls of this kind would have shown you that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #262274

From a purely political perspective there can be no doubt that this pick was a winner. The polling indicates as much. And, most of the sub-polling among women seems to indicate a large turnaround for McCain. On the radio this morning I heard that she has provided a 15% - 20% swing among women? If I heard that right - then from that perspective the RNC has to be given kudos that it got their way with McCain. McCain must feel like the coach that watches what he thinks is a terrible shot go in to win the game. He didn’t want it at first, but things sure turned out well.

We’ll see if her luster can last through the every day grind. Giving the “same speech” is going to get old very, very quick in this hyper speed media world we live in.

Posted by: MT Cross at September 9, 2008 9:17 AM
Comment #262279

MT Cross,

The principal reason this is a great pick is that it tells the Repbulican’s conservative base that they are not unwelcome in the party that represents them. They will have a voice in the White House if they help win this election. Hence, they have a reason to help.

Besides, the vast majority of things Democrats have been saying to counteract the pick sound like bald repudiations of their own long-professed positions on womens’ rights. They are making themselves look like hypocrites in their attempts to destroy Palin.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 9, 2008 10:02 AM
Comment #262281

Based on how low the bar was set these past eight years, the choice of Palin does not come as a surprise.

In keeping with the apparent tried and true tactics of “keep it simple - stay on message” hopefully the simple message that will eventually come through load and clear is that Biden was ready to engage the media from day 1 and Palin’s inexperience has yet to provide her the courage and ability to engage the media. I think that speaks volumes about who is ready to back up the president in case of a crisis.

Posted by: Mark at September 9, 2008 10:12 AM
Comment #262304

Mark,

If Biden is so ready to “engage the media” Why isn’t he all over it? Seems to me I’ve seen more stories hinting at the wanderlust of Biden’s mouth than at the wisdom that falls from it.

So far the media is still taken at trying to hype Palin as the story, sure that a conservative mother of five would be too stupid once they do get their hands on her to keep a good impression going. McCain clearly has taken the chance that they could be right.

Then again…

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 9, 2008 12:29 PM
Comment #262642

I am a simple and old woman. If elected Palin will soon be president, God help us all. All I know from a life time of experiences is… when a Republican is in office I, and everyone I know, eats beans and lives poor, when a Democrat is in office I and everyone I know eats steak and lives good. That is all I know for certain. I long for the prospers Clinton years.

Posted by: oldbones at September 11, 2008 12:24 PM
Comment #262738

Conservative? When she became mayor of Wasila it was not in debt, but it sure was when she left office. (Sound familiar - This is Bush style fiscal conservatism.)
Yet Gov Palin is very popular in Alaska. Why not? She has brought the state tons of our money. She has gotten plenty of earmarks including the money for the “bridge to nowhere” - Alaska kept the money for it after the project was stopped. Palin is the QUEEN OF EARMARKS. She has also used a little of the money from the high price of gas to distribute to the citizens of Alaska.
Check out the letter on this link: http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/

Posted by: TomD at September 11, 2008 8:19 PM
Comment #262740

Conservative? When she became mayor of Wasila it was not in debt, but it sure was when she left office. (Sound familiar - This is Bush style fiscal conservatism.)
Yet Gov Palin is very popular in Alaska. Why not? She has brought the state tons of our money. She has gotten plenty of earmarks including the money for the “bridge to nowhere” - Alaska kept the money for it after the project was stopped. Palin is the QUEEN OF EARMARKS. She has also used a little of the money from the high price of gas to distribute to the citizens of Alaska.
Check out the letter on this link: http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/

Posted by: TomD at September 11, 2008 8:21 PM
Comment #262767
I am a simple and old woman. If elected Palin will soon be president, God help us all. All I know from a life time of experiences is… when a Republican is in office I, and everyone I know, eats beans and lives poor, when a Democrat is in office I and everyone I know eats steak and lives good. That is all I know for certain. I long for the prospers Clinton years.

Wow, never say the left doesn’t use their fair share of hyperbole.

oldbones, you should be voting for a Republican congress and a Democratic president then. Oh, and for more raiding of our SS trust fund and the luck of having a technology boom under your watch if you want to go back to the Clinton years….

Oh yeah, and turning a blind eye to terrorism. Good Times.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2008 11:42 PM
Post a comment