COLIN POWELL’S announcement Sunday of support for Barack Obama probably counts as the highest-profile endorsement of the 2008 campaign.
At this stage of the campaign, endorsements usually don’t count for much. Candidates court them strenuously in primary season, hoping to use the kind words of well-known politicians and others to sway a few voters and unlock a few pocketbooks. But there comes a point at which candidates’ images outgrow those of their endorsers and they can expect to draw money and voters on their own.
Obama has certainly reached that point. The polls are running consistently in his favor and he has never had trouble raising money.
So will Powell’s endorsement make a tangible difference to the Obama campaign? Probably not.
But the endorsement is likely to have some effect. As a respected former soldier and secretary of state, he has perhaps the highest national approval rating of any Republican and his words cannot help but sway some voters not already committed to a candidate or only lukewarm in their commitment.
Most useful in Powell’s statement was his careful explanation of the reason he chose to support a Democrat for president, but intended to remain a Republican.
He said he was not comfortable with John McCain’s concentration on negative advertising, that McCain had no clear idea of how to handle the current economic problems and that Sarah Palin was a poor choice as a running mate.
“I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States,” Powell said.
He had no such doubts about Obama.
Obama, he said, “displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems...
“I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.”
Those statements from any other national figure, at this time, would be lost in the clamor of the campaign’s final weeks.
But Colin Powell, speaking quietly, sent a loud message to the nation and to his own political party.
kseyetie (anonymous) says...
Good points. I've always liked General Powell. Wish he'd had the guts to quit before W sent him to the UN with his BS speech on Iraq. I'm sure he will regret that until the day he dies.
October 20, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I'm guessing you haven't seen any of General Powell's interviews, kseyetie. He explained his decision with regard to Iraq. He said diplomacy was his first intention, but since that wasn't working then we needed to go there, but that our mistake was in not pushing harder after conquering Baghdad.
Listening to McCain's response to Powell's endorsement of Obama made me view him as a little kid. He listed all the former Secretaries of State who have endorsed him as if to say, "So?"
October 20, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truelovecharlie (anonymous) says...
I was greatly disappointed in Powell's endorsement of Obama. I had more faith in him than what he was worthy of. I was one of those hoping Powell would have run for president himself. He probably handed to election to Obama. I guess America deserves what it will get if they are so blind as to elect Obama. As for me; I think I will brush up on my spanish. My only hope is that something significant will occur in the near future (before Nov. 2nd) to open the eyes of all the voters. May God have mercy on us all.
October 20, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
Seriously. how can any thinking human being think for one single moment that a obama presidentcy could be worse than bush juniors? I mean really, if bush didnt ruin this country, then how could obama? conserative republicans said of FDR's new deal "it wasn’t doing enough to redistribute the nation’s wealth" how times have changed. democrats oooooo scary
October 20, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
I don't worry about Powell. The only one I saw running things during Desert Shield/Desert Storm was Schwarzkopf. Got back here and Powell got all of the press. Wonder who Stormin Norman endorses?
October 20, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
truelovecharlie,
Do support your statements please, you sound ridiculous praising Powell as someone you wanted for President and then talking about blind people electing Obama, you flip flop more than Lieberman.
Powell is a very well respected man, not just here but throughout the world, who by his own admission took a long long time to make this decision. I think rather than jumping on him immediately more people should read about what he said and why, he made a logical decision based on extensive observation, which is more than I can say for a great deal of the people out there today.
October 20, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Powell got all the press because he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at that time and "...he held the line between his irascible theatre commander Schwarzkopf and the other politicians outside and in the armed forces."
October 20, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Schwarzkopf has endorsed Republican nominee John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.[From his biography page].
October 20, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
This article causes me to lose some respect for Mr. Powell. Mr. Kelly is like the media in their propensity to fawn over the democrats. As Americans, we should realize that both parties put perpetuation of their party and their carrers above good of the America. Kind of makes me sick.
October 20, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcakmon (anonymous) says...
You should watch this video of Colin Powell on Meet the Press. The most important part is his discussion of the Muslim issue and a story about the mother of a fallen soldier. It speaks to what our country SHOULD be about. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, the story is at the 4:30 point of the video.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/...
October 20, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
So if he would have endorsed McCain that would have been ok? Great logic, once we choose sides that is it eh?
October 20, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcakmon (anonymous) says...
I guess you missed the point. I posted that link not because I agree with his endorsement of Barack Obama, (I do) but because he made an excellent point about what our country should be about. I have several Muslim friends that were born in America. They are citizens of this country just as I am. They are no less a citizen because of their faith. It's getting to the point where the far right wants people to think that if you are not a Christian that votes for Republicans then you are not partiotic and don't love your country. That is just wrong and very sad.
October 20, 2008 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truelovecharlie (anonymous) says...
Obama has written 2 books. In his first book he talks about aligning himself with Farachan, Malcolm X and others. In his second book he talks of how he will quit playing big brother to Israel and let the Palestinians take control. Remember Michelle Obama stating that "for the first time" she is proud of America? There are just too many unanswered questions with Obama. McCain has served this country 100% ever since the age of 17. He says he would rather lose an election than a war. He risked his own life and has suffered permanent disabilities for the good of this country. Never once has he hesitated to put this country first and I believe he would never compromise the good of this country for any reason. I can't say that for Obama.
October 20, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
News Flash
Comparing Obama to McCain in reference to his military record is a moot point, how can you compare people in your circumstance? You are illogical, and misinformed based on the claims you are making. Please stop spreading nonsense unless you care to back it up.
October 21, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Many have suffered permanent disabilities as a result of war injuries. If you care to check The Wall, many are dead!
Saying you would rather lose an election than a war is irresponsible when you think of all the lives this man is willing to risk. Vietnam took ten years and 58,000 lives for crying out loud.
You need to do some research.
October 21, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Here, let me help you. This comes from FOX news, something conservatives love to tout.
"Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
Greeted with rousing applause after making the comment in Milwaukee, Obama delivered an amended version of the speech later that day in Madison, Wis.
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change,” she said. “I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.”
See? You took her comment out of context.
We do need to move into a different direction. We do need a change. Hope IS making a comeback.
October 21, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Sorry, I should have given you the link so you could read the entire article.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3...
October 21, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I watched the McCain interview and I didn't see anything "childish" in his response. I'm sure Obama would have given the same response had the situation been reversed (of course, then it would have been viewed as "dignified").
I also don't see where Michelle Obama's statement was taken "out of context". The reason given following her statement has nothing to do with it. Whether she was proud for the first time because hope was making a comeback, because we had a democrat in the White House, or whether it was because her favorite TV show finally came back in syndication. The reason has absolutely nothing to do with the context. Either you've been proud of your country or you haven't. I've ALWAYS been proud of my country and proud to be an American. I haven't always agreed with the policies at the time, and been discouraged about the direction it was moving in, but I've always been proud to live in a country where I knew I could speak and vote freely, unlike alot of the world. People have been hungry for change at many different times throughout her adult life. Not every president since she has been an adult has been a 2-termer. Obviously people have wanted change, and hope (remember Reagan?). Nice copout, but most people aren't fooled.
October 21, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I was in Selma. I saw many things that made me puke not proud. Ever see a German Shepherd allowed to tear someone to pieces? I saw the blood; I heard the screams; I heard the vicious snarls; I saw an "American" police officer, a keeper of the "peace," laugh at the sight. I'll bet that cop was proud. Proud to be powerful; proud to be white.
I remember growing up in a true melting pot, then coming to the mainland at age 19 and seeing for the first time in my life signs that said "White Only." Proud?
I could speak freely, move freely, and vote because I was white.
I read recently about how Woodrow Wilson and his cronies tried to get a woman declared insane so she would be sent to an asylum all because she was campaigning for a woman's right to vote. Proud?
Yeah, I remember Reaganomics. No thanks.
October 21, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
More than the endorsement, I was impressed by Powell's commentary about the mistreatment of persons of the Muslim faith.
I have spent many hours as a volunteer at nursing homes. The story Powell shared about the Muslim-American who gave his life in the war, reminds me of a recent day when I visited Piedment Gardens in Oakland, Calif. I met a kind centenarian with an adorable appetite for laughter. She told me about her family, her education, her career. She also told me about her family having everything taken away from them and being imprisoned at Manzanar (http://www.nps.gov/manz/), simply because they of their Japanese heritage.
That was in 1942. It's unfortunate, more than sixty years later our nation has changed little. We still judge books upon their covers.
For Powell to take a stand against politics that serve only to spread hate rather than to unite, I feel he should be commended.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
October 21, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
For a candidate that talks about reaching across the isle and bringing America together, this is troubling. Am I a "real" American because I question my nations policies and our country's direction? Am I a real American when I see a complete imbalance between the salary of the regular hard working men and women that make this country go, and the corporate CEO's (the ratio between the upper and lower tier is at the highest point its been since right before the great depression). Am I a real American when I want to see one of the worlds most expensive and least efficent health care systems reworked to provide more, better and less expensive coverage for our citizens?
According to one campaign, I don't sound like a "real" American... But, who gets to sit on the council deciding who the "real" American's are, and who the (I guess the term would be) "fake" Americans are. For a campaign talking about how they want to bring us together, there sure seems to be an effort to seperate us.
October 21, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yes, we could undoubtedly sit here and fill up the board pointing out instances of terrible behavior by white supremists. (Don't forget the KKK, either).
And then we could sit here and fill up the board with racial crimes by people of all other colors, as well. The point is?
Louis Farrakhan hates Jews. Proud? Bill Ayers hates America. Proud? Lots of hate by lots of people.
Yet, I'm still proud to be an American, and ALWAYS have been. I'm proud that this country banned slavery while it was still the norm in much of the rest of the world. I'm proud that I live in a country where the power of the people can work together to end the crimes you listed above. I was proud this country had a MLK - I was sad and angry when he was killed, but at the person and people who felt that way, not at America, nor what her Constitution stands for, regardless of how some may twist it. I'm proud I live in a country where the will of the people make all the incidents create mentioned above more and more the actions of only the lunatic fringe (which, sad to say, no country, no people anywhere will probably ever be able to totally eradicate). I'm proud that I live in a country where our Constitution states that "All men are created equal". I'm dissapointed and angry at those who do not abide by this statute, be they people in power or not, but not at my country.
You seem to think you cannot be proud of a country unless it is perfect. Could you please let me know which country currently on this earth IS perfect? I'll move there before the weekend gets here. I've been to enough foreign countries to know that racism is not an exclusive trait of Americans, nor whites only.
Your post, create, seems to focus on just the racial aspect, meaning that Michelle only became proud recently because of racial events. I thought this campaign wasn't supposed to be about race? It sounds like you are saying that it is.....
goodoleboy, since you pointed out people "spreading nonsense", without backing it up - you spread some nonsense of your own on another post that the media does not have a liberal bias. I asked you to prove it, all I heard was.......... crickets chirping, I guess. Would you like me to post links to the many studies that have been done to that regard? Or feel free to post your own.... (try not to post an MSNBC one - be honest).
October 21, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
bdprotheroe "That was in 1942. It's unfortunate, more than sixty years later our nation has changed little".
I would respectfully disagree with that statement in major ways. No, we're not perfect yet, and we've got a ways to go, but we're getting there (albeit any time at all is much too slowly). Do you think Obama could have been the Democratic nominee in 1942? Or Palin the VP nominee? Did we have many non-whites in professional sports, business executives, radio, movie stars, newsmen and women, white-collar professions, universities, etc... (endless list) then?
Just because in every country on earth, there have always been, are now, and unfortunately probably always will be racists and bigots, do you truly feel that we have changed very little since 1942? Honestly. Really?
Lots of racial and ethnic "cleansing" going on right now in many foreign countries, and quite a few of them, honestly, by Muslims (not all). Saw on the news last night where Iraq is sending soldiers to protect the Christian communities - they are being threatened and suffering violence by Muslims. From what I'm hearing, I guess all Muslims should not be proud to be Muslim, based on the actions of that particular group, right?
Somehow I think we're alot better than that. Not perfect, but better. Enough better that I'm proud to be an American. Always have been.
October 21, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Which post was this? Apologies that I do not revisit this site enough to see everything, I do get busy at times. As far as bias goes, well it is my belief that an educated person can read the facts and examine all the angles so as bias means nothing. Neutrality is something that is very hard to do, I think Fox News and MSNBC are biased yes, I still listen to them both though and it is pretty easy to see though the bias. CNN does a pretty good job of things though. The problem is that a great deal of Americans cannot think for themselves anymore, everything is spoon fed and prepackaged, ignorance and apathy have come a long way in this country, and that makes me sad.
October 21, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, it was on the debate III thread. And I agree with EVERY single word of your last post. I agree that Fox News is biased towards the right. But, I also agree with the same studies, that showed it was not biased as MUCH as most of the media. It was closer to the center then nearly all the rest. And, since the study I am referring to listed 19 media outlets in their study, - only 1 other was close enough to the center to be called neutral.
I agree, an educated person can read the facts and examine things enough so bias shouldn't matter. But we've seen plenty of people on this board spouting nonsense from both sides. And there are plenty of uneducated people that are going to cast a vote this November. Editorials here are a perfect example - our own famously neutral (LOL) Mr. Kelley wrote an article recently about the behavior of people at McCain's rallies, specifically naming the incident where the person alledgedly yelled "Kill Him". The evidence since then has shown that this was apparently a ploy by one reporter, since nobody there can verify it - none of the Secret Service, law enforcement, nobody. So - is Mr. Kelly going to print a retraction or correction to his article? (Will hell freeze over? LOL). So, my question is, how many people still believe the original story? In other words, how many people are being misled by "omission"? Sometimes bias can be what ISN'T printed, as well as what is - just more subtle....
October 21, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Pay attention, open_eyes. I used those particular events to detail the times when I have not been proud about being American. A couple of those events were racial, yes, but the Woodrow Wilson event was not. It was gender based, and in case you haven't realized it yet, women still don't have equality!
How about the time in 1966 when I watched in shock as a glob of spit rolled down my Marine husband's dress blues after some idiot war protestor made his "rights" known. Right in front of our young children! No, I wasn't proud then either.
I have several life events I could name that are not race based, but I didn't want to go on and on and on like you do.
The polls are speaking loud and clear.
October 21, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
How about things like the former unsanitary conditions at Walter Reed Medical, or propping up brutal dictators in the name or our national interests, or exposing our soldiers to chemicals like Agent Orange during Vietnam... I love my country, but I can't say I'm proud of everything we've ever done. Does that make me unpatriotic? I don't think so. Our founding fathers sought a MORE perfect union. They realized our need to evolve as a nation over time. Part of that evolution is recognizing problems, which generally starts by getting your pride bruised. Those that are on either side of the "pride" issue aren't what is wrong with America. It is those that are ambivalent about America, or put their own selfish needs consistently above the needs of the nation (some Wall Street execs may fit the bill) that are the problem. I have family members that I love, and would do anything for, but I can't say I've always been proud of everything they've done.
October 21, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
I have never been not proud of this nation or my service to the Constitution. Only in California has my uniform and service been denigrated in the USA. Compared to every other country I have ever been in, this is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. I see no reason not to be proud to be an American. People are not always the best they can be, but we strive ti fight on the side of the angels, and so can always hold our heads high.
October 21, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jibberish66 (anonymous) says...
Who really cares who Powell endorses? I care more about why this guy that has been an Obama advisor for quite a while, and then waits until 2 weeks before the election to give us this "great" news.
Sure, he's a millionaire, so it doesn't really matter if his income taxes go up now. He's set already.
As for Palin not having experience, that's bunk. Obama doesn't have the experience to head a Senate sub-commitee, much less the free world. Palin has headed a business, and a city government, and a state government. She's had to decide where troops would be utilized (National Guardsmen). She's had to struggle to balance a budget. Any governor running a state has run a microcosm of the federal government. A Senator is one of a hundred people that debate and vote. Obama couldn't even do that much of the time.
Lastly, don't fall for this "95% of the people get a tax cut" jazz. His first act will be to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. Everyone will have their taxes back up to the level they were in 2000. Then Obama will give us HIS tax cut. Will it be at the same rate? What about all of the non-taxpayers getting their votes bought with this welfare policy?
Anyone that ignores the enormous pile of crap that comes with an Obama presidency and still votes for him either is ill-informed or needs to go back on the meds.
October 21, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Jibberish
Stop spouting jibberish, and feel free to back up any of those statements with some fact, opinions are like aholes........
October 21, 2008 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Pay attention also, create. I mentioned in my post that in 1942 we would not have had a woman VP candidate.
There have been many, many times when I have not been proud of certain people, of some Americans, of certain policies and directions this country has taken. But I have ALWAYS, ALWAYS been proud of what this country and its Constitution stands for. Our founding fathers themselves you could argue were hypocritical in declaring all men are created equal while owning slaves. And I WILL point that out. But I am proud of the founding ideals laid down in our Constitution. I am proud of what our country aspires to be, of the goals and ideals it aspires to reach. And I ALWAYS have been. To say that I'm not proud of my country at times because of the way some people act is like me saying I'm not proud of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) because a few of the more idiotic members got DUI's. I'm not proud of those people or the way they acted, and it is a black eye on the organization, but I am still proud of what that organization stands for. No, I'm not proud of the people involved in the latest 2 incidents you detailed, but I'm proud to be a citizen of the country where those wrongs can be righted, where the country aspires to the highest ideals, even though many of its members fall short. I can't think of too many countries offhand that even come close. Come to think of it, the only ones that come anywhere near only do so because they patterned themselves after us.
goodoleboy, I notice you rarely if ever back up your claims. When I back up mine, it's labeled a "cut and paste deflection". But that's fine with me. I'm not out to win any arguments, win anyone over to my way of thinking, or win a debate. I just know there are many, many more people reading these posts than post here, many intelligent, thoughtful, analytical, and discerning people. They can sift thru for themselves what is jibberish and what isn't, and make their own decisions.
October 21, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And create, I'm very sorry for the things you have had to go thru or witnessed. We've all had less than perfect events happen to us in our lives by less than perfect people (which includes us all). And I am especially saddened by your story about your husband being spit on in Marine dress in front of your children. That, in a strange way, makes me VERY proud to be an American. I never knew him, of course, but I'm proud of you and your husband and both of your services to this country. Even though I would have liked to have beaten the living daylights out of the idiot spitter until he had no more teeth to spit through, I am proud that I live in a country where people can voice their displeasure with our policies without fear of being whisked away in the middle of the night by the secret police and never seen again. I would say that many people here are offended by some of the things you say about the sitting president and Republican candidates, but I respect your right to say them, and am proud to live in a country where you have the right to do so. Freedom of speech, sometimes unfortunately, means we have to endure alot of jibberish and non-well-intentioned people. As far as spitting, though, dang, couldn't we jail the thug for physical violence for doing that? Seriously!!!
October 21, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
No Open Eyes I can back up what I say, I just don't feel the need to cut and paste or hyperlink a post to death all the time unless someone challenges me on it. The poster above is making accusations that I would love to see proven, so I challenged him to do so. Feel free to question me or my sentiments all you like, I'll play ball with you for I feel you are one of the few here that would take the time to actually read and weigh in on my information. I try to keep things clear and concise.
As far as cut and paste deflections go, this seemed to bother you since you have brought it up in a few different posts. Let me expound a bit, I notice a lot that in events of politics that when a republican is debated you often shift the blame to democrat. Why? This is my point, if you want to defend someone, defend their actions, not shift the blame towards another. Feel free to skewer a Dem in an editorial if you want, chances are I will likely do so with you. You are an intelligent fellow, one of the few here, I would much rather stay on topic on the issue than get off track onto something unrelated.
October 22, 2008 at 3:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jibberish66 (anonymous) says...
So, noodleboy, what exactly would you like me to back up? That Obama has a serious lack of experience? He's a one-term Senator that has spent most of that time running for President. Do you need to see the date at which he was elected?
Do you disagree that a governor has National Guard troops to deal with? Do you disagree that a governor has budgetary considerations that a Senator hasn't? Do you disagree that Palin has run her own business, or that she was also a local mayor? I can find all of that for you. Do you actually disagree that Obama's been saying that he's going to give a tax cut to 95% of the people, even though a huge chunk of them didn't pay any in the first place? Who wouldn't vote for a guy that will send you a free check? Sounds like a welfare check to me, and it's buying votes, pal. Do you disagree that eliminating the Bush tax cuts is a top priority of the Democrats as soon as they take office? What exactly do you want me to "provide proof" of? Be specific. Differences of opinion are, or at least they were, part of what makes this country great. Those were the "good old" days, eh?
October 22, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Goodoleboy, what I try to point out at various times, is that when people use phrases like Republicans "showing their true colors", and/or try to ascribe any particular action solely to the GOP and/or conservatives, is to show that NO party has the market cornered on the type of actions they are pointing out. I think everything that is applicable needs to be brought to light, regardless of party. But it seems it is rarely if ever looked at or presented objectively here, and often cherry-picked thru to present only one angle. Call me too much of a fence-sitter if you will, I've always had the (sometimes unfortunate) bent towards trying to look at both sides in the same light. As a hypothetical scenario for illustration's sake, if I point out 3 Republicans embroiled in sex scandals, for instance, - yes, I agree that needs to be brought to public attention. But, if, at the same time, there are 3 or 4 Democrats involved in the same type of scandals to the same degree, and I say nothing about it, then I am not being fair or honest (feel free to switch the 2 party labels around in any order you feel like). So when I see alot thrown one way that is generalized to be what I perceive and know to be missing a few pertinent parts, I voice it. If you're going to rail on about Palin's inexperience, (and she DOES have inexperience on the NATIONAL scene) - be sure to look at your own candidate's inexperience. Debate experience, fine, Obviously an important and pertinent issue, but compare them fairly, and make your points as to why you give more credence to one than the other. Don't write an editorial talking about how we should all base our vote on the issues, not personal feelings, and then later in the same article complain you don't like so-and-so because of things like they say "you betcha". If you're going to rant on and on about the GOP in the 2000 Florida election, remember how the Dems tried to suppress the military vote. And look at ACORN's open preference, in which a tax-exempt non-partisan group is blatantly breaking federal law. (More news out on them this morning) - just to name a few offhand.
Questioning someone on sentiments and facts are 2 different things in my opinion. You can have all the spirited debate you want on opinions and sentiments, but when someone presents something as a fact, I like to see it backed up. And I try to do the same when I do that. If the links get tiring for some people, well I'm not too sorry. Lots of people here claim lots of things as facts but when they never have time to back it up it seems once I start digging there's a clear reason they didn't have time to do so (by BOTH sides). Emotions tend to cloud judgement at times, that's for sure. It's hard enough sifting thru the crap, on top of that it seems we have to dig up what is conveniently overlooked as well, because we all know plenty of people won't bother to dig any further, and uncover, as Paul Harvey says, the REST of the story.....
October 22, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Jibberish,
Obama holds a degree from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard. Palin took 5 colleges and 6 years to get a 4 your degree in journalism, and I hope you realize how easy journalism is.....(this information is widely availible no need to source this)
Obama has lived in other cultures and has a much better pulse on the world, Palin got her passport when?......
Hell Palin does not even know what the Vice president does:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/a...
But she has no problem shopping with public campaign contributions or flying her kids around and staying at posh hotels(unethical and I am certain the law will be amended much like her expense reports)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/a...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/a...
Mayor of where? Town of Wasilla has a population of 5500 people, wow that qualifies her for the vice presidency. Alaska itself has approximately 700,000 people, ranks 47th among US States, but yeah 2 years at the helm of that qualifies her. National Guardsman? LOL that crafty Russia is always up to something, here is something to chew on:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/200...
Do you really think she alone works on fiscal policy? Hint: no she has staff for this, she makes decisions sure but she is like any other public figure, part of a team. And after the "bridge to nowhere" and abuse of power in her office I would wager her team is out of favor next time round.
Bush's tax cuts were and still are ridiculous, matter of opinion I guess, or rather more a matter of income and who benefits. I think they are wrong and guess what, I BENEFIT from them, imagine that. Go read and educate yourself on Obama's tax plan, its not perfect, nothing is but it looks more sound to me than McCain's, not a means to "buy votes". I see a lot of accusations that you make, but they are just that, accusations
October 22, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
open eyes
I debate on fact, sentiments are a moot point to me, too many people let their emotions cloud their judgment, logic and reason is really all that matters to me. Most of the people here are really not worth my time to post all my sources, they have their minds made up for them already. You are not one of these people, which like I said earlier I will be glad to play ball with someone who I feel can think and reason for themselves.
October 22, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
jibberish66,
You are right, Palin has the "experience". Especially when it comes to spending tax payer money; $21,000 for travel & hotel rooms for her 3 daughters (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics...). In fact she knows how to spend a lot of money on herself too (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics...).
October 22, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Oh and who was that on SNL last Saturday, and who were they berating a few months back about being a "celebrity"? Both her and McCain have flip flopped more than a folding chair. The best part is supporting the bail out yet calling Obama socialist, takes the cake.
October 22, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Almost forgot, the unemployment rate in Alaska is 6.8% (46th). We need that kind of "experience" in the white house.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/list...
http://www.bls.gov
October 22, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Some good links, goodoleboy - and I commend you on taking the time. I'd like to take a stab at them with a few comments of my own..... both pro AND con.....
As I've said before, I don't get overly impressed with the pedigree of someone's education. I've listed Bill Gates often as an example. And, after all, our current President has a history degree from Yale (where he had a slightly higher GPA than John Kerry) and an MBA from Harvard. I haven't seen alot of people touting his pedigree lately on these boards... LOL
And if you'll remember back to the VP debate, Biden also missed the mark on the VP duties as layed out in the constitution.
I think Obama obviously has more experience with other cultures in the world, that I will agree. How much it helps, I'm not sure, as I don't always agree with alot of other countries, but it is certainly a plus for Obama over Palin.
As for Palin's expenses, I'm very disappointed in that story, from what I've heard so far. Especially the kids travel thing. If true, she has some serious explaining to do. And I want to hear it - SOON.
Alaska ranks just a hair behind Delaware in population, Biden's state. Yet Biden asked for nearly twice as many earmarks for 2009 as Palin. And I agree she has no military commander experience. Really, nobody does of the 4, except McCain. Obama has none, either. His big claim to military know-how is that he was and is still against the surge. And it took him an awful long time to even admit it was working. And as for 2 years, how long as Obama been a US Senator, and how much of that has been campaigning? Looks like about a dead heat there.
It looks like Palin pulled a 180 on her "bridge to nowhere". I think she needs to give up on that slogan. As for abuse of power, I'll say it again, I think as a public official, given the behavior of the trooper in question, I consider it an abuse of power NOT to have pushed hard to get him fired. JMO.
Obama likes to tout McCain as another 4 years of Bush. When I think about it, it looks like in many ways Obama would be another 4 years of Carter. Which I don't think turned out all that well....
Well, it looks like we're about 50/50 on what I've listed, but you are right on the tax cuts, a matter of opinion. And no plan is perfect, regardless of whether it is Dem or Rep. If that was so, our history would consistently show boom times for 1 party and recession for the other. And it wouldn't take people long to figure that out. Times change, the people and the country's needs change. For this election, in many areas, we need a change, in some we do not. The question is, for the ones that need a change, which direction?
October 22, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I agree that education should not always be the precursor for which decisions are made, but a degree from an Ivy league school is no easy task, Bush is not stupid, he just makes bad decisions. Plenty of dumb smart guys out there. What bothers me is that the education does go to character, a tough, pit bull hockey mom jumps through 5 universities in 6 years and comes up with a journalism degree? Just raises even more questions about her. I factor in
Her views on religion and abortion
Her education
Her abuse of power(justified or not)
Her membership into the Alaskan Independence Party( promoted succession from the US)
Her recent abuse of her expenses(family, clothes, the things she claims to fight against)
Her failure to be able to navigate the press on her own( had her privileges yanked from her after the Katie Couric interviews)
Her list goes on and on for me, I have said it before and I will say it again, it scares me to have this person a heartbeat away from the oval office. Had McCain asked someone I might have voted for him. She was the deal breaker for me.
I have my caveats about Obama as well, but his list of concerns for me is less than McCain's. Funny as it might sound, I always liked listening to Ron Paul, wish he could have run.
October 22, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
nutsabout tools, there's a good example of a stat needing some context. I did some research after your post and link. Alaska has historically ALWAYS had a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the US.
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.az.htm
So, the unemployment rate there is currently 6.8%.
2006 - 7.1%
2005 - 7.0%
As a matter of fact, the last time Alaska had a MONTHY unemployment rate less than 7% was in May, 2002. And the last time it was below 6% for any month was in 1999.
When Palin took office, Alaska unemployment was at 6.3%, now at 6.8%, a rise of 1/2 percent.
I noticed you didn't mention that Illiinois unemployment rate is even higher.
When Obama took office In Illinois, their rate was 6.5, currently at 6.9 (currently higher than Alaska's, and an only slightly smaller rise than Alaska's during his tenure).
In Delaware (Biden), unemployment when Palin took office was 4.0 when Obama took office in Jan 2005, 3.3 when Palin took office in Dec 2006. Currently at 4.2. (Double the rise since of Alaska since Palin was elected). So, to borrow your own statement and apply it to all in the same context, do we need THAT kind of "experience" in the White House?
In Arizona (McCain) the rate for the same periods was 3.9 for Obama and 4.5 for Palin, currently at 5.9. Apply the same questions/remarks as all the above.
Now, I realize as governor she has more direct effect on her state than a US senator. Just the same, pointing to a single number without looking at exactly what that number means is a perfect example of only telling half the story.
Let's tell the whole story, shall we?
October 22, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
And oh god don't get me started on Bill Gates, yes a smart man, but one of the biggest thieving and conniving people out there with regards to how he got his start. Guess he is trying to make up for it with all his Philanthropy now hehe.
October 22, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I question the same things you do above, and look at them critically for all the candidates. Correction, however, she was never a member of the AIP - her husband was.
Anyone seen the latest video that has surfaced of Ayers in 2002? The interview he gave about a week before he sat on a panel with Obama? The fact that Obama agrees with and endorses his views on education scares me alot, too.
I've been pretty impressed at times by Bob Barr myself.
October 22, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The first thing that comes to my mind when you mention Gates in that light is how Obama got all the names eliminated from the petitions of his opponents so he could run unopposed to get HIS start. Guess he's trying to make up for it now with ACORN hehe - LOL
October 22, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
We will likely never know if she was or not, much like Obama's ties to Ayers, she could have, and the fact that her husband was for 7 years and considering the influence he holds on her I think it is a very relevant topic.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/bl...
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/...
I realize sources have bias, but the information is sound and indisputable. The amount of dirt on this woman would make a smear campaign a slam dunk if the Dems were so inclined, which I am glad to see that they are not, at least not on the level the McCain/Palin ticket is this year.
October 22, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Hehe, I think the GOP had a bit to do with ACORN as well, making up for the war or something?
I have some friends from school that work for Microsoft, myself I work in IT so I have a good perspective on what happened, lets just say i am glad Steve Jobs is getting his due now even though I am not a huge Mac fan. Whole other topic, and way off topic.
October 22, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
Just responding to a comment that because Palin was a governor, she has "more experience".
I included the links to the unemployment data so that you can get your own picture (like you did). You can look at the trends, history, national average etc. and draw your own conclusions (rather than trying to "tell the whole story"). I forgot that some people are so anal about other posters' comments.
I was originally tending toward McCain. However, the more I listen to him, the more "problems" & "issues" that develop with Palin (especially the latest "spending" issues) and the comments I've read that support McCain/Palin have convinced me to choose the one I dislike the least, O'Bama.
October 22, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree that her husband's involvement in that group is a very relevant topic, and I have looked into it quite a bit.
As for "not" smearing Palin..... maybe they don't have to, the rest of the media, talkshows, newspapers, SNL.... they're more than making up for it.
I just watched some videos last night of ACORN openly supporting Obama. For a tax-exempt non-partisan group (which means they are breaking federal law) I certainly hope you meant that they are making just as many statements supporting and urging people to vote for McCain, right?
I have no idea about Gates's personal escapades behind the scenes. I was merely pointing him out as an intelligent person who succeeded without a fancy pedigree. There are lots of others, I'm sure. And lots of fancy pedigrees that have fallen flat on their face, been crooks, etc. I was just pointing out that particular facet.
I don't mind if you refer to me as anal. As long as other people that read here can see that 6.8% unemployment in Alaska isn't quite what you make it out to be, nor is your attempt to directly tie it to Palin.
I'm with ya on your last few words - I think ALOT of people this year are going to be voting for who they dislike the least, moreso than in the past...... sad to say..... including me...... :(
October 22, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Would it be fair to call Palin a socialist, like the GOP says about Obama.
Considering the longtime socialist policies continued under Gov. Palin. a $1200 rebate to all Alaskans based on oil company wind fall profit taxes. Not to mention the $2000 Alaskans have been getting for years from energy revenues. Sounds alot like a "redistribution of wealth" and a little "spreading it around", but I guess if Obama didn't say or do it its not socialism. McCain/Palin is paper thin in substance at best.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
October 22, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That's a fair argument, although I don't agree fully with it. For me, personally, redistribution of wealth in the socalist sense would mean taxing everyone in Alaska, including businesses, over, let's just say offhand, $250,000/year. This is more of a direct line into corps that are getting hugely wealthy, and from resources that belong to the state, not just the private companies.
I don't think there's an easy answer to this - both sides have points. The studies say that windfall profits on oil companies stymied them in the Carter days, but I don't think the margin was nearly as huge as it is now back then. Also the problem is that taxing big corps hardly ever affects those at the top - they just pass along the increase to the consumer. As much as most of us would like to see the greedy fatcats brought down a peg, it isn't that simple, unfortunately.
My thoughts (however imperfect) - I'd like to see CEO's & execs go back to a pay system like the rest of us, instead of tying it all into stock price, so they can pump it up for a year, clean up and clear out. And bring the compensation back into reason. No company exec is worh $150 million/year, I don't care who you are or what you do. I'd like to see execs sign reasonable contracts (yes, they'll still be much richer than we underlings, but lets keep SOME perspective, at least) - and have them evaluated every year. And evaluated both in the context of the company's past year, and their forecast. If the bum ran it into the ground, or artificially inflated things to the long-term detriment, can his a$$. If he did good, extend it another year, or 5, or whatever is prudent. But, make sure that person can get canned without a huge bailout if they are a crook.
In other words, just like the rest of us
.
Yeah, well, a fellow can dream, can't he?
October 22, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
continued...
and as for the corporations themselves, it used to be, when a company did good, the employees did good, from top to bottom, when the company did bad, they all did bad or had to slug thru it, from top to bottom.
Nowadays, when the company does good, those at the top do fantastic, and the rest see either no change whatsoever, or see reductions in benefits, layoffs, pay cuts, etc....
And when a company does bad, those at the top do even better than fantastic (because they're taking their golden parachute and bailing) - and the rest bear the entire brunt, even worse than when it does good.
Seems to be a disconnect somewhere.....
I'm not for redistribution of wealth. I'm just for some limits on sanity and some accountability. Which seem to be in short supply today. Like I've said before, I believe in capitalism, but not pure, unbridled capitalism. Because people are imperfect and greedy.
October 22, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Well put open_eyes,
I think there'll be a resurgence of unions in the near future. Executives and CEOs have been out of the "limelight" for so long and now attention is finally being focused on their "benefits" vs those that make their company successful (the workers).
Does anyone know some good (non-biased) links that list the Kansas incumbents that are running for re-election and their performance (how they voted on important issues, etc) over the last 4 to 8 years?
October 22, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think you may be right on the unions issue - we shall see.
I don't know about state issues, but this link gives the records of the US reps & Senators. I don't have any idea if it is partisan or not (I don't think so though), I haven't looked at it that much, and it might take awhile to ferret out individually what you're looking for. Hope it helps.
http://www.govspot.com/shortcuts/voti...
October 22, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jibberish66 (anonymous) says...
I will admit that McCain is not my first choice amongst all of the candidates from primary season. Do I admire him for his sacrifice during Vietnam? Hell, yeah. Do I think that he is a bright guy that is the best suited and most experienced of the two major Presidential candidates? Right again. Did I support him before the convention. Nope. Why would I support a man that brought us McCain/Feingold? George Soros thanks you for that one, John. My biggest beef with Obama is the fact that he and his subordinates will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to get elected. The ACORN stuff will more than likely be nothing but a drop in the bucket when it's all said & done. Where I'm at in Missouri, we've had several people get a $2300 charge put on to their credit card, paid to "Obama For America." Some are Republicans and didn't authorize these charges.
The court appointees will shock even you lefties with the total lack of regard to the Constitution in the years to come. The social programs that will empty our pockets and stifle any initiative will be laughable, except it's not funny.
Let's be real. Obama will probably win. All of you highly educated posters will get your wish, and we'll see what happens. You'll have to take the good with the bad, along with the rest of us. I will say this, though. If Obama gets elected, then he will be my President, and I will support him. I may disagree with every one of his policies, but I'm an American, and he will be our American President. I won't bash him daily, or joke about how stupid he is or call him a Nazi or any of that petty childish stuff President Bush has had to endure for the last 8 years. Our President will be a reflection of us, and we owe it to the office to treat the office with the respect it deserves.
Of course, the next campaigns will be right around the corner.
October 22, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
jibberish, I have echoed many of your exact same sentiments on this board, especially your last paragraph nearly word-for-word. Amen.
What ticks me off about alot of this ACORN stuff is that they've been in trouble for doing the same exact stuff in 2000, 2002, 2004, & 2006. Gee, ya think somebody would wise up by now. The Dem secretary in Ohio managed to pull a fast one in my opinion, she stalled for 22 months and then managed to get the Supreme court to side with her on a technicality. Heard this morning that 6 counties in Alabama (heavily McCain state) have more registered voters than eligible voters. And Florida has had 8 years to fix things, sounds like nobody down there knows what the heck is going on.
After this election, no matter who wins, alot of us will probably spend the next 4 years wondering who REALLY won.....?????
October 22, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh - I almost forgot - even if it turns out that I disagree with every single policy by whoever gets elected....
I will STILL be PROUD to be an American.
October 22, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Just saw this at
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2008...
The Project for Excellence in Journalism studied some 2,412 stories from 48 news outlets for its study, including newspapers, Web sites and broadcast and cable news. A smaller sample, 857 stories, was used to judge the tone of the coverage.
McCain and Obama have received an equal amount of media attention since the conventions.
The project judged 57 percent of the stories about McCain as negative, with 14 percent positive. The rest were neutral.
Obama's coverage was mixed: 36 percent positive, 29 percent negative, 35 percent neutral, the study found.
Sarah Palin has received three times the press attention as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, the study found. Her stories were judged 39 percent negative, 33 percent mixed and 28 percent positive.
(It didn't mention what Biden's coverage is/was).
I also saw a study recently that counted jokes on late-night TV, comedy shows, etc..... something like 282 jokes about McCain-Palin, only 42 about Obama-Biden.
Darn, they just aren't funny enough, I guess. I think the White House could use a little humor from time to time... LOL
October 22, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
Thanks for the link. It's a start. I'm pretty much fed up with the presidential race. I need to focus on our legislators. Mainly to make sure I don't re-elect those that haven't been "doing their job". I think it's time to clean house (no pun intended).
October 22, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
"I'm with ya on your last few words - I think ALOT of people this year are going to be voting for who they dislike the least, moreso than in the past...... sad to say..... including me...... :("
Soooooo, does this mean you're joining my club and voting Obama after all?
I've always loved my country, open_eyes, but I was not always proud of her. There's a BIG difference.
Can't spar with you; I'm making a quilt. In fact, I just spent two thousand dollars on a sewing machine today. Sold all the basil. Amazing what that stuff is worth when it's fresh. It should be on the stock market.
October 22, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well then you'll have to forgive me, create, I guess misread what you meant by ".... to detail the times when I have not been proud about being American".....?????
Here's an interesting quote:
"Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? ...... Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial?.....What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?"
No, now don't everyone get your knickers in a bunch, this wasn't written by some conservative right-wing organization about Governor Palin.
It was written by the NY Times, in 1984, about Geraldine Ferraro.
My, how times have changed. Well, actually, it don't think it has changed that much in this respect, I just think the party affiliation of the person in question happens to have changed....
October 22, 2008 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Of course times have changed. In 1984 women were still struggling to get their dream of equality recognized. It was just too soon for a woman to get into such a high position. Women were still being humored in the workplace. My friend in Los Angeles, with a Master's in engineering, had a devil of a time finding employment. No one believed a woman could know math. What? A woman design highways? It took her longer to prove herself when she finally found employment.
Little known women being allowed to grow is a good thing. I had no problem with Geraldine Ferraro. She was a teacher then went to law school at night while teaching during the day -- no easy feat. Then she was a lawyer working in the District Attorney's office against child and women's abuse, later she became a congressman. She had a great deal of experience; she was accomplished. It just wasn't time. I'll bet there are some interviews of Ferraro out there somewhere on the net and none of her answers sound as silly as Palin's have been.
October 23, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Ferraro has also defended Palin on quite a few occasions, remember the Obama campaign slammed Geraldine earlier in the year as "racist".
Here's an interesting article looking at just what Palin did as mayor is Wasilla, and how.
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/...
Palin cut the Alaska budget by 10% and cut her own Governor’s expenses by 80% compared to the previous governor.
October 23, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Where did it say she cut expenses by %80 as governor, I read about earmarks, not expenses, and after seeing what she did flying her children around and putting them up at the Ritz I will have a real hard time buying it. I also have a real hard time buying that it is her right as a mother to have her children with her, we all would love that, I would love to take my son with me on business trips, where do I sign up for this?
October 23, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
I sure wouldn't mind having a $150K expense account for my family. Heck, even $21K would go a long way in my house. I wonder how many middle class, hard working for a living, tax paying Americans can afford these kinds of budgets. I'm with you, goodoleboy, where do I sign up?
October 23, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry, goodoleboy, that was from the link before that. My bad.
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/...
For an interesting breakdown of how Obama spends his campaign money:
http://www.slate.com/id/2202773/
Gosh. Wish I had that problem. LOL
October 23, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I wondered about the 80% figure, so I did some looking..... this came from Widipedia (so I don't have complete faith in it) but it was pretty much in line with what else I was finding, and summed it up as well as any....
Expense reimbursements
Palin lives in Juneau during the legislative session and lives in Wasilla and works out of offices in Anchorage the rest of the year. Since the office in Anchorage is far from Juneau, while she works there, state officials say she is legally entitled to a $58 per diem travel allowance, which she has taken (a total of $16,951), and to reimbursement for hotels, which she has not, choosing instead to drive about 50 miles to her home in Wasilla. She also chose not to use the former governor's private chef. In response to criticism for taking the per diem, and for $43,490 in travel expenses for the times her family accompanied her on state business, the governor's staffers said that these practices were in line with state policy, that Palin's gubernatorial expenses are 80% below those of her predecessor, Frank Murkowski, and that "many of the hundreds of invitations Palin receives include requests for her to bring her family, placing the definition of 'state business' with the party extending the invitation."
Basically, it looks to me like she takes advantage of the perks of the job. My job doesn't have very many, (except I squeeze out a few minutes here and there to blog :) - but I'd take advantage of whatever they give me. As I'm sure we all do. Except I would have stayed in a nice hotel and ran the bill up even more - LOL
October 23, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Each new day beings reports of more and more unemployment across the country. Add to that the hundreds of elders who stood in line in Florida yesterday waiting to apply for only one-hundred vacancies at a new low-income housing unit. Add to that the 350 teachers laid off in Dallas on Monday. Add to that the $150 thousand wardrobe spent on the no-frills hockey mom. Obscene!
I don't know how many times she has made that 50 mile trip to Wasilla, but the news on CNN today said that after she sold the state plane, at a loss I might add, so in order to get around, she has been using the plane they use for search and rescue. That begs the question. I wonder how many have had to wait to be rescued?
October 23, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Let's see, the Obama campaign has spent millions of $$ on flags, over $3,000 bowling, over $3,000 at a record store..... they have $150 million for this month alone.... yes, I agree with you. Obscene! Lots of money that could be going for lots of different things. By BOTH parties. Except the Obama camp has roughly 3 times as much money to burn through.
I don't know the answer to your second question. I guess we'll have to ask them how many times it was needed for a rescue and Palin said no, I need it now. My guess is zero, but it's just a guess - I have no facts to back it up.
I wonder how many of the people in your first paragraph could have used the money Obama spent on flags? At least the Repubs re-used them after they got thrown in the trash, instead of buying their own. Unlike the wardrobe, which will go to charity.
October 23, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
What, "no facts to back it up"? (LOL). I agree with you and create, when I heard on KPR this morning what these 2 camps have spent on this campaign, I was enraged. Seems like such a waste (not to mention shameful), with so many in this country that are homeless, unemployed, losing (or lost) their homes or struggling to make ends meet. All this time they're spending millions to tell us how they're going to solve all our problems (or how the other party isn't). Ironic. Or better yet, Obscene! :(
I enjoy your posts by the way (how do you find all that info, great stuff).
October 23, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I thought you might be interested in this article from the Honolulu Star Bulletin re: Obama's grandmother:
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/bull...
October 23, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The bowling was reported in the earlier article, I was looking at Obama's expenses also at
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3...
(Since you wanted facts to back it up... :-)
I think about 99% of all campaign money (BOTH parties) could be put to better use. Wouldn't it be nice if both candidates took all their money and helped the poor, the needy, and things like that - and for campaigning, the networks could just guarantee them each several hours a week of free airtime, frequent debates/town hall mtngs - maybe they each get 1/2 hour on the radio every other day or something. All this waste crisscrossing the country with entourages in jets, buses, and trains, while complaining about global warming. What a waste. As you said, obscene. That way, not only would the party with less money get equal publicity, but also 3rd party candidates could have an actual real shot at making a difference. Instead of just whoever has the most money getting heard the most. (Sigh)
I read your link, thanks. I certainly hope his grandmother recovers, and I wish Obama and all his family the best and speedy recovery. (Now, if this had been McCain's 95-year old mother, I'm sure we'd be reading on the HuffPost & DailyKos how she should suffer and rot in hell, like Nancy Reagan & Tony Snow when they were ill - I won't mention "true colors"....oops, I just did... darn.... :)
I enjoy your posts as well, create, as I do pretty much everyone's here. I did a little digging on Palin's plane deal and will post that next...
October 23, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
There HAS been some contention at times when Palin wanted to use the plane, it was busy, or in the shop, etc.... but in the interest of focusing on the cost, and the usage, here's the gist of the article...
John Glass, the current Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, said since the plane was old, it needed frequent maintenance. He said,"We provided the plane when it was available." He says the plane is primarily intended for law enforcement missions. "The priority is for search and rescue or police related missions and when it is not being used for that it can be used for the governor."
A spokesman for the McCain-Palin campaign said that the state Department of Public Safety had frequently denied Palin use of the plane. "The lack of availability of the plane went beyond reasonable expectations of being down for maintenance," Palin spokesman Taylor Griffin said.
Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-profit budget watchdog group, says the chart is the first indication of how extensively Palin used the government's plane--despite her frequent boasts about selling the state jet.
"I would say the trouble the governor runs into is the fact that they used the selling of the plane on eBay as part of the reform story. She was trying to get great public relations without giving up flying around on a government plane," Ashdown said.
Update. A spokesman for Gov. Palin emailed us Thursday with an additional comment:
"Aviation is a primary mode of transport in Alaska because much of Alaska is unreachable except by plane. Alaska’s Governor must travel by aircraft to reach the rural communities around the state that she couldn’t otherwise reach. Palin said the “luxury jet was over the top," but that doesn’t mean that the Governor didn’t need to travel by air. But, a jet was completely impractical. Many of Alaska’s rural communities have gravel runways that the jet can’t land on. Why does the state need a jet when they have a less expensive and more practical way to accomplish the same need?
The jet served little practical purpose except as a luxury so Governor Palin got rid of it. The prisoners DPS used the jet to transport could be moved on commercial aircraft. The Governor could use the King Air or commercial air service. That doesn’t mean that aviation was unnecessary, just that a luxury jet was not. This is a Governor who got rid of the cook at the Governor’s mansion, paired down her security detail, and drove herself to work. Getting rid of the plane was consistent with everything else she has done to reduce the operating costs of the first family."
October 23, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
sorry, nutsabouttools, I got you & create lumped together & mixed in my post - but hey, I covered you in saying I enjoy everyones posts. Much like I enjoy Alan Combes being on Hannity & Combes, he does at times make me stop and think, and bring up things that Hannity does the old "conveniently overlook" thing, just like both sides do. Sometimes I find I was wrong. Sometimes it makes me dig for more facts that I wouldn't have done otherwise. Which I'm finding more and more these days with our media bias is about the only way to find something you can even partly trust. Like I said before, I'm the GoogleKing. It helps to be able to constantly switch between computers on the job....... long as I stay caught up the boss doesn't complain too loudly.... LOL
October 23, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Maybe both campaigns should have stuck to public funding. A fair amount of Obama's contributions seem to be from non-citizens anyway, so it is new money to our economy. Note: The words "separation of church and state" don't seem to be in my copy of the Constitution.
October 24, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yep, makes one wonder about all this foreign money, where it is coming from, and more importantly...... WHY....
Some various snippets from http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obam...
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.
And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.
Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.
Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
continued....
October 24, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Foreign Donations
And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” which the FEC often uses as an abbreviation for "information requested." Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.
But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.
At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.
In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.
“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."
Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.
Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.
A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.
October 24, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
More interesting reading on the above....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/0...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ob...
From "Israel Today" news, (so you can think whatever you want to about the following)
It is illegal for a US presidential candidate to receive contributions from non-US citizens, or to receive in excess of $2,300 from a single individual.
Curious for more information, WorldNetDaily correspondent Aaron Klein tracked down the two Gaza Arabs, brothers Monir and Hosam Edwan.
The Edwan brothers said that they and many other Palestinians love Obama, and are confident he will be the US president to force Israel to surrender land for the birth of a Palestinian Arab state.
When pressed about their illegal contribution, the brothers altered their story and insisted that they had not made an online donation, but had rather purchased $30,000 worth of t-shirts from the Obama campaign website.
WorldNetDaily also learned that while Monir and Hosam are themselves believed to be non-religious, their clan is known for supporting Hamas.
--------------------------------
I'm beginning to wonder about Jesse Jackson's remark a couple of weeks ago - could it be that he knows Obama better than the rest of us do? I'm not trying to pick sides on the Israel-Palestine issue - just digging up some info that you won't see on too many of our "fair" media outlets....
October 24, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
open_eyes says, "Now, if this had been McCain's 95-year old mother, I'm sure we'd be reading on the HuffPost & DailyKos how she should suffer and rot in hell, like Nancy Reagan & Tony Snow when they were ill - I won't mention "true colors"....oops, I just did... darn.... :)"
Oops, just when you open your mouth...this from Olbermann's "Worse-Worst" segment:
Rush Limbaugh wins the worst contest by questioning why Obama went to Hawaii. Not to see his grandmother, but maybe something to do with his birth certificate. Limbaugh gets my idiot award of the day.
October 24, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree, Limbaugh's mouth gets him in trouble, often.
But, I see you actually watch Olbermann. My condolences. Check these blogs out often, you'll find alot you wouldn't see otherwise. But I understand some things much better now. Take care.
October 24, 2008 at 8 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Regardless of how uncouth and stupid Limbaugh can act at times, I never heard him say he hoped she died and suffered and rotted in hell or anything like that. I guess your Worst and my Worst are quite a bit different. I'm sure whatever aides have been picking out Palin's wardrobe is much more important to Keith than finding out about all of the illegal millions of $$ pouring into Obama's coffers from overseas, but, he's got his priorities, I wish him well.
October 24, 2008 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sarah Palin regularly shops for clothes at a consignment store in Alaska called "Out of the Closet", according to both her and the store's owner. The $150,000 wardrobe has been bought by the RNC, not her - they are used for 3 days, some are returned, some are given to charity, and some may even be auctioned, according to what they are saying. (I bet Olbermann will never say any of this, so I say this for the benefit of his fans, who sorely miss out on alot of info on a regular basis).
But my take on it is, why in the sam hill does the RNC think she needs that expensive of a wardrobe? She would surely look just as nice and presentable in much more sensibly priced clothes. Given the disparity between the amount of illegal foreign donations Obama is cleaning up on, and what McCain has to spend (it's ALL too much, JMO) - couldn't they channel that money to better use, campaign-wise? Sometimes I think McCain has run one of the most poorly managed campaigns in history - given the fact the I think Obama's campaign has been managed very well, I'm amazed the polls show it as close as it is. Of course, having 17 of 19 major news outlets in your pocket helps. (Anyone notice that CNN's "apology" for their big screwup on the misquote in the Palin interview has been much quieter than the original itself?) And of course, when you're behind, you have no choice but to sharpen your attacks, while the leader can play it safe (does anyone doubt that if the situation was reversed, Obama would be the one throwing the most mud?). Anyway, if it's returned at no cost, or charities benefit from it, I guess then it eventually goes to a better cause than most of the rest of the campaign money, is one way to look at it......
October 24, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
By sharpening attacks, I'm guessing you mean all the Joe the Plumber stuff as one way. Strange how he appeared out of nowhere and made sure he got to ask all his questions. JMO, but I think he was a plant. They sure have capitalized on that story for days now. Plus, Palin can use Joe to be the one using the term "socialist" and not her.
Closing arguments next week. We'll see if Palin's wardrobe or Joe the Plumber or ACORN or any of that stuff (I've said "stuff" twice now -- auuuugggghhh) takes a back seat to substance.
We'll be bored when this is over.
October 24, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You may be right, create - he might have been a plant. JMO not, but I certainly wouln't put it out of the realm of the impossible.
I see the idiot gal who claimed she was attacked and had a "B" for Barack scratched on her face has come out and admitted she faked the whole thing. Good Riddance.
I watched Bush's explanation the other day on the bailout - the way he explained it, they expect the banks to buy their stock back as they are able, hopefully at a profit to the government. Which makes me nervous. I have the feeling that may happen over time if one side gets elected, but not if the other does. JMO. Which will turn what is supposed to be a "prop up and then get out when they can stand on their own" type of rescue into a permanent presence, which would be more of a socialistic move. I will be watching. I wish they would come out and do even more in-depth explaining of exactly what all is entailed in the bailout, specifically.
I'm not so sure the last 2 you bring up DON'T have alot to do with substance. I think Joe is at the meat of exactly what alot of the policies are geared towards - I consider that substance. As for ACORN, tonight they broke the story that over a dozen Obama staff workers from out of state illegally registered and voted in Ohio. They have removed their votes now. All McCain staff members were checked out and veriifed as ok.
So really, ACORN & things like that might really make all the issues and substance moot points, if the election is a fraud. Regardless of anything else, can't we all just agree that whoever wins, we want it to be fair? That everyone that votes legally has the right to, and does it correctly, and nobody who legally has the right to vote gets their vote suppressed or cast aside? We can't count on the candidates to be honest, but can't we at least count on the votes to be an HONEST reflection of We The People? Good grief, we've had 8 years since the last fiasco, and it looks like things have only gotten worse in that respect, not better.
Actually, when it's all over, I think I'll be ready for a vacation..... ;)
October 24, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I'm with you on agreeing that whoever wins, it should be a fair fight, and that all those who vote should be legally able to do so. However, I'm betting that what could be a wonderful walk in the park will be fraught with hungry bears as both sides challenge poll issues. I remember being able to wake up the next morning after an election and knowing it was all over when I heard my parents over breakfast discussing who won. Days long gone.
After ACORN, I believe all the states will review and bolster their laws regarding these kinds of groups.
I too would like more specific info on the bailout, but I'm afraid a phrase like "specific information on the bailout" is fast becoming an oxymoron.
Yeah, I saw that nutcase who lied about being attacked with a B carved into her cheek. You know what caused me to disbelieve her to begin with? The B was nearly perfect, and a mere scratch. In a struggle, the B would have been deep and haphazardly made, not perfect. Nuts come out of the woodwork right now because they want to capitalize on any kind of attention. Just makes me realize how very vigilant we must be.
Let's watch the premier of D.L. Hugheley [sp] on CNN tonight 10 p.m. for a few laughs.
October 25, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm not sure they'll fix anything. ACORN has been in hot water (and actually had people convicted for fraud) in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. Especially if the Dems get complete control of both houses and the Pres, since ACORN admittedly (and illegally) supports the Dems, I seriously doubt much will be done about them if that happens.
Now there's a thought - if Dems have a filibuster-proof majority in both houses, and Obama wins, he won't HAVE to "reach across the aisle", or be bipartisan. Pelosi can be even more of an absolute b#### than she's already been, and Reid can claim even louder that we've lost in Iraq, it's all over, etc.... interesting times ahead. I'm beginning to put more and more faith into the Mayan prediction about 2012 - LOL
I never believed the idiot with the B on her cheek either, O'Reilly even said it was dubious at best to begin with. And his "Pinheads" were both Rep last night, one was McCain's brother. At least they reported it was a sham. Haven't heard any such retraction about the false "Kill HIm" claim from any other news media, nor from Mr. Kelley...
October 25, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
You know, I hope they do say we lost Iraq and get the hell out of there, it was a war that started under false pretenses and has unnecessarily cost the American people many soldiers and trillions of dollars, including a monthly 10 billion dollars. It is a travesty of epic proportions to see the state of country currently(Hurricane damage, flood damage, economic damage. etc) and yet there we are in Iraq fighting a useless war, only further enraging the people that dislike us. When is enough enough? Country first right?
This election is Obama or bust, I hate the political system for narrowing our choices but again I read today more Palin BS.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/a...
Where there is smoke there is fire, and there is more smoke with her than all the other candidates put together, John McCain deserves to lose if for no other reason than his judgment on who should be our next president. And before you go off on an ACORN rant I guarantee you this, if there was anything tying Obama conclusively to anything that is going on it would come to light because if the republicans could attach him to them they could swing quite a bit of momentum. ACORN is despicable but Obama is not affiliated with them anymore, and in the political world there are plenty of politicians out there that can be tied to organizations on the same level, everyone makes some bad choices. Palin on the other hand makes way to many at this juncture to be that close to the presidency.
October 25, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Given the fact that his campaign recently gave ACORN $800,000, I would say that it is difficult to say that he is not affiliated with them "any more". Of course, for a long time he flat-out lied that he had EVER trained them or had affiliations, so we know that he's...... less than honest..... pretty much like your typical politician these days, regardless of party.
I want us to get out of Iraq as soon as the next person, lots of good arguments that we should never have went there, but I don't want to see what happens if we bail out too soon. I notice everyone that wants to bail out of Iraq immediately seems to always argue politically for "the little guy", and they seem to worry alot about our standing in the worlds eyes, but yet they turn and look the other way at what happens after we leave too soon (history). Like it or not, we are now responsible for what happens in Iraq, and I consider it a much greater morally irresponsible decision to unconditionally bail now. Looks like, thanks to the surge, we ARE going to be out in maybe 16 months, or at least drastically cut back. The sooner the better. Obama can do probably do his 16 months if elected now, not when he first proposed it.
Yep, looks like Palin may have used political pull for favoritism. Do I really need to fill up with links showing where pretty much every politician in history has done the same? Pelosi, Reid, Clinton(s), Obama, etc? Obama got a $3million earmark for the hospital his wife works at, right about the time she got a huge promotion and raise. Of course, no connection is claimed. Every d#mn politician out there is as crooked as the next. The only really interesting thing is which ones the press spend an inordinate amount of time digging into and trumpeting, and which ones they quietly ignore.
October 25, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
This editorial is about Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama. Isn't Powell the one that said regarding Iraq - "You break it, you own it?" Interesting.....
October 25, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Another solid and experienced military opinion from goodoleboy. Do you EVER check six or do you just spout?
October 25, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I thought you all would like to read this article I found on campaign spending this morning. Just one more issue to mull over. But it can't be all bad. For example, every time parties spend for rallies, that money goes to local business somewhere-- leasing the grounds, sound systems, stage systems, landing fees for planes, av gas, etc. How would you like to have had the bid for sign making?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
October 26, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Just one more. I couldn't resist this one that relates to the GOP warning us about one party rule. Hello?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
October 26, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
Looks like some big cracks are starting to form in the McCain campaign, and that Obama isn't the only "diva" out there LOL.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/2...
October 26, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
For all those complaining about Palin not giving enough interviews, a Florida TV station asked Biden a couple of questions he didn't like - now the Obama campaign has announced no more interviews will be given to that station. How's that for ducking the press?
As for one party rule, I think every time in the last 50 years we have had one-party rule, regardless of which party, this country has eventually suffered the worse for it.
Economists at UCLA have released a study where they claim that FDR's policies actually prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years - they state had his policies not been followed, it would have ended much sooner.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/...
October 26, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Good find, momus. Yup, it's a meltdown alright. But the McCain campaign can't complain too much. After all, they went looking for a maverick just like he is so she's just proving them right. Wait til this is all over. The blame game will be long and nasty.
October 26, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree (if it turns out to be true, and not just another ploy). I've already said I think it has been one of the poorest run campaigns I've seen in recent memory.
I've seen politicians refuse interviews, etc... (like the McCain camp has at times during this campaign)... but I don't think I've ever seen an entire political campaign ban any of their workers from any interviews with a particular station. I can't decide if this is the most childish act I've ever seen, (they didn't ask me questions I liked, wah), they were just shocked to find that there was another media out there "Besides" FoxNews that they didn't have in their back pocket - or are we finding out how Obama REALLY feels about the constitution? He has says he considers it a "living document" - since, if elected, and if he has a super-majority in both houses, there will be no blocking anyone he wants to put on the Supreme Court - exactly which parts of the Constitution does he consider need to be changed? Right to free speech? Is this what we can expect from an Obama presidency, if you ask a question (and I thought the Florida questions were very relevant) they don't like, will you be banned? I don't think the Gazette has to worry, as we know the editorialist here would never ask a hard question about 1 party, only the other, but will it filter down to me? Ok if I still ask questions Obama doesn't like, or will the "Fairness Doctrine" once he institutes it affect me also? They've made the claim here that they do print what they consider newsworthy, but I've seen quite a disparagy between what one outlet considers "newsworthy" and what another one does. Who gets to decide that?
October 26, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yes, I may have sounded rather silly and "out there", but remember, I've logged in here and read about Palin coming in with "both guns blazing", and I've noticed the complete lack of any denouncing of Gary Lukert's idiotic views by many of the most vocal Obama supporters here (crickets chirping from that section was the only sound) - so I think they are legitimate questions to ask, given what happened in Florida. I see Palin go on SNL even though every weekend they slam her to pieces, she's interviewed other stations despite their "gotcha" questions, and no "banning" them for that, why can't Biden answer some questions without running home to mommy? At least Obama came on O'Reilly and got grilled, just like Clinton & McCain did before him.
October 26, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
From this morning's Washington Post...
"As many as 126 District voters were mailed incorrect absentee ballots in the latest slip-up for the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, already under scrutiny for mistakes made during the Sept. 9 primary."
We need to just fire everybody. And while we're at it, why can't this country adopt one standard voting machine that will allow all manner of races to be posted for a vote. Period! Geez!
October 27, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Let's do like Iraq. Ink on the thumb.
October 27, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Little by little, many Republicans are giving good reasons why they are not voting for McCain.This one is a former Republican senator and friend who has many good things to say except why he won't vote for him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
October 28, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )