Ha, leave it to the GOP to put a woman on the ticket this year This came out of nowhere but so far I'm loving it. I might actually be able to force myself to vote for McCain now.

PJ

I was very excited to read about it too, actually, all of my own leanings aside.



alcyone

I was very surprised. I actually may feel a little better about voting for McCain too once I hear more about her.

I know absolutely nothing about her though. I know she was the Governor of Alaska. I'd be interested to hear some opinions from Jess or Guineapants on what they think of her...

I did hear that she campaigned in Alaska by 'bringing ethics back'. Ethics are good. DC needs some of those.

From what I hear... her ethics may not be that great:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWi6yTVfPyJeiTBsQ33SSUiobt8wD92I9NIO0


But... we will see how this turns out. Maybe it had nothing to do with her request.

Hmmm... interesting article Jo Jo.

I guess if all the allegations against Wooten turned out to be true, I would try to get him fired too. Or it could just be very petty if she was just a disgruntled sis-in-law trying to get him fired for her sis' sake.

It does seem overkill to start firing all these other people for not firing Wooten. But if the allegations against him were true and no one was listening, more power to her I guess.

This will definitely be a very intersting election. All the skeletons will come out of the closet, so to speak.

Actually, although it doesn't look very good at first, it turns out that the brother in law in question used a taser on his 10 year old stepson and threatened the life of his father in law if he hired a lawyer to represent his wife in their divorce. Apparently there was a lot more involved in this situation than we know, but these things turned out to be true. I'm sure more details of this will come out in the coming months but, from what I've read, apparently she was trying to deal with Alaska's political machine, so I can see why she might have decided to clean house while she had the chance.

I'm still not thrilled about McCain, but this may actually change my mind. We're going to have a former senator for President no matter what we do. It would be nice to have an actual governor/reformer in the White House as well.

Nan

I'm pretty happy with this decision; I was hoping McCain wouldn't pick anyone from the Dream Team (Romney, Lieberman, etc) that everyone kept speculating about. So we'll see what happens!

JD

It's an interesting choice, but I'm still not swayed. I'll be avidly watching, though! From talking to someone living in Alaska this morning, it may not be such a good idea, but we'll see what the press is like.

The reactions at work were quite interesting, though. One coworker said that McCain had picked Tina Fey as his running mate. Another one says he's voting for McCain now because Palin is "hawt".

Your coworker might have a point.

Oh, blogosphere. How can I love you and hate you at the same time?



alcyone

PS I heard the news already started with the whole "But you have kids! How will you find the time..." thing.

NO! OK, no.

I'm sure none of you out of Alaska have heard of this, but since she was elected there have been ENDLESS corruption scandals involving her. Not new, because Republicans can do and get away with whatever the hell they want to up here, because they rule everything, but I don't want her as VP.

My cousins grew up with her, I've heard plenty of horror stories about her personality. If they win, I hope some of you Canadians have room on your couches, because I'm not staying in this country.

It is interesting that it was the GOP that put a woman up in the VP seat this year, I'm more interested in supporting her because she's a member of the NRA, she's pro-life, and she had a good deal to do with stopping that "bridge-to-nowhere" pork deal. She also supports the mission in Iraq, her own son on his way there, in fact. I might be able to give John McCain some credit for this, so long as she doesn't get into that environ-mental BS. We'll see. It's a couple of months yet to November.

TEEEEEJ

Hey Jessi,

Could you get more information on what scandals there were, and what exactly about her personality did your cousins abhor? I admit I know nothing about her, but I'd like to know exactly who she is.

I, for one, am happy with this pick. Picking Pawlenty or Romney would have made me even less inclined to vote for McCain than I was before. As you can probably tell, I've never been a big McCain fan. This pick shakes things up and helps to energize the base, something that's absolutely vital if McCain wants to win. Picking from the "Dream Team" would have just put the base to sleep, me included.

Palin is an interesting choice, mostly because of her background and her effectiveness in battling the establishment, including members of her own party. Her husband is a blue collar union member while she, herself, was formerly in a union as well. She calls herself a "hockey mom," helping to appeal to married men and women. She has five children, one of them on his way to Iraq in the fall and the youngest being a Downs Syndrome baby. As an outspoken pro-lifer, she definitely cemented her credentials by walking the walk when given the choice of aborting her child.

The biggest thing is her 80%+ approval rating in her home state. While Alaska is a red state, you must be doing something right to have approval ratings that high, especially with the prominence of corrupt Republican officials such as Frank Murkowski and Ted Stevens.

If McCain does win the race, I can easily see Palin becoming the front runner for the GOP nomination once McCain steps down.

Though I'm not a McCain fan, I will say this for him. He has impeccable timing to announce this pick right after the Democratic Convention. Instead of everybody talking about Obama's speech, the entire mainstream media is busy searching Wikipedia trying to find anything they can about Sarah Palin and is talking about nothing but the VP choice. I have a feeling Obama's six-point convention bounce won't even last three days as people forget there even was a speech.

Obama's whole campaign is based on change. I find it ironic that both GOP running mates are mavericks who have a track record of upsetting the establishment while Obama chooses an old guard establishment candidate from the "Good Old Boys Club," ostensibly to offset his own pathetic lack of anything resembling experience.

This has been all over the leftist media, how she stood up against Republicans in her state about their policy, (obviously the media trying to turn her off to Republicans), but what they convienently forget is that the Republican politicians in her state were, as you mentioned Roger, corrupt, deep into liberal money wasting projects. The media can't stand that she's a conservative and are trying to spin their view as hard as they can. Any mention of scandal she seems to be involved in, is petty family matters at worst. LOL and the obama camp is whining about her lack of experience!?! Hello,POT CALLING KETTLE....!!!

TEEEEEEJ

Which, of course, could apply equally to the McCain camp - whine about your opponent having no experience and then choose someone equally lacking for your running mate.

What I find ironic - and deeply amusing - is that if Ms. Palin is the paragon that everyone on the right seems to believe she is - why isn't she the Republican nominee for President?

I mean, I've been listening to all these Republicans waxing reverential about her on the news channels - she's a feisty campaigner, she's 'just what we need', she's bringing 'youth and vitality' to a tired old man's campaign....

Well, gee, sounds like someone you'd want in the top job then, huh?

So, really, what this says to me is that far from proving McCain's feminist credentials, it seems that women are still only good enough for second place in the Republican party.

Hey, at least the Democrats actually put one on the list for the top job.

LabRat (who still finds it amusing that Republicans accuse Obama of having no foreign policy experience when the same attack against Bush before he was elected was met with the counter that he would have plenty of advisers to help him out, so he didn't need it. Although...considering the complete cockup he's made of foreign policy during his tenure, perhaps that's the point. Maybe that's why everyone's so hot for the President not having to rely on advisers and having his own experience these days. Learn from your mistakes...

To me, the pick seems like a cheap political ploy of the worst kind. Let's be honest - she does not have the experience to be president, and that has to be a real concern in light of McCain's age and health issues. (BTW - did anyone else notice that huge growth puffing out of his cheek as he was introducing her...what was that?) This is a desperate move to attract independent women who voted for Clinton. If McCain really believes that women are so stupid that they vote only for the candidate's gender rather than the issues, then that is the real insult of the nomination.

Insult or not, I do know women, who [sadly] have said for years they would vote for Hillary JUST because she was a woman - even though they disagreed on nearly every issue. I would imagine the same is true for other women, but Hillary was the only one on a national scale the last time I had that conversation.

As for McCain's age... Yeah, he's old. But DH's Stepgrandpa turned 85 last week. He runs circles around the rest of us - combined. Seriously. The man never slows down. Ever. 72 isn't as old as it used to be...

Carol [who votes on issues not gender but also knows many people who vote for whoever had the better commercial. Americans, as a whole [present company excluded I'm sure], aren't known for delving deep into issues when it comes time to make decisions on many things.]

I totally and whole-heartedly agree with Labrat's comment. I'm not really convinced that the Palin nom is done out of the greatness and love of diversity of the GOP. Yes, those are my biases and I own up to them. *shrug*

Both sides are being *gasp* political.

Realistically, there was no other way for Obama to go if he wants to win. He needs someone to pick up the slack where he needs it. On a meta-level, all the talking heads have been jabbering on for forever about how Obama needs to neutralize his difference while McCain needs to prove his.

That's where Palin and her "interesting" story come in. Lol. This is an entirely calculated move as well. Both sides are pretty transparent about bending over to media pressure. I'm not even gonna pretend.

There's no way for anyone to pick the perfect VP. Groobie echoes a lot of the feminist criticism I've read from the left:

Palin is just about the other extreme of Hillary, so one wonders. And McCain has been courting Hillary's peeps...

Still, whatever gets the underrepresented to participate. I won't vote for her because of where I stand, but I like that she has a chance. Yay equality.

That's certainly true. I'm still reeling over the attention paid to stupid flagpin issues at the beginning when all I wanted was to see how the candidates differed on policy.

alcyone (who is eagerly awaiting the debates)

Yes, the whole thing seems suddenly likely to be a *lot* more lively... people are already fantasizing about 2012 being Hillary v. Sarah. Which would be fascinating. I don't agree with Hillary's policies, but you had to admire the way she refused to give up.

I predict Obama's going to regret dissing Hillary. I mean, sure, they hate each others guts so there's no way he'd want her in the #2 slot (never turn your back on that person who hates you and has a big knife) but he didn't even go through the motions of vetting her. :rolleyes: So when Sarah Palin gives Hillary props, that's going to resonate with the PUMAs. Political? Of course.

If we're doomed to have inexperienced people either which way, I'd prefer mine to be on the *bottom* of the ticket, not the top. And as I can't think of an "experienced" person who I like better for McCain's VP, I think this was a good pick.

Time will tell! But at least it'll be more entertaining this way <g>

PJ

I'm not going to make many comments for a number of reasons. Generally speaking, however, I'm always happy when women or minorities get important political jobs. However, what really matters with any politician is his or her policies.

I'll reserve judgement on Sarah Palin's policies, although I do congratulate her on being named John McCain's VP.

Ann

You have to run to get on the top of the ticket. If she performs well in the upcoming 60+ days until the election, she may very well be the heir apparent. It's rather odd to say she should be at the top of the ticket when she never ran. In four years or eight, you may get what you asked for. She's in the VP slot because she didn't run for president and John McCain did, and he feels she's the best choice for VP. It's not like both of them ran and McCain defeated her for the nomination and then chose her as his running mate.

Republicans were begging for Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice to run. Well, they're not at the top of ticket, not because Democrats believe Republicans are racists. They're not there because they didn't run. It's likely Rice could have easily won the nomination had she chosen to run, but she's still looking for the job of NFL Commissioner.

People say Palin's choice was purely a stunt. I don't think so. While that political calculation exists, I think he may have found a political soul mate. Compatibility is a good reason for choosing a VP, too. While McCain is a social conservative, he's not a fiscal conservative while Palin is conservative across the board. But the big reason why she's compatible as a running mate is because she's a maverick with reformer's credentials, too.

Romney and Pawlenty are old boys and are not compatible with McCain, which makes them bad choices. Choosing them would be a pure political calculation while the choice of Palin appears to have both political calculation and political compatibility as well.

Anyone watch the sixth season of the show, 24? Now there was a case where the vice president had been chosen purely for political calculation and the two were completely incompatible. Does anyone really want that in any ticket? Granted this is a fictional show but it does showcase a vice president who had been picked merely to win a few states the presidential nominee had trouble winning. Palin, from a small red state, population-wise, does not fit that profile.

This type of thing is why the Constitution was changed to make the vice president be the president's running mate rather than the original text which had the runner-up in the electoral college as vice president. These days that would mean the vice president would always be of the opposite party to the president. That's a recipe for disaster with the VP constantly stabbing the president in the back at every opportunity.

This is why I believe Obama was correct in not choosing Hillary Clinton since those two are like oil and water. It might have helped him win the election but the aftermath would have been a disaster.

As for experience, McCain and Palin have something Obama does not; they have a track record of accomplishments. His are too numerous to mention (and I disagreed with about half of them, including the egregious McCain-Feingold bill). She has successfully fought the establishment to reform ethics in government and was in the process of helping us in our energy independence with the natural gas pipeline. So while she hasn't been in office long, she has shown she can get things done.

Obama, OTOH, hasn't shown an ability to do anything except vote "Present" most of the time. Keep in mind Obama had been a Senator for 143 days when he formed his presidential exploratory committee. At least Sarah Palin had two years as governor, which represents executive experience. True, not the same as the presidential level, but executive experience helps which is why George W. Bush could get away with a little foreign policy inexperience since he had been governor for six years of the second most populous state in the union. Obama's had the title of Senator longer than Palin's been governor, but counting the time actually spent doing Senate business and you'll find Obama hasn't actually shown up for most of his tenure.

As for the Democratic ticket, the same holds true when it comes to the "wrong" person at the top. Hardly anyone would say that Joe Biden doesn't have experience. By your reasoning, Biden should be at the top of his ticket. But hey, he didn't run either. When he did run a few years back, he was forced to withdraw after his bout with plagiarism came up. He would not have won a nomination even if he had run.

As for foreign policy experience, LabRat said that Bush got a pass while Obama doesn't. She forgets the circumstances. In 2000, there was no more enemy. The twin towers were still standing and hardly anyone had ever heard of al Qaeda. The 2000 elections were fought on the failing Clinton economy and virtually nothing else. Nobody cared if Bush had no foreign policy experience since who'd need it with Russia as an "ally" and no major conflicts going on around the world. The Cold War was over and we were still reaping the "benefits" of the "peace dividend." Today, foreign policy is front and center.

I'll save the comment on Bush's foreign policy "mess" for another time, seeing as we've essentially won in Iraq and kicked al Qaeda's tail in the process. I'll take that kind of mess anytime.

P.S. Yes I saw the smilie.

I'm with Jessi on this one! If they win I'm hopping boarders...

Roger, you are amazing as always.

TEEEEEJ

There's been speculation, here and elsewhere, that Sarah Palin's a token choice -- hey, she's got ovaries, let's get all the womens' votes, 'cause they're too dumb to see past the superficial... but I've seen some good arguments why she *specifically* is a very good choice. Time Magazine thinks she's a very good fit, message wise. HotAir.com summarizes it like this:

Wow, I'm surprised to find a political debate going on here... who knew.

Anyway, I've been reading and watching since the big announcement. Overall, I'm impressed.

During the Republican convention I learned things I didn't know about Palin (obviously) but more so about Cindy as well as John McCain. I've always been lukewarm towards him but my respect went up four-fold.

I also had no idea that Cindy has been so involved with the charities she supports and that she even adopted a girl from Bangladesh. Wow.

I'm actually excited to vote for them now...

I love your logic!

I trust that she's lost many women's votes for her pro-life views, if nothing else. Regardless of anyone's personal views on the rights and wrongs of abortion here, restricting access to abortions is a blow to women's rights and negates everything she's achieved by being picked for potential VP, IMHO. If pro-life is the opposite of pro-choice, then it's basically anti-choice, when you take away the sugar coating.

After Bush and his homophobic issues (and from what I understand, Palin is of the same opinion), I'd really like to see someone who isn't looking to opress anyone at the top. (I admit I haven't looked very much in depth into Obama's merits or lack thereof either, however.)

Julie

About the always voting "present" thing...

I have to preface this saying that its not my intention to convince anyone--I'm just putting another perspective out there. Those remarks on Obama voting present 130 times, which are often used as campaign catchphrases, largely oversimplify the situation for the soundbite. Not blaming anyone, it's a media thing. I've been scouring the web for weeks (left and right blogospheres) to get a better rundown of both candidates and it's been relatively difficult to get straight information.

(Btw, I need to thank Roger for mentioning National Journal way back when, it's been really helpful and unsnarky, which I've come to appreciate).

For those who are wondering 'what the...'(as I was when this statement seeped into my head), the NYT has something here . I don't find it a particularly biased article, but I'll be the last to claim objectivity, so 'grain of salt' for those who dislike/distrust the publication (and go read it anyway). Basically the article states that the "present" vote is just a day-to-day politics thing, to address tough issues from how a bill is written, to party strategies to pass or not pass something in an ambiguous situation, and yes there is an element of political self-preservation/expediency as well depending on how one looks at it.

This goes more into Obama's reasons for several hairy "presents" concerning crime. I found it eye-opening, because at first glance, I was surprised, to say the least, that some bills didn't get an automatic "yes."

There is a lot of talk about transparency in politics and the need for people to be up front. However, realistically, the political establishment won't tolerate anything that deviates too far from business-as-usual. There are always compromises to be made in order to stay in the game. I could cite McCain's own compromises for political self-preservation/expediency, but I'm sure die-hard Republicans could do a much better job, since McCain has had his own history with political maneuvering.

Pretty much the only thing we can do is figure out our deal breakers and check on soundbites to decide what compromises we will tolerate and what we won't.

alcyone

Eh, the only votes she'll lose are the Democrats. :p I've never met a Republican who's signed on with a pro-abortion candidate. Feel free to call us neanderthals about women's rights if you like, but as volunteer, you just wouldn't believe the number of women who've made a point of telling us, "Wow, this abortion was a mistake."

Is it a mistake to invoke legislation? Honestly, we're not ready for legislation because neither side has a good enough stance on abortion to rule on it, IMO. We need more facts, and less opinions and feelings. But the fact that I can name names of crying women who feel like they made the worst mistake of their lives by aborting their unborn bothers me enough to do something about it. And that's enough for me to ignore the feelings of the women's rights hoo-ha and support a candidate who supports life.

Anyway, I've just got to get out of here. The day a women's rights debate goes anywhere on this website is the day I'll shave my head.

Peace,
JD

No. Women's rights are not "hoo-ha."

Julie,

I respect your stand on women's rights; I'm in favor of them, myself The devil's in the details.

But I'm not going to argue about that. Just like to point out -- we Repubs have had "pro-life" presidents for how many decades now? And the difference this has made is...? :rolleyes:

And keep in mind, it's very likely going to be a solid Democratic congress. So whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, the fact is that Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere anytime soon.

For the last week, I've been hanging out on a new message board -- www.govpalin.com -- that was founded by Hillary supporters -- it's an offshoot of www.hillaryclintonforum.net , where I've been lurking. They are very furious and disgusted with the sexism that was aimed against Hillary during the primaries, and with the sexism from the same sources that's now going after Governor Palin. There seem to be a lot of women there who've decided to vote Republican for the first time in their lives (there's a lot of comments on the theme of "I never thought I'd do this, but..."). They do not like the "pro-life" thing but have decided to overlook it, partly for the reasons I stated above.

Also, they figure that if Obama wins, Hillary won't get another chance til 2016, whereas if McCain gets in, she can run again in 2012. Very pragmatic, those ladies <g>

On a slightly different note -- I saw a radio interview by a local station (they video taped it, too) from the Republican convention. They were talking to two die-hard Hillary supporters who, on their way home from Denver, heard the slime being thrown at Gov. Palin and decided to find Minneapolis, to offer their support. They'd been working on the trail for Hillary for over a year, they said.

One of them argued that if Sarah Palin is attacked and brought down by sexist attacks (the way Hillary was), and if the Democratic party can abuse women and still get their votes anyway, then how many decades will it be before *anyone* nominates another woman on a national ticket? Geraldine Ferraro ran in '84 -- 24 years ago.

So here's me, life-long Republican, hanging out with life-long Democrats. On a *political* forum. (L&C has always been a model of non-partisan drooling) It's a weird political season

PJ

I found a link for that interview I mentioned, above.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/05/rncc-interview-pumas-for-mccain/

It's a little hard to hear in spots, but it's good enough.

PJ

I have a friend who was a huge Hillary fan and agrees with Obama on every issue you can image but something about him absolutely rubs her the wrong way. She had - grudgingly - decided that she probably just wasn't going to vote because she couldn't vote for either in good conscience. She came over Thurs night and watched Palin's speech from Wed night with me. She's now voting for McCain/Palin. She's a strong woman and loved that about Palin even if they disagree on a lot of issues. She loves strong, independent women who stand up for what they believe in regardless of pressure and who stands against the status quo etc. She's well educated and we've never delved into the abortion issue, but I think she tends to be pro-choice but not pro-abortion if that makes sense [I don't think she personally believes in abortion but believes in a woman's right to choose].

I couldn't believe it when she said she was going to vote McCain/Palin. I figured she'd like her enough as a person but not enough to vote, you know? She's about the 'stereotypical' Hillary woman voter that they've been discussing ad nauseum and that's her decision.

Carol

Palin\'s comments on Hillary--video

She said:

Decide for yourself. I personally think it's hilarious in a darkly cynical way that makes me think McCain is going to win.

I heard the interview from HotAir as well and also laughed (it's either laughter or tears) at how Betty Jean Kling and Robin Rollinson were voting for Palin based on the issue that women's rights were human rights. I wondered if they really knew what that meant in terms of issues of bodily autonomy, health care, equal pay, etc. I heard a lot about her being a woman, but nothing actually about why she's the right woman and what about her/McCain's policies speaks to women's rights specifically (since they brought it up).

As a third wave feminist, I have my issues with Gloria Steinem (y'know for anyone who thinks the feminist movement is a monolith). However, her position was vastly more nuanced than that of the women above. I thought her column brought up some good points here about the politics of Palin and how they might part with women's issues:

The "democratic" women in the interview say nothing to counter this. Apparently these issues are made insignificant by the simple female presence on the Republican ticket. They criticize Steinem for talking about the agenda of the democratic party as if it has nothing to do with women and leave it at that. The largest faux pas here is that this completely erases the fact that Hillary did not run because she was a woman, but because she thought she was the best candidate.

Slate has a lovely article here which echoes disturbingly:

Vote for whatever makes you passionate, but Palin hardly provides a rational base for a vote against sexism...at least as Hillary understood it.

alcyone

I'm sorry; I can't help but read these statements as confirmation that the Republican ploy to get the Hillary supporters' votes for Palin because of her gender, is working. They have vastly different views on so many issues, yet women everywhere are deciding to turn a blind eye to that.

Alcyone's post (thank you!!!) illustrates exactly what I meant when I said Palin's views negate her being a woman herself, as far as the women's rights movement goes. Furthermore, IMHO, voting for a woman because of her gender when you disagree with most, if not all, of her policies, is just as sexist (and harmful) as voting for a male candidate just because he is the male. Sexism goes both ways and many people forget that. Not to mention, a double-standard, when the women guilty of the first are raging against the latter, not seeing the parallel or perhaps ignoring it.

Yes, Pam, I agree that her views on various issues don't mean that she'll get to make her opinion absolute law in the US, but there is a lot of harm she could do, not least of which is offer her support (compounded by her status as VP) to people who could change laws - for instance, state laws regarding sexual education, abortion, same-sex marriage, and such.

I also want to add this in: people who are pro-choice and support same-sex marriage, are not necessarily the ones who are going to run and get an abortion or get married the very next day they are allowed to do it. They are also the people who believe that the ones who want to do it, should be able to, regardless of anyone else's moral standing on this. And this is why I think Palin is, in fact, not a human rights supporter.

Julie

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear...

She's not voting for her BECAUSE she's a woman but because she likes Palin. She doesn't like Obama or Biden and isn't crazy about McCain, but she does like Palin. Not BECAUSE she's a woman but that's one aspect of it. She said that she came across as more... something. Something about Obama bugs her but she really likes Palin as a person [from what she's seen] and that's more important to her - that someone is a good person.

I'm quite certain she would take offense that she is turning a 'blind eye' to the issues, but instead is voting for the person/ticket she feels is the better PERSON regardless of gender.

There's more I could say about lots of things but I won't. I want to badly, but I won't.

Carol

Carol said:
Actually, that's fairly typical of people who are pro-choice. We're not all rabid seekers after abortions, either for ourselves or anyone else. We just believe that a woman (and the man involved, as well) has a right to choose, not be dictated to by people who have no involvement in their personal situation.


Wendy

Alcyone,

I saw that video a few days ago. On balance I think I agree with her on that. She's not whining about sexism at all that I've heard; it's voters who are ticked about it. And they're putting that passion into action. That's democracy for ya.

What it "really means"? They've got their interpretation, you've got yours. Obviously the two don't agree. As you say, feminism isn't monolithic.

Very true. I know why I love her, as a Republican, but you're coming from a different perspective and don't like the same things I do (to put it mildy ). I'm looking forward to the debates.

About the Gloria Steinem quote... it's a masterpiece of provocation. Um, yeah, she's a Republican. Nobody's denying that.

I don't know specifics on all the issues Steinem listed, but I do know that Palin does *not* want "creationism" taught in public schools. She wants schools teaching the science. Her point was that if the topic of intelligent design (which is *NOT* the same as creationism; that's a common derogatory slur but bears no resemblance to the truth

Wow. How about me, am I a woman? And who gets to decide that, anyway?

I do know that. In fact, people who are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage are not breathlessly waiting to arrest knocked-up teenagers or go beat up gays.

(If I may digress, I think one of the difficulties of the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing past each other. One side says a thing is red, the other insists that it's square.)

Fair enough.

Thank you, Alcyone and Julie, for the explanation, and for letting me explain a few things, too. Even if none of us changed our minds a bit it's healthy to have a civil discussion like this. And it's especially difficult to remain civil on explosive topics like this.

PJ

I would be very interested in seeing statistical data to back up Steinem's claim that "women" believe in:

- abortion
- evolution
- anthropologic global warming
- gun control

and oppose:

- abstinence-only programs
- controlling the wolf population in Alaska
- gov't subsidies for the Alaska gas pipeline
- drilling in ANWR

We live in a very different world than the one I grew up in. When I was young, a woman was a person with XX chromosomes, and a man had XY. Nowadays, gender is defined as Male, Female, Other. Telling men to use the Men's Room is intolerant and sexist. Up is down and down is up, and now Steinem tells us that the only thing Palin shares with Hillary is a chromosome, and somehow that isn't good enough. If she doesn't share her politics, then she isn't a "real" woman.

Pam, I didn't mean that being pro-life made her not a woman at all. Sorry about that. You're both women, as well as any other pro-life woman out there. I meant to say that pro-life attitudes, to me, go against women's rights, so the fact that she's a woman isn't doing much good (IMO) for women's rights if that's what she's going to promote.

Don't think for a moment that I don't agree with that! I certainly didn't mean to imply that people who disagree with gay marriage and abortions are out for blood. I do, however, still think that those two movements are out to take away rights from people who, IMO, deserve them. (Not necessarily actively. I don't exactly go around handing out pamphlets myself.)

Pam, since you and most people who have posted on this thread are politically informed and involved, I didn't think I was going to change any minds. I haven't exactly said anything new. But thank you, too, for letting me present my opinion.

What I said, regarding this possible Republican ploy is actually not my own theory on the matter <g> but something I saw mentioned on LiveJournal. It's entirely possible that McCain thinks she's the best person for the job.

I've never seen such excitement over a running mate choice as there is now around Palin, and it seems to me that her gender is a large part of that. It's almost as if the race is really Obama vs. Palin.

Julie

Ah, okay. I thought, after I posted, that this was probably what you meant, but thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, well, if LiveJournal says so, who am I to argue?

Seriously, I can't think of anyone who would be a better pick for the position. All the men who'd been speculated about had various drawbacks, and Palin's got a "maverick" reputation/record that McCain would have to identify with.

And obviously she's wildly popular with the Republican base, so she's doing good so far.

Yeah, isn't it funny? I guess she's encroaching on his celebrity status.

And yeah, her gender is part of the excitement. I see her as a strong, self-made woman, and McCain is the guy who's not at all threatened by that, so that reflects well on him.

PJ

A few links of interest for some of you:

Obama is winning Hillary Supporters:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109957/Obama-Gains-Among-Former-Clinton-Supporters.aspx

Fact Checking that wonderful Palin Speech:
Short easy to read:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414049.shtml
Longer:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

Oh that speech... a Bush writer wrote it for her:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html

How Sarah Palin has helped Obama:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palin_raising_for_Obama_.html

Why you won't see Palin in anything but scripted speeches:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html

Although I do see she is going to do an ABC interview. I'd like to see how hard hitting the questions actually end up being or if they are a set that are handed to them to ask. My respect for her might raise a bit if we can get some real answers from her and not through a scripted speech by Bush's writers.

I could go on with the links but I won't... Somehow I don't get the view of her that everyone else does.

I was honestly totally fine with either Obama or McCain as president before he picked Palin. But the more I look into her the more I'm just seeing someone who looks a lot like Bush and that isn't who I want in there. Especially if McCain kicks the bucket.

I guess I should have explained, I'm referring to "human rights" as it is commonly understood in left circles. Same thing Julie mentioned. You're right perhaps, they're referring to human rights under another definition. Nevertheless, their usage of "human rights" next to "women's rights" in the context of what Hillary stood for and their decision is highly contradictory ("What Hillary has told us"--that's what they said; they appear to be using HC's definition which is problematic. This is why I question if they're really using her interpretation as they claim, because that's quite different from what HC spoke of say, at her UN 4th World Conference speech). That was my underlying point.

That's why I quoted the Steinem article, not to discuss the content per se (because yes, it is partisan, but that's the point), but to illustrate the disparity between these women's positions and that of someone who expressed much more clearly what the reasoning for voting for Clinton could be if you're a female democrat for the party's platform which is central for what Hillary was running for (especially considering these were primaries).

I said:
PJ replied:

Like I said, my argument was the fundamental inconsistency of these women's positions. They are for Hillary who embodies certain values as top order and those values are now being pushed aside (since you're reaching if you say that HC and Palin overlap in *anything* but sex) in favor of a punitive vote (a vote casted primarily to punish the party, given that otherwise these women would be dems).

Thus, this trivializes the _issues_ Hillary stood for, which should, ideally, be more important than her sex or even her political figure.

The Slate article actually did not say that they should shut up. Quite the opposite it called attention to an increased discussion of these grievances. But it does suggest that in voting punitively, those issues that originally _made_ these women "democrats" are pushed aside; that's what's mind-boggling to a lot of people. It's not just a vote *against* a party, it's a vote *for* a party that those women have not considered to be in their interests before in terms of _issues_. Those haven't changed all that much.

It seems that punishing the party for "Hillary's sake" is more significant than continuing her fight. The fact that they do it for Hillary's sake too, is particularly disturbing for how it reduces her work into something secondary to her personal appeal.

That's their decision to make obviously and beyond my point. However, there is an inconsistency in making this decision and stating to support Hillary as a candidate based on what she fought for. I certainly don't raise my eyebrows at Independents who chose McCain now that Hillary is gone. But Dems who still claim to be "Hillary supporters" and vote McCain? Their support is of a different order, which is why it's not common at least according to polls, etc (what happened with Ferraro where sex was not at the end central, IIRC).

As of Sept. 3, I believe, there was no significant increase in the percentage of democratic women voting for McCain based on Palin (based on Emily's List, if I'm not mistaken). These PUMAs do seem to be in the minority. Precedent also states women are largely issue-driven on the whole regardless of party. But that could mean nothing this election cycle, so we'll see.

For the moment, an article by the progressive mag In These Times by a Women's Studies prof was linked from RealClearPolitics. It lays out some history (note: I don't agree 100% with the conclusion) on the compromises/sacrifices some women's groups have made throughout history, even if these are unsettling.

alcyone

There are lots of reasons to vote against Obama, the least of which is a disturbing tendency to hang out with domestic terrorists like William Ayers. Any reason the press isn't the least bit curious about that yet they're crawling all over Alaska looking into Bristol Palin's sex life? Or that his stint as "community organizer" involved working for ACORN, an organization dedicated to registering voters four or five or fifty times under the names of dead people and devoted to intimidating the opposition? He was basically working for the Chicago political machine, and we all know that Chicago is corruption free, right? Contrast that with Palin bringing down the GOP's Alaska party chairman and other party members for corruption. Just imagine Chicago's political machine brought into the White House if Obama wins.

And the fact that Obama's chief accomplishment in life is to write his own memoirs twice without having done a single thing to merit a memoir except to be born. Ulysses S. Grant won the Civil War and had two terms as president, yet wrote only a single memoir AFTER being president while dying of throat cancer to support his penniless family. Grant was a really bad businessman who had been a bank teller before the war. Yet Obama has two memoirs. Huh? Cart, horse?

Obama's also an elitist who looks down on the "little people" calling them desperate people who cling to their guns and religion. I find that offensive even though I have neither guns nor religion. He reinforced the opinion that he believes himself to be the Messiah with his descent onto the stage at Invesco Field. He reminds me of Terrell Owens, a wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys, who was quoted saying, "I'd love me some me."

He's also made enough gaffes to make Dan Quayle look highly qualified. Anyone visit all 57 states recently?

As for his voting "present," Obama's shown a disturbing tendency to duck the tough issues. He's known for sponsoring bills, only to disappear when the bill became controversial. The only thing he's known to stand hard on is to vote "no" on a bill that would have allowed medical treatment for infants who survived late-term abortions.

Do we want a president who will duck out on all the hard issues that he would face as president?

Palin is popular with the GOP for a number of reasons, and not all of them have to do with the fact that she wears skirts. If she had the ideology of Joe Lieberman (a good, honest liberal), she would have destroyed the party, not unified it, which is why McCain did not choose Lieberman to everyone's relief. People were also tired of the same old faces. Does anyone realize that this is the first election since 1972 that didn't have a Bush or Dole on the Republican ticket (Bush in 80, 84, 88, 92, 00, 04 and Dole in 76, 96)? She's a bright, young, up-and-comer who represents the next generation of leaders. Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana would have fit the bill as well and he doesn't wear skirts (I don't think he does). In many ways, Sarah Palin reminds Republicans of Ronald Reagan, who gave dynamite speeches in 1964 and 1976 making people wonder if they had the wrong person at the top of the ticket. Michael Reagan even wrote an article titled, "Welcome Back, Dad!" If anyone's an expert on Ronald Reagan, it would be him.

Republicans were depressed because they saw an empty bench for the future. Candidates like Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney didn't excite anyone. Anyone remember Romney's morphing into Ted Kennedy during the Romney-Kennedy Senate race? I do and it still irritates me to the point where I will never vote for Romney. Sarah Palin made people open their eyes and see that the future wasn't completely bleak and filled with 90-year old candidates who hadn't seen the private sector in 40 years, if ever. Instead we got someone who was real and knew what it was like to manage a household budget and drive kids to hockey practice, and juggle a career and family while while taking turns with childcare with her husband. And she wasn't a stuffed-shirt lawyer who went to Harvard or Yale, but rather participated in a beauty pageant in order to win a scholarship to the University of Idaho because she couldn't afford to go to college. When was the last time the Democrats ran a non-lawyer? You'll have to go back to Jimmy Carter, the naval officer and peanut farmer, in 1980 for that. Every candidate, both president and VP, has been a lawyer since then, including Obama and Biden. McCain and Palin, thank goodness, are not lawyers.

Sarah Palin connected with people whereas the elitists couldn't. I think that's what mainly drives the excitement, even among non-Republicans. She's one of us, not one of the ruling elite.

Issues of character? *sigh*

On Obama's

Cheap tenous link . Kinda like all that equally asinine b.s. about Alaskan secessionism and Todd Palin. The Washington Post debunks it:

Maybe that's why the media won't dig.

As for the ACORN thing, I only found purely circumstantial musings in right wing websites. Michelle Malkin putting it forward? Yeah, that can damage believability somewhat.

Even the NRO article by Kurtz comes to this stunning oh-so-grounded conclusion:

Disturbing possibilities. All right. Just as disturbing as Palin's earmarks, I guess, which even Davis had a hard time defending today even on freakin\' Fox . But I give Palin the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure there's more to this. Maybe something about how government works and/or concessions. It can't be this straightfoward, never is.

Right. McCain has had no gaffes. None. That Sunni and Shiite Muslims confusion? Didn't happen.

I replied to this before. There's many ways of viewing things--your way or you can view this as someone who makes shrewd decisions and compromises and aims for the larger picture like all politicians do. Including McCain who flip flopped on Roe v. Wade and I'm sure more on the entirety of his long career. Or you can be in the center and shrug, etc.

Obama on infanticide . Factcheck looks at this and finds:

And he has supported laws to protect infants in these situations, so the misrepresentation is just that (though the situation is messy overall). And regardless, we all know he's pro-choice anyone who votes on pro-life tickets, won't really find a spot here.

In any case, if it's stupid circumstantial junk/misrepresentations like this from both sides, there is no end. Ever. Frankly, that this crap is so prevalent is an insult to anyone who's realistic enough to realize that there is always more to the lines that the campaigns feed us. BOTH of them. Obama with his banner of change has his six degrees of separation with anyone and everyone. McCain has his deer-in-headlights moments and embarrassing flubs. Biden with the plagerism. Palin, the reformer, has that troopergate foolishness. Dig around deeply enough and long enough and you'll find dirt on anyone. If it's not massive, I don't see the importance.

Character discussions are as seldom more than mudslinging. We should have a savier electorate than what the media would indicate IMO. "Judgement" is one (very subjective) thing and not to be confused with cheap and circumstantial smear tactics. The above IMO are all equally simplistic misrepresentations.

I'm actually surprised that things as trivial as whether Obama is "elitist" or why/when he wrote his memoirs are brought up. The economy is in the pits with the recent jobless report and the Freddie and Fannie mortgage buyers situation, what better moment to rip apart Obama's extremely ripable economic/health care/energy plan and talk about what makes McCain the 'duh' candidate? Not to paraphrase Obama, but it's true--the moment is perfect. I rather that than all the Bristol nonsense.

Don't the Obama's have a similar story? Doesn't Biden? The bootstraps thing is quite common this year. I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of McCain's story too.

Let's ignore that her party is the "ruling elite" for a second and all that comes with it, which makes lines like this incredibly ironic. Reminds me of that article on diversity (richest, whitest, manliest convention ) at the Republican Convention, which McCain very classily adressed in a recent interview and said that the party would work on. If only I wasn't a cocktail-sipping heathen...

Those observations aside, Slate had an interesting article on Palin as just another American recently:

To hold up a benchmark, the Pew Research Center said the median household income last year was $50,233.

I mean, maybe Palin's one of you, but she's certainly not like me--at least in the money and opportunities that are presented to her. It's not millions, but it's not chump change, that's for sure. I certainly wouldn't have the resources to manage a household like hers or the job flexibility she has had through her involvement in politics.

None of the candidates are "like me" or live in my world; I laugh when they pretend, thinking I can't see through them. That's why their personal stories, awesomely cool as they are (because yes, shooting moose is the bomb), are not my criteria when I vote. YMMV clearly.

Values and social class are not the same in my book. No class has a monopoly on values or anything else actually.

Real to you and that's great. Clearly, I inhabit another reality where Obama is not a lily-livered radical and Palin is not a valiant savior. Or vice versa. My reality is much, much more boring than that, even with all my wild biases.

alcyone

All of which makes the election so interesting. And/or exasperating.

Lots of stuff I could say, but I'll stick to one -- no, of course no one blames Obama for stuff someone else did when he was 8. However, in the past ten years or so, he's chosen to associate with the guy who has repeatedly stated he does *not* regret the bombings and wishes he'd done more. (Not to mention his wife who really admired the Manson family.)

And don't fall for the "passing acquaintance" thing -- Obama's political career was launched from Bill Ayers' house. (Or was that Tony Rezko? You know, the guy recently convicted of corruption. It's hard to keep track of the unsavory associates.) Ayers founded an organization and tapped Obama to run it. They worked together for years.

Me, I'd rather not hang out with an unrepentent terrorist. YMMV.

In general, yes, each side is trying to find stuff to attack the other side with. That's how politics work. It's a natural tendency to downplay anything your guy (or gal) is accused of, and magnify the faults of the other guy. And certainly people make the decision to support someone they don't 100% agree with. Still, there is sometimes truth buried in there.

PJ
ps, 125k is a pretty good salary for someone who started off without even enough money for college. Still not too remarkable at that level. Doesn't Michelle Obama make over 300k/year? I mean *after* the 170% raise she got after her employer rec'd a million dollars from an earmark requested by... the guy she's married to.

pps,
"presented to her"? Like she was just sitting around and someone just gave them to her, for no good reason? Sarah Palin's worked hard for every advancement she's made.

If you are going to start getting into this you should look at McCain. You know the guy who cheated on his disabled wife to find the rich heiress? You know the heiress who spends 300k on ONE outfit and then has her husband call Obama and his family Elitists?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

I think I'd rather have someone who makes 300k in a year than someone who wastes that much on a suit.

Just a thought.

Thanks Jojo for the link.

Factcheck.org on Tony Rezko. The website states:

More baseless junk. The six degrees thing. Just because the Republicans want to imply corruption through association doesn't mean that this is the case. I, at least, need more than that.

Huh? Did you read factcheck.org (which I like since its nonpartisan)? Or any non-right publication and cross check this? There are no hard facts. This sounds like an argument based on a lot hopeful thinking from the Republican side (the reality is of course somewhere in between in the pragmatic nature of politics). I've looked this up quite a bit in both right and left leaning publications. I try not to just read those things where their point of view is just like mine.

These are instances where I rather stick with facts than rumors, personally. And I don't mean with my candidate alone. I feel the same about both. If I list examples its to pick apart that these two campaigns are really not that different in the misrepresented views they send about each other. Not to claim that the side I am in is free of all blame or to demonize the other side. I might fail, but I do try.

But in any case, hopeful thinking from either side doesn't convince me. Neither side is squeaky clean (come on Palin is gov for 20 months and already there's a scandal?), that's some more hopeful thinking.

I used "presented" without much reflection. I was very tired by then. I don't mean to downplay Palin's accomplishments and the hard work it's taken. But the choices she has now are not the choices I have, was my point. And implicitly, linking up values with a class (note the Republicans raising up populism while cutting taxes "where they can"--see, my bias fully emerge) is a fantasy.

We're much more diverse a population than that in all forms. But acknowledging that would make things hard if you're running on "I'm like you."

But I do have to say McCain has again and again shown to be a classy guy in this race (because I don't base my judgment on his life, otherwise the wife thing might give me pause). I'm not too entrenched in my bias not to notice the neat things he's said/done (yay, on his "congratulations" ad on Obama's night) and give credit where its due. It's not possible to be entirely fair, but it's a good excercise to try.

alcyone

Perhaps part of the difficulty has been Obama's campaign slogan about doing politics differently and his use (abuse?) of the word "change" as well as how those slogans have been interpreted by his followers. As others in this thread have pointed out, it's not surprising when a politician does campaign on vague generalities, but it has been surprising how much of a pass most of the media has given Obama compared to his rivals with respect to his campaign slogans. They aren't giving Palin a pass though. Not sure why the difference.

Anyway, here's a solid article on Obama's early political career from the New Yorker. Warning, it's long.

web page Making It

c.

Running for political office is brutal. Anyone with anything to hide or a family to protect is crazy to put themselves into such a public position. And since that includes just about everyone, the most qualified people to run have no actual motivation to do so; in fact, quite the opposite.

I bring this point up every year when I teach the Constitution to my 8th graders. Last year, I told one of my GATE classes that "even I have something in my past that I wouldn't want everyone in America to know about." For the next week, kids were trying to guess what my secret was. One student was convinced that I was a hard-partying alcoholic in college. One student actually accused me in front of the whole class of having secretly had an abortion (the principal gave him on-campus suspension for that, quite deservedly so!). After I confirmed someone's suspicion that it had had "something to do with the police," the guesses went everywhere from shoplifting to drunk driving. When I told them that I am a rape survivor, they were completely shocked. We held a discussion about assuming the worst about people, the importance of an individual's privacy and about how running for office in today's society pretty much destroys it.

I don't approve of digging into Bristol's private life and the circumstances of her pregnancy. I've worked with teenagers long enough to know that kids from even the best of backgrounds sometimes make questionable choices. But I don't understand why Sarah, who was a journalism major, would put her family in a position where their privacy would be completely shattered. She must have known this would become national news; just look at any tabloid magazine's photos of suspicious "baby bumps" to know that hiding the pregnancy wasn't going to be an option.

The million dollar question: Is there a better way to select our elected officials? One that encourages public service while avoiding the obliteration of personal privacy?

Well, I'll bow out of the money comparison game; I'm a capitalist so I think it's good when people get rich, as long as they do it honestly.

The idea that "Sarah Palin is just like me" obviously does not encompass our current salary levels. It's more of a general "grew up in a small town & still seems like regular folks" way. Theoretically, there's no reason I couldn't have done the same; I just wouldn't want to go through all that. I've never even wanted to join the PTA She seems very down-to-earth.

Elitism, btw, is only tangentially related to money. It's primarily an attitude of "I'm better than those little people" whether the rationale for that is salary or smarts or supposed moral superiority. Or the fact that one grew up in a big city rather than the sticks, say, on a farm in Kansas for totally random instance

That cultural divide has been going on in America for centuries; this is only the latest skirmish. So far, I don't think anyone's winning. Which is probably good; America needs both groups.

Groobie, excellent object lesson. I admire you for taking an awful event and using it for good.

As for whether she should have expected to keep secrets or not... I think I've heard more about Bristol Palin in two weeks than I have about the Bush twins in eight years. The media has gone completely bonkers; hopefully the feeding frenzy will calm down soon.

PJ

Groobie said: You make some great points, Groobie. I think that some intrusion into privacy is valid and, in fact, necessary as we evaluate people's qualifications to be our leaders, because character pervades all aspects of our lives and certain aspects of character in private life will bleed over into public life. However, I also abhor the invasiveness that the media currently chooses, both with politicians and celebrities. Especially as it prevents some very qualified leaders, who would be amazing in these upper offices, from running because they choose to protect their family over their career. Where is the healthy middle ground? I have no idea.

As for Gov. Palin's choice to run, knowing what would come out about her family... I wouldn't have. But that's me - and I'd make the same choice even if I *didn't* have a pregnant teenager. It's her choice and I respect her for making it. Personally, I hope she discussed it with her daughter - with all her kids, actually, but especially Bristol - before making the final decision. But that's just my thoughts on parenting in general: I think parents should discuss large changes with children, with detail given and level of input received proportionate to age/maturity.

Bethy

But whether this is true or not is a matter of perception (like who these "regular folks" are--which seems to be what defines this race for some). It's hardly something _rationally_ sound on which to base judgement on someone's ability to govern. So the fact that I hear more about Obama's "elitism" more than his inexperience is...surprising to say the least.

I mean the most obvious logical fallacy there is the assumption in that "seems." Even in their gaffes (which are overplayed and taken out of context on boh sides) it's quite obvious that the images politicians project are carefully doctored. One side will present themselves overly positively--the other seeks to demonize. If the vote is for her pro-life, fiscal conservative-ness, then that's one thing. If it's because she's "cool" and "like me" and Obama is "elitist," it's entirely another. I feel the same about some Obamamaniacs, who live in a dream (albeit a more inclusive one, given that "values" sound to me like a hazy way of drawing the line between those who follow your lifestyle and those who don't (and should)--I still think money has lots to do with it).

alcyone

It seems the left is in a panic over Palin. Here's a FactCheck.org article called "Sliming Palin" about all the efforts to destroy her.

Sliming Palin

All of this underscores how this election has degraded into a mudslinging contest.

First it was Obama is a Muslim radical and now its Palin is a racist fundamentalist. The fanatics at both spectrums sound equally ignorant and offensive as each claims a higher moral ground without any self-awareness whatsoever. Which is btw, what made me laugh about Palin's comments on Hillary, given the campaign's stance and what makes me roll my eyes at the college freshmen on Kos.

It's amazing that these elements are the most visible common ground between the right and the left now. If that is not ironic, I don't know what is.

alcyone

Alcyone,

re: elitism
Very true; there's no scientific test for it or anything And it surely shouldn't be one's only criteria when deciding who to vote for. Nonetheless, in certain (largish) circles of American politics "elitism" is the kiss of death.

Perception of a public figure is formed by a mix of the person's public persona, policy positions, and who he/she chooses to spend time with, etc. And, anti-Obama types must be hoping, by repeated accusations thereof. It's actually more rational than it might seem, as certain traits cluster together, and this is a handy shortcut to describe them. Like calling President Bush a cowboy. One word, but with a rich group of connotations -- arrogant, cocky, foolishly agressive, loner, stupid, hick from the sticks, etc, etc. I'm sure you know what I mean.

It's the same sort of thing with the "seems down-to-earth" judgment of Sarah Palin. There are a number of facts and traits that come together to form that impression. We could list them, you could argue them, but in the end... it's a "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. but as I said above, there are a lot of factors going into that perception, underneath the surface.

PJ

Alcyone wrote:

That is a shame. But remember that ever since the election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, supporters of candidates have flung mud at their champion's opponents however and whenever they could. Adams was accused of trying to put the fledgling nation under the control of the Presbyterian Church. Jefferson was accused of being an atheist (a serious charge in those days). Adams was accused of being hard-hearted and caring only for the rich. Jefferson was accused of wanting to become king in fact if not in name.

And that was by no means all that was said.

We have to remember that people who are committed to a person or a cause sometimes step outside the truth to "help" their guy or gal. It might give someone a bump at the polls, but when the truth is revealed, it often backfires on them. Remember the "evidence" that George W. Bush never completed his National Guard service? An entire television news department flushed their credibility on that one, and a very prominent newscaster resigned in disgrace. In that same campaign, some desperate conservative circulated a "photograph" of John Kerry sitting on a bench behind Jane Fonda at an anti-American "peace rally" against the Vietnam War. The picture was a fake, and all it really did was discredit those who forwarded it to others on their mailing lists.

Personally, I support John McCain and Sarah Palin over Barak Obama and Joe Biden, but it's on the basis of the issues each stands for and not because of skin tone or gender or age or party affiliation or "Wow!" factor. I hope that those of you who are American voters support the candidates of your choice for the same reasons: namely, because of the issues.

We can discuss those issues - hopefully in a calm and reasonable manner - without lowering ourselves to character assassination. Now, if someone proves to me that either John McCain or Sarah Palin has something in their private lives (such as drug addiction, slave trading, second job as contract assassins, serial jaywalker, etc.) which would disqualify them from serving in such high office, I'll change my stance. I hope that we can all stay on track in this thread and remain civil to each other. If you disagree with me on the issues, that's perfectly fine. If you disagree with me on the basis of wild rumor or personality or party label, there's no basis for reasonable discourse. And that's what we all should be striving for.

Thanks for letting me get my three cents' worth in. (Inflation gets everything eventually.)

For the record, that one was debunked promptly by the right-wing HotAir site:

Some of us do want a civil discourse.

PJ

Speaking of issues, Obama has now taken his third stance on raising taxes, saying that because the economy isn't doing well, he may postpone the raising of taxes on the wealthy.

Previous to this, his plan was to eliminate all rate tax cuts enacted in 2001, raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 25% (later revised to 20%), raise the top income tax rate to 39.6%, and eliminate the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes.

He's finally seen the light that tax increases kill economies since it sucks all the capital out of the economy and eliminates jobs.

But what he's essentially saying is that he's going to wait for the recession to end before he wrecks the economy. (I'll credit that to James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal. I just thought that was too funny when I read it, and too true.)

As a Cdn, I hope Palin doesn't get in.

Furthermore, on the issue of taxes, Obama promises a middle class tax cut, something that George Bush delivered but Bill Clinton reneged on.

Here's his tax cut. He wants to give tax credits to low income families who DON'T PAY ANY TAXES.

Leave it to a liberal to use the tax system to create a welfare program.

In other words, that middle class tax cut is in reality an increase in the tax burden on those who actually pay taxes and a welfare payment for those who don't.

This is a fascinating topic, if depressing for me.

For the record, I want to stress I was making a general comment about the misbehaviour of both fringes. Just making sure that's clear.

Reasonable voices exist on both sides--even a member of the leftist Kos, the root of all internet evil for right wingers (responsible for the pregnancy smear), comes down on mysogyny and classism in the blog.

I actually think I'm way more reasonable than them and more interested in civil discourse, but hey, that's bias for you.

My issues with perception is how easily is can be coopted by these fringe elements more than facts (a lot of these things have a basis in some fact--which all good lies do btw). In a perfect world, the media would present equally a candidates public persona, position, etc. But it doesn't. It expresses the salacious bits of each, which are the ones that stick.

I still remember the interviews in Pennsylvania where some people questioned whether Obama was a Christian (not to mention "regular" people in my hometown, which shocked me silly). This was after the media had debunked the claim that he's Muslim. The Palin situation as well if anything should show how quickly the mainstream media disseminates erroneous information. Hopefully, this situation will be put under wraps as well.

But given how fast information goes, I'm concerned about the sticking power of salacious rumor and circumstancial junk. I still think perception from the average outlets is not a rational basis on which to judge leadership. Maybe before it was. I've been thinking about this a lot because I've spent some time last week and this week, trying to keep facts straight and debunking junk from both the right and the left. A lot of what I found out debunked made it into the television outlets, not to mention the papers. Not to mention people waving around circumstatial junk as "facts." My question is--how many people have the luxury of time and the interest to navigate through this junk?

You're far more optimistic than I, Terry. Often, but not always. Maybe I feel that way because I'm on the opposite side of history (requisite bias claim), so to speak. There were a lot of mistakes done in the Kerry campaign, but I think the whole issue with his record, the unsubstatiated smears, affected people's decisions. No, I'm not saying it decided the election per se, but that it fed into an atmosphere where personality and character based on smears actually *mattered*. That coupled with the amount of air time and pages written devoted to trivial nonsense (An analysis Palin and McCain's hug on the Times!) this election cycle contributes to my pessimism on the importance of facts for all sides.

Re taxes:

This is not my area clearly, which is why I'd love for people to weigh in on (well politics as a whole is not my area ). I am for the democratic platform however, like Paul mentioned ages ago, I do think government should provide for those who need help, especially in this economy. I am perfectly aware of the smaller government approach and its pros (my whole fam leans to that), but it's not what I believe in.

More info:

Comparison of their approach to the economy from the Christian Science Monitor

Since this is not my area (and I've blathered enough), I'll let the AP\'s cited economists deal out the cons of McCain's economic plan to be fair on thread:

This plays with McCain's remark-- "the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it"

The article has much more stuff on both, I encourage anyone to read it.

Factcheck says:

alcyone

Yes, I know you were referring to both fringes, and I'm sure reasonable sources on both sides are working hard to keep things untwisted. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

On this, Alcyone, I agree with you completely. It's kinda scary.

There seem to be a lot of people who believe that Gov. Palin wants creationism taught in schools (she doesn't), that she's a religious nut (she's not), that she tried to ban books from the Wasilla library (she didn't) -- there's a list going around the internet purporting to be all the books Palin wanted to ban; one hint that it's bogus is that some of the books on the list weren't even published at the time. Same with the "Obama is a Muslim" meme. This stuff is easily debunked, but it's showing up everywhere, even in formerly respectable news sources. The issues are worth looking into, but I'd like my news to be, you know, factual. :rolleyes:

But some people (both sides) grab on to the factoids that support their prejudices and ignore the rest. That's bad for democracy.

No, I agree you're much more reasonable and more interested in civil discourse than the Kwazy Kos Kids... but sadly, that ain't saying much. Still, it's good to know the occasional voice of sanity is heard there.

PJ

That is of course until he subconsciously mentions it himself. I mean, Lord have mercy, this man is trying to gain the trust of, at the very least, half the people in the country and he makes a flub like that?! Yes I know Dubya verbally fumbles, but at least his are funny.

I know this thread is supposed to be issues, and knowing the dem candidate has voted against gun ownership, and pro-abortion, I was never planning to vote for him, but I find it amusing to see how the left is accusing McCain of "Bush" similarity, when it's their candidate that resembles him more(at least speech flub-wise).

TEEEEEEEJ

Lol. I laughed in dismay as well, but being completely fair, McCain also flubbed big time with the houses comment.

Gaffes shouldn't matter as much as they do. Politicians are human, even if they are forced to pretend otherwise.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you here-- simply because Bush is in a league of his own. Based on what I've seen, he's way ahead of both McCain and Obama in terms of making up words and the like.

alcyone

SuperRoo wrote:

I wonder why.

Interesting, no?

I'm not an Obama fan at all [not a McCain fan either, btw, though I do like Palin so far because I can relate to her - I never entered beauty pageants to pay for college but I did pay for it myself, I have kids and know how to balance a budget, I respect that Todd has stayed home at times while she worked - something no one mentions when asking if she can do the job - he'll be a SAHD essentially if she's VP], but I'm willing to give him a pass on that one. It is a phrase that's common in Washington DC but it was a very stupid thing for him to say. Two weeks ago no one would have thought anything about it, but Palin has 'trademarked' the lipstick thing for the next couple months at least and there was no way that comment was going to be interpreted as anything but a slam on Palin and comparing her to a pig. The full quote *seems* to indicate something else when taken in the historical context of the phrase. McCain has used it a time or two as well.

The quote of the day for today [the lipstick one was yesterday] is coming from the South Carolina Dem Chair Carol Fowler who told Alex Burns that Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion." [That's on politico.com - I don't know anything about it but DH said he heard an interview with that in it a little while ago - and it's been picked up a few other places already, too, and it's only an hour and a half old or so.] The critics of Palin harp that she's a FORMER small town mayor [in the interests of full disclosure, her town is only slightly smaller than mine] and forget that she's a sitting governor. And all governorships are not created equal. Vermont's governor, for instance, has very little power [that's Howard Dean's former job, btw, but no one criticized him for that - because it's an east coast Dem state? I don't know. It's a small state land wise so it seems more populous because everyone's closer together than they are in Alaska?]. Massachusett's governor has the most. Alaska's is tied for number two with a couple other states. That has nothing to do with the person holding the office but rather the state constitutional definitions of the office. So yes, Alaska's big in land mass and small in population [but bigger than Vermont and Wyoming] but has a governorship with a lot of power compared to most other states.

Anyway - I'm willing to give Obama a 'foot in mouth' pass on that one, but I think he might want to talk to some other Dems... Whether they agree with her on policy or not, Palin is so popular right now that attacking her on anything BUT policy is likely to backfire against Obama, whether he had any part in it or not. Even many of those who don't like her on policy won't take kindly to many of the other things being talked about. IMO.

Carol [who hits post with great trepidation]

I have no idea what Obama was thinking when he uttered that phrase, but his audience certainly made the immediate assumption he was talking about Palin. I've only heard the clip once, so I might be paraphrasing, but the crowd immediately started chanting something like "no pitbull!." There were also a number of surprised gasps from the crowd as a few understood the ramifications of his words.

As soon as Obama heard the crowd, even if he hadn't intended it to be a personal shot at Palin, he should have immediately corrected that impression. Anybody with an ounce of political sense would have immediately had their spidey sense tingling, knowing that he'd get into hot water with it.

You know, I heard that 'lipstick' comment on the radio this morning on the way to work and was horrified, thinking that it seemed to be a direct (and kinda sexist) attack on Palin of the sort that Obama himself was making a big deal of keeping out of politics.

Then I read about it on CNN and, while I don't take CNN (or any new site) as gospel truth in reporting of any matters, especially political, I discovered that the 'lipstick on a pig' phrase has been around for quite a while - and, in fact, was used by both McCain and Obama in the last year. Mike Huckabee apparently said that he knows what it's like to be on a podium and use a phrase that's in reasonably common parlance, only to find later that it's being interpreted differently because of some current context. Now, I don't know what was in Obama's mind when he said it, and I'd love to see him acknowledge that it was open to misinterpretation, but it's clearly not as straightforward as it was being reported this morning.

The CNN story I read has been edited to add more information since I looked at it, but the Huckabee remarks are still in there, as are the examples of the phrase as used by McCain and Obama previously. It's at least possible that Obama didn't mean it as a direct dig at Palin.


Wendy

I don't know either whether he meant it as a direct insult or not, but the other times the phrase was used was before Sarah Palin essentially appropriated the word, "lipstick," for herself. Or pitbull too.

It's a common phrase in America and everyone knows what it means. Using it now is a big no-no, though.

It's all in the timing of when you use it. When McCain used it, for instance, he was referring to Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan, long before most people had ever heard the hockey mom/pitbull joke or had ever heard of Palin. Using the word, lipstick, from here on out will always be taken as a reference to Palin.

If McCain wins the election, people may point back to this incident and say that this was Obama's equivalent of Michael Dukakis riding around in the tank, John Kerry's "Reporting for duty," or Howard Dean's scream.

This is one of those situations where the context matters.

Palin's line about "lipstick on a pitbull" was one of those bits that was all over the media for a few days following her speech. Obama had to be aware of it. Consequently his use of the expression took on a new dimension when he used it yesterday.

Was his use of the phrase deliberate? I don't think anyone can ever know that outside that small backroom that all politicians hang out in.

My thought is that it was a Freudian slip.

Interesting how the media is covering it. Have just watched Charles Gibson's news cast and they showed the clip, inlcuding the earlier part of Obama's speech which was a general attack on McCain's platform. But the interesting thing was that the clip had been edited - you could clearly hear that blip thing that let us know they'd cut part of the speech that preceded the "lipstick" statement. So I came away understanding no more about the comment than I had before, but wondering why the broadcaster edited it in the way I've described.

Now to go off topic - it's the huge, wacking US deficit I'd like to hear the candidates address and the media explore more directly and specifically.

c. (who lives in a tiny, in population terms, country where when the US sneezes we get a cold. (origin of that quote???)

c.

Weighing in from the other side, this has been massively overblown. Especially when there's vast evidence that it's a stock phrase . Slate looks at a dictionary. Then at the phrases resurgence in the 90s.

The whole quote is this for anyone who has only been exposed to the phrase:

Youtube-whole remarks . (Wonderful title by one of the trigger happy hordes).

To add to the cnn article Wendy posted:

Obama has used the phrase before Palin was in the race last September to decribe the situation in Iraq, see here , along with other examples of people in politics using it.

Further, McCain himself has has used the phrase before. Article from '07.

Media Matters checks up on the original article that started the storm with links to corroborate.

I think this gives anyone a much more rounded perspective than her speech line--his line--"hmmm," which is what's circulating (I know because I see only the line quoted in the papers--I bet TV is the same). Anyway, judge for yourself.

So now all Dems need to clean out their vocab of key Palin words? You know, that wouldn't be a problem-- if it weren't with the inherent contradiction in Republicans and their attack against "political correctness" (which is understandable considering that when it comes to accidentally blasting minorities, women and LGBT, so many of them put their foot in their mouths--latest example being Westmoreland with "uppity." --the article defends him) and victim narratives (see Palin clip). It's an amazing turn around to be so sensitive now. When others do it, it's offensive, when one does it its an honest mistake.

There's just no way to reason or have any sort of fair exchange.

Just because these people thought of Palin doesn't magically mean he's refering to her. Especially in context of policy and the fact that it's something so widely used. That's like attributing Kos' smears to Obama's campaign, which would be...inaccurate (to say the least I'm keeping myself in check). Otherwise we launch into conspiracy theories and reason dies again.

Are smears and misinformation, a perpetual onslaught of he said/she saids and who meant what going to decide this election? Petty fighting over rank stupidity? No, wait. Don't answer that. I know. I know.

alcyone

It's possible that one of the reasons why the part of the speech before the lipstick comment was edited was because it would have caused another scandal for Obama.

He plagiarized a Washington Post cartoon in an attack on McCain/Palin and failed to attribute the comment to the original author.

Here is the part that was left out before the comment:

Here's the original cartoon by Tom Toles of the Washington Post:




I guess Joe Biden does have an influence on him.

Remember that Joe Biden was forced to quit the presidential race in 1988 when he was forced to admit plagiarizing a source in a Law Review article and was using lines from former British Labour Leader Neil Kinnock in his speeches without attribution.

EDIT: cleaned up some misspellings in the original quote I got it from.

I don't think anyone is saying that the phrase is not a stock phrase. That's not the point. (although I'd never heard it before - is it one of those regional things?)

Interesting cartoon, Roger.

It's unfortunate, but one of the characteristics of this campaign, including the primaries, has been the parsing of one side's language by his/her opponents. Phrases have been taken out of context and interpreted in ways that were harmful. All the candidates have done this, Obama included.

But this has probably been true of most election campaigns in the past, too.

But what is different this time out is the immediacy with which these things get whirled around the internet, and in the process get distorted and blown out of proportion. As well, what's also different is that the mainstream media is giving these incidents such huge play compared to the past.

Issues anyone?

c.

Just to clarify, I was never only making a point that the lipstick remarks were a stock phrase. Rather that the combination of evidence presents more ambiguity than certainty. Either you give the benefit of the doubt upon knowing the cluster of facts or not. But certainly any conclusion would be uninformed without knowing the remarks without the context of it being a stock phrase and the full excerpt at the very least IMO.

In short, the best conclusion rests on hearing as much as one can was my point. (Although this is just my rationalization for linkage-induced therapy :rolleyes: ) I was not responding to anyone specifically at that point

Re: cartoon controversy. Reportedly, a friend told Obama about it without him (the friend) knowing where it was from. When Obama learned Tom Noles did it, he attributed it. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it wasn't.

Ticker thing here .

Naturally, it's all over right wing blogs and heh, Fox. The RNC already blasted an email like its Christmas come early.

alcyone (bias moment: I will avoid ranting on the fact deficit of McCain's ads, I am well aware both campaign ads twist junk--but the education one makes particularly atrocious insinuations)

Alcyone - you're right on the Education ad [the sex ed for Kindergarteners one is the one I imagine you're referring to]. The 'cut funding for special ed' attacks against Palin are BS too [though I haven't seen an AD, I have seen it reported].

Most of the media coverage I've seen of the lipstick thing has pointed out that it's a pretty common statement in DC. Palin has used the pitbull statement before [and I've heard it elsewhere - it's a pretty common hockey mom joke and I think I've heard it with something besides hockey mom too] so it's not like she was taking Obama's lipstick/pig statement. SHOULD Obama be allowed to make a statement like that without the crazy repercussions of the last couple of days? Yeah. But the reality is that the lipstick thing has become SO associated with Palin - right, wrong or otherwise - that he really can't without it turning into a 'thing'. And the pitbull comment wasn't in her speech - it was off the cuff while her teleprompter wasn't working and in response to someone in the crowd [or a sign or something, I forget exactly].

I did see the cartoon thing and the article I read said that Obama used it, was contacted by the newspaper/magazine/whatever, used it again, used it and credited it to a cartoon, then used it again with no credit. Whether or not all that counts as being credited... not a clue.

As for the uppity thing... I never knew that it was a derogatory term until this week. I've used it and certainly never meant anything racist by it at all. I'd heard the term 'uppity n****r' when watching... Tuskegee Airmen I think but didn't realize that 'uppity' was part of the slur. I'd always heard it in this sense: snobbish, arrogant, or presumptuous [freedictionary.com definition] and would not have made the association. I didn't read the article you linked, but I would imagine Westmoreland was the same way, give him the benefit of the doubt just like I did Obama on the lipstick thing - SHOULD Westmoreland have known? No clue.

I think there was something else I was going to say but I've not got a clue what it was.

Both sides are making mountains out of molehills and not really addressing what they need to - what are they going to do about the deficit, the war, Iran, N. Korea [who really is running the show over there?], my taxes because I pay too much as it is, etc.

Carol

Okay, let's talk more issues.

Let's talk about Iraq. We've basically won. If Obama had his way, we would have lost since he opposed the Surge. And months after the Surge, he refused to admit that he was wrong and that victory is at hand. Things are going so much better that Iraq's basically disappeared off the front pages. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead.

McCain, on the other hand, advocated the sending of additional forces into Iraq and the change in the mission, even though it was deemed unpopular at the time. He was right about it. No Democrat gives him credit for being right. Nor does President Bush get any credit for winning the war or preventing all attacks on American soil for the last seven years.

According to Bob Woodward, it seems that General George Casey had been the one most adamantly opposed to having additional forces and was replaced by General Petraeus, who was given what the always-wrong New York Times claimed was an impossible mission. Once Casey was gone, Petraeus then proceeded to implement a two-prong strategy. First additional forces went into the most troubled areas of Baghdad and the Ambar Province. The second was to make alliances with the new Sunni Awakening movement, which represented former al Qaeda allies who were tired of al Qaeda's tactics of murdering Iraqi civilians. Instead, they turned against al Qaeda and allied with us. With their help, we were able to root out al Qaeda hiding places and kill or capture many of their leaders.

With the two-part strategy executed, Iraq has basically been won and al Qaeda decimated by two-thirds. A captured letter on an al Qaeda courier sent by Ayman al-Zawahiri (al Qaeda's #2, bin Laden's deputy) was found showing Zawahiri's anger at the incompetence of al Qaeda in Iraq and berating them for poor strategy and the inability to stand up to the Americans. The letter also said that recruitment was down significantly. al Qaeda knows it's facing imminent defeat.

So with al Qaeda on the run and nearly destroyed, Obama still claimed that the Surge was a bad idea. It was in an interview with Bill O'Reilly just last week where he finally admitted that it had succeeded beyond anyone's expectations after repeated questioning. He was wrong in one respect. McCain and Bush both had expectations that it would work and they had the courage to do what was needed to win.

Since President Bush's global strategy was to occupy al Qaeda and destroy them in foreign battlefields rather than facing them on our own soil, I'd say it's worked pretty well with very light losses when compared to every war America has ever fought, except the original Gulf War in 1990.

Today America is much safer with al Qaeda demoralized and on the run. And there have been no attacks on US soil in seven years, not for the lack of trying.

Anyone notice on the back pages of the newspaper that last week, the once deadly and now peaceful Ambar province has been turned over to the Iraqis? Eleven of the seventeen provinces have now been turned over to Iraqi control. And by next spring, coalition forces will return to their bases outside the cities and will turn to a passive mission of training and supporting the Iraqi military and police. As President Bush has stated many times, when the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. That's exactly what's happening.

McCain, at the risk of his own political defeat, championed an unpopular cause and along with Joe Lieberman and President Bush, gave our forces what was necessary to win. Obama would not and neither would Joe Biden, who also voted against the Surge. Both were dead wrong.

Does anyone believe that Obama would have the courage to commit US forces into combat under any circumstance? His first instinct is withdrawal and defeat. There is something to what Palin said when the word, "victory," never passes his lips except when it's about winning an election. If Obama had been in charge, our soldiers would be coming home in defeat, al Qaeda would have been emboldened and would be using Iraq as a base to attack its neighbors and our allies, and those friendly to our country in the Middle East would be cowed. Israel would be further endangered. Instead we have a Muslim democracy in the heart of the Middle East that puts a dagger into al Qaeda's hopes of controlling the region. Even the now dead Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (first leader of al Qaeda in Iraq) knew it. In another captured letter about four years ago, Zarqawi basically admitted that their cause would be almost impossible to sustain if America were to win in Iraq as democracy is the enemy of their cause. That's why al Qaeda has fought us so hard in Iraq.

For his lack of judgment in the vital area of national security and his refusal to acknowledge success in Iraq, Obama should not receive a single vote, as the president's first responsibility is to keep his country safe since he can't be trusted to take on the hard jobs. In the middle of a war, there is no more important issue. Ironically, President Bush's successes in the War on Terror have left him with a population that has essentially forgotten about the dangers presented by our enemies. Like Harry Truman, who had equally poor approval ratings, history will judge him far better than the current electorate.

As for Obama, I find it appalling that a man campaigning for our defeat even has a chance of being elected to the presidency. The thought that a President Obama would be commanding our forces in Afghanistan is absolutely frightening, knowing he wouldn't have the fortitude or the desire to win. Does anyone believe that McCain doesn't have the intestinal fortitude and ability to successfully prosecute the war?

Now, on to the deficit. Isn't it funny how the deficit goes up during times of economic distress and goes down during the good times?

Right after the dot com bust, the economy began to worsen as hundreds of companies folded and thousands lost their jobs. Revenues immediately started to go down. It didn't matter who was the president at the time but the deficit was bound to go up.

The solution is to get the economy going again. Obama has already admitted that raising taxes during a recession would only damage the economy and is considering postponing his tax increases on the wealthy. Hallelujah! He's admitting that his plan doesn't help the economy. And since the only way to reduce the deficit is to get the economy going again, what's the best way to do that?

The worst thing you can do is to raise the capital gains tax rate, as Obama will still do. Not only does it dry up investment, an important component of Gross Domestic Product (C + I + G = GDP), but it hits almost everyone. These days, there is hardly anyone who doesn't own some sort of security, whether it's a mutual fund, a stock or two, or a bond. The capital gains tax increase would severely damage the economy further.

Note that I'm about to praise Bill Clinton, so don't fall over now. Even Clinton, the pragmatist, understood that capital gains are the keys to investment and therefore economic growth. Along with the Republican Congress, Clinton passed a capital gains tax cut from the maximum 28% to 15%. That resulted in an enormous surge in revenues and a large drop in unemployment, a large contributor to our balancing the budget in the latter years of the Clinton Administration. Back then, the GOP Congress were still real Republicans and restrained spending, unlike what they did when they got power hungry several years later.

John McCain advocates maintaining all of President Bush's tax cuts, including the capital gains cut down to 10%, except for the death tax which he would raise to 15% (Obama advocates returning the death tax to 55%). Even at 10%, our capital gains tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world. Even socialist France has only a 5% capital gains rate. So right off the bat, American companies are operating at a disadvantage, tax-wise.

Obama advocates economy-killing tax increases in the capital gains rate. Every time the rate has been cut, revenue has increased. Every time the rate has been raised, revenue goes down. Why? Because companies perform a cost-benefit analysis. If the return on investment (ROI) is high enough, a company will spend the funds necessary. If it isn't, investment doesn't happen. Taxes are a huge part of the ROI calculation. So that's why revenue moves the opposite direction to the capital gains rate.

So how does this work to reduce the deficit? You reduce it by stoking the economy so that companies are willing to invest and hire again. Once the economy starts working again, the deficit will once again begin to go down.

The other component to deficits is spending. Republicans spent like drunken sailors in the four years they had control of Congress. For that, they earned the wrath of Republican voters, who turned out in large numbers in 2006 to vote for... Democrats in retaliation.

Democrats, encouraged by Republican retirements and the unpopularity of President Bush, are salivating to start spending like drunken sailors themselves since they are almost guaranteed control of both houses of Congress in the 2008 elections despite their 17% approval rating, far lower than Bush's. Chief among them is Barack Obama, who earned the impartial National Journal's rating as the most liberal Senator in Washington. His partner in crime, Joe Biden, was rated as #3 most liberal. Ironically, Hillary Clinton was rated as more conservative than either one of them, despite her reputation for liberalism.

Obama has promised everything under the sun and has spending plans of at least $1 trillion in additional monies. Along with an economy-killing tax increase and $1 trillion in more spending, can anyone guess where the deficit is going to go? Yep, straight up.

McCain has been more vague about what he wants to do. He has promised spending cuts but hasn't really indicated what he plans to cut outside of generalities like "unnecessary spending." He has said he will veto any bill with earmarks, but that adds up to only $16.9 billion in last year's budget according to the CBO. That will make a small dent but will hardly solve the problem.

One thing he has not done is to promise large amounts of additional spending. That is very encouraging in that at least the spending component won't go up nearly as fast as it would under Obama and a Democratic Congress.

So why do we have a huge deficit now? Part of it is the War on Terror. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of the hidden war have easily cost us billions each year. We can argue about whether it was necessary spending or warranted spending but the spending on those wars will continue. Iraq's cost will go down while Afghanistan's will likely go up no matter who is president unless Obama decides to surrender.

The rest of it has to do with the popping of the real estate bubble and its resulting financial crisis. How did we get in that mess to begin with, I hear you ask?

First of all, economies have upturns and downturns because people always do things to excess. Upturns are caused by bubbles. Downturns happen when they burst. If people didn't behave that way, we would have consistent growth as far as the eye can see. But it doesn't happen that way.

What about these bubbles? Starting in recent times around 1986 was the S&L bubble in commercial real estate. Government was actually to blame for that bubble in the first place. Tax loopholes made it beneficial for S&L's (savings and loans) to invest in commercial real estate, regardless of demand. Anyone remember all those empty office buildings, yet they still kept being built?

Well, the Tax Simplification Act put together by Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) and Bob Packwood (R-OR) and signed by President Reagan moved the top marginal rate from 50% to 28% but was revenue neutral by eliminating a myriad of tax loopholes. You can probably see where this is going. The removal of the tax loophole caused a financial crisis as all the investments in commercial real estate dried up and the S&L crisis happened. The economy promptly went into recession and was further exacerbated by the ill-timed $500 billion tax increase agreed to by President George HW Bush and the Democratic Congress who threatened shutdowns without the tax increase.

In came Bill Clinton and the "worst economy of the last 50 years." It was hardly such but people believed it. Ironically, the economy had already begun to recover by the time Bill Clinton came on the scene to win the White House. The fourth quarter of 1992 grew at nearly a 5% rate. Yet the press continued to make us believe the economy was a disaster to help Clinton win.

Clinton, faced with a budget deficit, raised taxes retroactively and nearly killed the economy again. The economy went into neutral, reversing the growth in 4Q 1992 with only a 0.7% growth in the next quarter. Those who claimed Clinton's tax increase saved the economy were wrong. It was the dot com bubble and the rise of the Internet that saved it. That lasted for nearly a decade as companies' stocks went up without any revenue to speak of.

In 2000, the bubble burst as all bubbles do eventually. The NASDAQ fell from a high of over 5,000 to about 1,500. Even today, it is nowhere near its original high. Trillions of dollars were lost and the economy began to tank.

Enter George W. Bush. His tax cuts got things going again, partly avoiding a recession. But then 9/11 happened and the transportation industry practically collapsed and the economy began to dive again. 1 million jobs were lost in two months. Naturally, the deficit began to rise again to over $400 billion.

Fortunately additional tax cuts got us out of the hole and the economy began growing again with the deficit falling in half in only a few short years. So even with the spending on the War on Terror and tax cuts, somehow the deficit fell by half. How can that be? That's because the economy was growing.

Unfortunately, following the bursting of the dot com bubble, another bubble began to form, this time in real estate again. A second, minor bubble also began forming in commodities. In California, real estate was particularly crazy. Homes that normally sold for $200,000 were selling in just a few years for $600,000. Homes that would normally go for $400,000 were now exceeding $1 million.

How did this bubble form? First of all, money is always present so it has to go somewhere. The stock market had just taken an enormous beating, so the money went to real estate. Government again was at fault. First the Federal Reserve, in fighting 9/11-induced problems, reduced real interest rates to negative values. That led to increased home demand, further exacerbated by cheap money, readily supplied by banks and other financial institutions. Even worse, the government was backing up the banks in case things went wrong with institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would buy many of these poorly performing mortgages. So along with nearly free loans and the riskless aspect of federal insurance, banks lent money they otherwise would not.

As with all bubbles, the real estate bubble burst when the Fed raised interest rates again. Banks began to fail, credit began to tighten in the sub-prime mortgage market, and people could no longer afford their adjustable-rate mortgages. That is the cause of our economic downturn today and the huge increase in the federal deficit. The best thing government could do would be to slash the corporate income tax rates and the capital gains rate even further. But with Democrats in charge of Congress, President Bush's hands are essentially tied. There's not much he can do and he doesn't have the political capital left to promote a tax cut. Tax cuts to Democrats is like sunlight is to Dracula.

If the government can do just two things, control spending and not raise taxes, the economy will eventually sort itself out and the deficit will fall in time.

The Obama plan would do neither and would worsen our recession. I'm not sure what the McCain plan will do without more specifics but if he promises not to raise taxes, that will go a long way to reducing the deficit. McCain has promised a cut in the corporate tax rate. That will help considerably.

P.S. You may have guessed I'm handicapped with an economics degree.

The national debt stands at about $9.7 trillion and increases by about $2 billion a day. But no one seems eager to talk about how we're going to pay that off. Of course, that's not particularly surprising - politicians have a knack for avoiding candid discussions about difficult issues, and the public at large has a knack for withdrawing support for candidates that dare to honestly tell people what they need to hear. Whatever the issue, it's much easier to placate the masses with a quick sound bite that offers the illusion of a simple fix. As I remind my students, each presidential candidate can talk about whatever ideas he wants to, but as president, he will not have the Constitutional power to enact any of those plans. Voters need to focus some attention on members of Congress - they are the ones with the power to make real changes in the policies of our country.

I should expand further on that minor bubble in commodities I mentioned in the previous post. This is one bubble that actually hurts us and where popping the bubble is beneficial.

That bubble is an oil bubble.

I actually agree with Democrats that much of the rise in the price of oil was due to speculation and not at all to supply and demand. Most want to blame the weak US dollar, but that can't possibly explain how gas prices also doubled in Europe. Why is it with a strong Euro that gas prices can rise so high? It isn't supply with the Saudis unable to sell what they pump and being forced to store the excessive oil.

When the California pension system starts to invest in oil and commodities funds, we know something's wrong and that speculation has a hand in it.

The rising price of oil ended up raising our cost of gas to $4/gallon or higher. That also raised inflation as transportation costs for our goods and services went up.

As with all things not related to supply and demand, bubbles must burst. After rising to nearly $148/barrel in light, sweet crude, the bottom dropped out. Even with OPEC announcing a production cut, oil is continuing to drop and has fallen to $103/barrel and is likely to fall further as it crosses under the 200-day moving average.

When this bubble is completely burst, my guess is that oil will settle somewhere in the $50-60/barrel range. That will go a long way to resurrecting our moribund economy and the world economy as well, which is entering a possible world-wide recession.

Uppity is a racial slur?



....

Seriously?

Okay, I admit, I've never lived in the South (unless you count Texas, but Texans generally don't :p ), but...seriously?

I always associated the word with snobby and pretentious. Usually without basis, hence, "upping" oneself to a status that isn't deserved. But I'm an equal opportunity snob-hater - I dislike snobs of all colors. :p

Bethy

I agree with you that politicians, for the most part, don't have the courage to tell us what we have to do to really solve the problem. Those who try usually lose elections. That's a shame but Congress really delivers what the people want. The people want everything and they want it for free. When people are free to vote on candidates who promise to take money from one group of people and give it to them, they are damaging the economy.

So, unfortunately, we get what we vote for.

I also agree with you that Congress is more important than people think. After all, they are in control of the purse strings and tax policy. It is there where corruption is rampant. Just why do we need fifty programs that all do the same thing? Why is it government agencies run commercials trying to get people to sign up for government services so they don't lose that money for next year because Congress will take it away? Why do we need to fund experiments to learn how fast ketchup runs under certain circumstances? We could probably cut the budget in half and not miss a beat and hardly anyone would notice.

Worst of the worst is the current services baseline, which is the method that Congress uses to create budgets. Most of us create our budget by figuring out what we need and budgeting money for what we need. Some years we'll need X and other years we won't but will need Y. That's called zero-based budgeting where you always start from zero and figure out what you need.

Congress doesn't work that way. They use the current services baseline, which is essentially taking what they spent last year in its entirety and adding the cost of inflation and adjusting for population growth as their starting baseline.

Once they figure that number out, then the changes happen and where Congress lies to us. If a program is slated to grow 10% because of current services baseline but Congress allocates only 8% growth to it, in Washington-speak, that's a budget cut.

But wait! The budget went up 8%, I hear you say. That's what it would be for everybody else but not Congress. That's a 2% budget cut. So when all these politicians are bragging about how much spending was cut, we now know what they're actually talking about. The money spent continues to rise at an alarming rate, all the while politicians are telling us how frugal they're being with all the budget cuts they are making. THEY ARE LYING.

The only thing that ever really gets cut is defense. Whenever Democrats come into office they gut the Defense Department with real, actual spending reductions. When Republicans get back into office, they find a pathetic, weak military and beef up defense spending. Defense spending goes in cycles, up and down. Spending for everything else just goes up and up and up.

Until we clear out everybody in Congress, that will continue.

Requisite Iraq War post:

As one might expect, things look slightly different from my camp.

To which, more informed voices than I reply:

I personally believe that war shouldn't have happened. Maybe I'd feel less centered on that opinion if it hadn't been such a messy venture and we hadn\'t been lied to so shamelessly (citing the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity). Maybe there's less blood in Iraq, but hearing about deception and the record number of suicides again has me thinking about the cost of this war.

The problem, I believe is ideological. For most on the left, it's not a black-white issue, but rather an uneasy gray area. Did the Surge work? Yes, but it's much more complicated than the right tries to sell. The right oversimplifies what went into the decreased violence in Iraq. Bill O'Reilly (who, I, as not a fan, was surprised to find, called Obama's choice on the war perspicacious) barely let him finish in his jump to cement Obama in that rigid point of view.

CNN has a an interview (dated Sept 10) with Bagdad correspondent Michael Ware which looks at "winning" and raises questions on it:

For those of us familiar with puppet governments and the consequences of legitimazing people who should not have power, this might give some pause.

Obviously I'm ecstatic about the decrease in violence, but I don't believe that this war has made us safer. I question the judgement that got us into this war in the first place, a war that McCain supported, the same way Roger questions Obama's judgement in opposing the war and surge. Obama has said:

I would agree with this, I have read quite a bit from both sides and have yet to be convinced that this war was necessary and worth its cost. My unease grows when I consider what's happening in Afganistan and our current state of things, that problem seems to need our attention soon (the current administration seems to agree, somewhat). Not to mention that I'm sure there's many that would tell you that they don't care if you want to call it "defeat," they want those loved ones back.

Obviously, I disagree. I believe Obama's shown himself to be a thoughtful person capable of weighing the pros and cons of a situation instead of making rash, impulsive decisions. In a world full of complexities, I want a person like that leading, not someone with a hand on the red button. I also really appreciate Obama's pragmatism--what the right spins as flip-flopping, I see as someone who realizes that circumstances change and is willing to adapt to make the most of a situation.

I'm also not a fan of politics of fear. I refuse to let others dictate how I live and take away my liberties. I also refuse to let others strip away my values and lower me to their level. You don't fight criminality with more criminality and the instances that have come to light of this have disturbed me. Torture is never funny. War is never trivial.

My own views aside, both candidates have similar plans for Iraq as this article points out:
Counter-terrorism in the campaign

The National Journal evaluates the situation in a level way:

All of this is worth considering, as it ultimately comes down on whose judgement this country trusts.

PS

I don't mind at all. Then again, I make way less than 150,000 a year and to

(votes counted among those that made him "liberal") sounds pretty good to me. If anyone is interested in more from the other side progressive Media Matters links to methodology critiques .

PPS I'm leaving the he said/she said discussion on all fronts unless anything hits my trigger button. There's too much gray to say anything more than what has been said, given the facts. How one sees it after knowing the circumstances ends up being up to the individual. Then "truth" by consensus, I guess. Double-edged sword.

alcyone

I did mention the two-pronged approach which Michael Ware deems to have started two years ago. Any earlier than that and there was no Awakening Movement to speak of, so getting the Sunnis to be our allies in the battle against al Qaeda wasn't possible until recently. It wasn't until too many civilians were killed deliberately by al Qaeda before the Sunnis began to turn against them. The strategy put in place by the president and General Petraeus took advantage of that movement and used that to kill al Qaeda.

That was part of the Surge movement, not a separate item. Michael Ware seems to be incorrect in that respect as the new alliances were part of the new strategy. Ware seems to be saying that the 30,000 soldiers weren't necessary. He's wrong there, too. In previous battles, US soldiers would clear a hostile area but wouldn't have sufficient troops to stay in the region as a garrison. So once they left, the enemy would simply return. The Iraqi people knew this and would refuse to help the Americans out of fear of al Qaeda. They knew once the US left, al Qaeda would return and kill anyone who helped the Americans. The Iraqi people weren't confident about helping until they were certain the US troops would remain after clearing the town.

The Ambar province was a hotbed that the US had to clear out repeatedly. How many times did we have to fight in Fallujah or Ramadi before we kept the towns clear once and for all? Once they received the additional soldiers, there were then enough troops to maintain garrisons once the al Qaeda terrorists had been killed or captured. This prevented their return and opened up the possibility of additional help from the populace.

So Ware's comments are ignorant of that aspect of the operation and of the limitations in intelligence due to the fact that people were afraid they would be killed once the Americans left. Once we started getting help from the population, we started killing al Qaeda commanders in bushels.

Besides, it's CNN. When have they ever been right? Just look at all the lies about Palin. CNN is one of the guiltiest in passing out those vicious false rumors about Palin. They might as well have put Markos Molitsas, creator of the Daily Kos, in Soledad O'Brien's chair.

By the way, that report you linked to is typical of the left. Lies have been redefined. There were no lies on the part of the Administration and no one can possibly prove there were. Every intelligence service in the world, including those fickle allies who wouldn't help us, believed there were large stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. If that had proven to be true and Saddam had used them, Democrats would have been calling for Bush's head for not stopping him before he could use them. So this Center for Public Inaccuracies, oops, I mean Integrity calls bad intelligence a lie.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. Bush never lied. You can believe he did, but you'd have to revise what that word means. Besides, the Iraqi Survey Group did locate 500 chemical warheads and the Poles bought another 17 rockets loaded with active, deadly cyclosarin that they had discovered were about to be sold to al Qaeda in central Iraq. So Bush wasn't even wrong in the literal sense. It wasn't enough to satisfy the press, but he wasn't wrong. Notice that no administration official has ever said there were no WMD found. They have always been careful to say no STOCKPILES were ever found.

Name even one foreign intelligence service that thought Saddam didn't have any. The incompetent Hans Blix doesn't count as an intelligence service. The German ambassador even ridiculed our evidence as woefully inadequate compared to what they had, which definitively proved Iraq had WMD. You won't be able to name any, btw. The French, Germans, Russian, and even the Israelis with the best intelligence service in the world believed large stockpiles of WMD existed. Who would know better than the Israelis and the Russians?

You also completely ignore the second half of the report by the ISG. In the second half of the report (which the press completely ignored because it didn't fall into the "Bush Lied, People Died" paradigm) clearly stated that Saddam was actively using the Oil-For-Food program to buy off officials in the UN and in France and Russia in order to get them to lift sanctions. Much of the rest of the money was diverted into priming his WMD programs, including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. As soon as France and Russia had gotten the UN sanctions lifted, Saddam intended to resume full production. Yes, the press ignored all of that because it wasn't convenient for them.

Saddam wasn't a danger... yet. The Left even cast what President Bush said about Saddam as a lie, saying he was claiming Saddam was an imminent threat. He clearly stated before the invasion, "We cannot wait for Saddam to be an imminent threat because by that time it will be too late." So the left is proven to be liars while Bush's statements must be redefined or twisted into lies. So the mantra of "Bush lied, people died" was wrong. The Left lied, our soldiers died as their constant barrage of criticism and demands for a pullout from day one only encouraged the enemy to fight harder. The enemy even timed their car bombs for the US news cycle, making sure the bombs were in hearing distance from the hotels the news reporters were staying in. Like dupes, the enemy used American reporters to destroy support for the war effort.

Most Americans want to be safe. That's why we didn't particularly appreciate that many of our prominent allies didn't back us up. The chief antagonists were France and Germany. It wasn't until Angela Merkel was elected in Germany that relations began to warm up somewhat. Still, we were willing to go it alone if it was in our national interest to do so. Since all world coalitions are basically made up of the United States and everybody else, we didn't actually need anyone else's help. We just needed support, not active resistance. Just as an example, look at the Balkans. The mighty Europeans couldn't do a thing and Yugoslavia was in their back yard. It took the US military to depose Milosevic and save the ethnic Albanians.

BTW, that's the only time the modern Left ever sanctions the use of the military: when we have no interests at all in the region. When national security is at stake, then no, we can't use the military.

The resentment in this country when we got no support from others was palpable. Remember the Freedom Fries? Europe, especially, has always been cowardly in modern history, refusing to move until it was far too late. Just look at World War II as an example. If Europe had moved decisively and much earlier than they did, it's quite possible far fewer than 51 million people would have died. Americans don't wait until it's too late. We didn't want to wait for a massive attack costing millions of lives before we acted.

It seems that people always talk about how America has damaged its image in the world. Well, those countries severely damaged their image in our eyes, but those in the anti-American press never seemed to understand that part of it.

When you say that most people just wanted their loved ones home. That will always be true, but most, if not all, of the actual military personnel didn't want to go home without victory. They wanted to complete the mission they were given and then come back. I will guarantee that most of the people who wanted our soldiers home before a victory was attained didn't have anyone in the theater to begin with. It's no surprise that the military votes Republican overwhelmingly. They don't trust liberal leaders. That's why Al Gore tried to disallow their votes.

A defeat may not matter to you, but it would have been catastrophic in consequences. If you thought 9/11 was bad, al Qaeda would have been free to do it again, not just against us but against all of our allies. This is why the Left can never be trusted in a war. They don't think it's a big deal if we lose. It's much better to get the world to like us than to stay alive.

There are always consequences for losing. Just look at our abrupt pullout from Vietnam. While many on the Left say that nothing bad happened afterwards, just ask the millions of displaced Vietnamese who tried to find a new home, many of them dying in small boats trying to reach safety. And ask the residents of Cambodia when three million of them were exterminated by Pol Pot as a direct consequence of the US leaving the region.

I think I love you, Roger. Think your wife would mind if I proposed? O:-)

Bethy

"Seems." That doesn't change that Ware is someone who would have knowledge on the ground. I try to keep an open mind even if the pov from the right would need a stronger basis to convince me. So far the point I got was that soldiers on their own by large numbers does not equal winning. Other factors are more important. Also that there's a significant downside.

Speaking as someone not on the ground in Iraq, I'm more likely to trust his take on the situation than yours. But of course I'll keep reading and formulating my take on things. Nothing is dogma and who knows what will happen tomorrow.

I never claimed no bias from my side, in fact I take pains to acknowledge it. Clearly my relevant facts are different from the ones you deem relevant. That's where ideology comes in. Plus, how CNN shapes bias here, is entirely not like the Palin smears--you can disagree all you want, but Ware isn't some bum who strolled in.

That said, I always check my information and his echoes with a lot of other reports I've read some partisan, some not. But I wouldn't expect you to agree with me or my sources.

So? I'm putting forth a left pov, plus the fact that the report is non-partisan which makes it valid. My perception has a basis, maybe not one you like, but one that is defensible.

It is my understanding that the findings are not as clear cut as the right represents them to be.

Again, its clear cut to people of your ideology, but not enough to get me and others on your boat. Otherwise I'd hear a wide diversity of people talking about it, not just the right.

Funny how things even out, even with the left bias of the media is went like lamb to the slaughter on this war.

Bias turns out to be a complicated thing as well,

alcyone (who'll be back with better formulated thoughts later)

By bringing up Michael Ware, you were attempting to trivialize John McCain's correctness on the Surge while trying to make it seem that Obama's incompetence in failing to vote for and hesitation to acknowledge the Surge was irrelevant. Ware is basically saying the Surge did nothing and wasn't responsible for our victory in Iraq and therefore Obama wasn't a total fool, while McCain's courage was for naught.

Rewriting history on the part of CNN doesn't make Obama look any more presidential nor McCain any less courageous when in fact, the Surge had both components. General Casey had failed but would not acknowledge the failure of his strategy, so President Bush replaced him with a soldier who had a proven track record. General David Petraeus implemented the new strategy in both its parts, both of which were essential to the mission. Part of the mission of the additional troops was to protect the fledgling Awakening movement from al Qaeda retribution, so Ware was naive to believe that the Surge was merely sticking in a few more soldiers and nothing more.

Even Obama was finally forced to admit the Surge worked, even if Michael Ware said that it didn't matter. So who do you believe? Barack Obama or Michael Ware? If you believe Obama, then McCain is one of the ones responsible for winning the war. If you believe Ware, then Obama was still wrong in any case since he would have incorrectly identified the Surge as having worked.

It's funny that by believing Ware, you are giving full credit to President Bush for winning rather than sharing the credit between the president and John McCain. Glad to have you in conservative circles now that you're a President Bush supporter.

Regardless of whether you believe that report was impartial or not, do you agree that intelligence failures do not equal lying? The report clearly states that incorrect intelligence meant that there were hundreds of lies told. Since when did telling something you believe to be true but turned out to be incorrect mean that you lied? My dictionary doesn't say that. To me, any organization that redefines the word, lie, is not as impartial as you believe. A true impartial report would have stated that intelligence failures fooled Bush Administration officials into making incorrect statements. Rather this report tries to turn intelligence failures into deliberate falsehoods, i.e. lies.

The bias is clear as the report ends with Democratic Party talking points, the question: "What did they know and when did they know it?" An impartial report would not have put in incendiary rhetoric like that.

This isn't quite true. People on the left suffer from what is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome, which is such a hatred of Bush that they won't even consider anything that might be positive. That's why they don't talk about it because anything that supports Bush's viewpoint can't possibly be correct.

On the flipside, I will acknowledge the right suffered from Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Back to the whole lipstick thing, I think this article sums it up for me. It's a pretty good article and a pretty fair one as well.


The First and Last Word on Lipstick

OMG! We won?!?

I should know better than this. I really should. I've been avoiding this thread because I knew it would be upsetting. And I'm tired, in more ways than one.

But I've heard several people (on both sides) complaining about all the politics on the boards and the ridiculous assertions made by the opposing side (whichever that is) and how some of them have taken to avoiding the boards entirely because of it. So I just had to look in and see what it was all about. (I also sent a letter to the mods list, but if anyone responded, I never saw it.) I felt guilty enough skipping over a major thread in this section, though I've learned to trust that things won't get out of hand (or that I or one of the admins will hear about it if it starts to).

So here I am. And there's a lot to see.

Lipstick? You're going to go off about lipstick? A phrase which both candidates have used before? Which Obama has consistently used to describe poor policy proposals? But suddenly we have a woman in the race who has used the word (and therefore "owns" it?!), so of course it has to be about her. And when some people in the crowd took it that way and he didn't immediately respond, then of course that means he agrees.

Does that mean I should go on about McCain's cheerful singing of "Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran"? Or his forgetting how many houses he owns? Or his wife's assertion that Palin has foreign policy experience because her state is physically closest to Russia? Or... I could go on.

It's ridiculous. Several grueling, tiring months, with cameras in your face 24/7 and a hungry news media ready to put anything under a huge microscope, just to fill airtime... some flubs are guaranteed of anyone human.

But McCain seems to have made a habit of it. His "Straight Talk Express" drove his campaign right off a cliff back in 2000. And while he's learned from that, he still can't seem to take questions without floundering. Not a very presidential quality.

And don't talk to me about left-wing smear campaigns. Not when the right invented swift boating and most of the tools of the trade.

But none of that should matter when it comes time to vote. We need to focus on the issues.

Iraq? We never should have been there in the first place. Bush wanted it. He ignored or buried the evidence he didn't like and went so far as to manufacture evidence he didn't have. The violence the surge (and, more, the change in tactics which many - including The New York Times - had been calling for since long before it was put into effect) has in some way helped to quell wasn't a problem before we invaded, creating chaos and resentment. A unilateral action that has made our enemies (not all of whom belong to or even have ties to Al Qaida) stronger, not weaker. Because it showed the doubters that we will impose our authority and beliefs on them, we will invade and take over and do whatever we want, secure in our own arrogance and might. That's what it looks like to them, and it hasn't helped our cause one bit. Al Qaida's presence in Iraq is stronger now than it was before we invaded. We created the vacuum that they helped fill, and built up the resentment that drove people to accept them.

And how have we "won"? Violence has settled down to only slightly more than it was before we invaded? Only a few more American soldiers are being killed than were before? If that's victory, then great. I'm truly glad we've come that far. Does that mean we can finally stop throwing billions of dollars into fixing what we broke (while the elected government pulls in yet more billions in oil revenue and fails to lift a finger) and actually bring the troops home? If that's what it means, then I'll gladly say we've won.

Taxes? Analysts have shown that 98% of us would have lower taxes under Obama than McCain. And yet Obama is much closer to having an actual balanced budget, purely from allowing Bush's tax cuts for the ultra-rich to expire, forcing them to finally pay their share. McCain? If he's given any thought to balancing the budget or even slowing the increase in our national debt (which Bush has raised by the trillion), I haven't heard a word of it.

And you can't just wave away the debt. It hurts our economy, hurts the dollar, and more... do you know who owns a large portion of that debt? China. A totalitarian communist country known for human rights violations (as well as being one of the biggest financial supporters of the genocide in Darfur). A growing economic and global power to whom we are becoming ever more dependent and indebted.

Isn't it funny how the good times come under Democratic leadership, while the deficit goes up under the leadership of the tax-cut-and-spend Republicans?

And you're going to tell me that Bush's tax cuts for himself and his cronies have helped? They've had nearly 8 years to do so, and the economy is in worse shape than it's been in decades. Despite the stimulus a war usually provides.

And you're going to criticize Obama for changing his policies? Right, because we've done so well with a leader who will stubbornly "stay the course" no matter what happens, no matter how the situation changes, no matter what effects his policies have once put into place, no matter what the experts say... Stay the course. No, that's the last thing we need.

As for Palin... She's the governor of our most sparsely populated and second-most remote state. Her experience with the Federal government can just about be summed up by her request to her constituents to pray for Congress to approve billions of dollars of pork for the one state which makes more money than it ever uses. And then she goes and falsely accuses Obama of asking for some ridiculous amount of pork? And this is the woman (and, let me say clearly, I have absolutely no bias for or against her gender) who, if anything happens to a certain 72-year-old with a history of skin cancer, would become president?

We need a leader who talks to experts. Experts with differing views. And not just talks to them, but listens to them. Considers what they have to say (even if he doesn't like it), and then makes his own (informed!) decision. Gives us a thought-out policy instead of vague hand-waving and pretty slogans.

We need a leader who will help us fix the system. Who will fight the influence of lobbyists, who allow the big guys to literally write the laws themselves. Who will fight to change campaign finance, allowing our elected officials to focus on actually working for the people instead of constantly looking for more funds wherever they can get them.

We need a leader who can rise above petty inconsequentials like stray remarks and mudslinging.

We need a leader with a positive, thought-out message. Not one who smiles and talks about his respect for the other side, while running a campaign almost entirely composed of negative ads.

We need a leader who can see that offshore drilling will do little to help us. That it'll be years before we see any returns, that those returns will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to our ever-increasing demand, that the world's oil supply will still be running out at an alarming rate, and that our dependence on oil is not only tying us to our enemies but hurting our environment and ultimately poisoning us.

We need a leader who understands the nuances of foreign policy, who sees our place in the world as one country among many - something more and more important as the trend of globalization grows on many fronts. Who can see gray areas and complexities instead of focusing on a propaganda-supported black-and-white crusade against a "transcendent evil" with a burning faith that blinds him to all else.

We need a leader who can see the problems we've had over the past 8 years and can put us on a better path, not one who has voted for those disastrous policies at least 90% of the time.

We need a leader who can stick to his principles. Not one who can denounce things like torture and fringe elements in one campaign and then turn around and embrace them to get an edge in the next.

We need a leader who can be our face to the world. Who can speak clearly and well. Who can inspire. Who can listen to and understand what other countries (allies, neutrals, and enemies) are saying, and respond to them appropriately.

We need a leader like Barack Obama. And it scares the heck out of me that the race is this close. I feared the choice Americans would make 4 years ago. Now, the country is worse off than we were, and half the people who voted to keep us on this track have come to disapprove of it. And yet, they're coming right back, ready to vote for it again. Maybe not the same exact thing, but frighteningly close.

Paul, three of us replied to your email - I know that at least mine was bounced back from your eddress.

The concensus of the admins was that there is an official route for members of this forum to mail the admins if they have a concern or complaint. The admins will then deal with it and - if they think it necessary - change policy or issue a ruling on the matter.

We will not, however, change policy or otherwise act on vague, third-party information that anonymous members whose names we do not know, whose motivations or agendas we do not know, who have not officially emailed us their concerns are complaining on forums outwith this one. It doesn't seem to us that that would be a fair basis on which to base policy.

If they do not complain to us, we have no basis to investigate or act.

I haven't read this thread. However, I would strongly reiterate the main policy of this forum. Debate all you want - so long as you do it with respect for the opposing viewpoint. If your method of debate is such that it involves mocking anyone who chooses to differ from your pov as idiots for not agreeing with you, perhaps you should consider walking away now and not posting at all.

If anyone has concerns that the rules on flaming or courtesy of this forum have been broken here - you can email the admins and we will certainly seriously investigate your concerns.

Otherwise, I'm issuing a general warning - keep it friendly, keep it respectful or we'll be forced to close the thread down.

It's entirely up to you. Play nice or not at all.

LabRat

Ditto what Labby said.

Also, Paul, would you mind splitting up your post, please, between the moderator aspect and your personal viewpoints on the issues? This discussion has stayed very civil for the most part, and I would hate people to mis-interpret your post as an official boards stance on both issues and etiquette (which the lead-in makes it feel like) rather than your personal reaction to the thread and the issues.

Thanks,

Bethy {taking off Mod hat}

Mod Post Warning


As one of the moderators of this forum - and Paul is the other, though he was obviously posting in a personal capacity - I just wanted to respond here to this comment of Paul's:

Paul's quite right that he did email the moderators. There were replies to the email - I replied myself - and I'm sorry that Paul didn't see them.

The moderators' position is this: we want these boards to be a friendly, welcoming place. We do have rules concerning polite and respectful behaviour, and (very, very rarely) have had to caution individual members to observe these. Board members, for the most part, are courteous and respectful even when they disagree.

We felt that this thread has been almost entirely conducted with courtesy even where people are disagreeing. I've particularly noticed examples of members with opposing views doing their best to see the other person's perspective and trying to explain why they disagree. It's a thread about politics. You're never going to get complete agreement. In some cases, people are going to be poles apart. But I haven't seen in this thread - unlike one or two others in the past - people being insulted for their opinions or being called stupid because they don't see things another person's way.

The moderators' position on this thread, as with any other controversial one, is this:

- If you feel that you're being insulted, or flamed, or that a post in a thread is disrespectful, then report it: either to an individual moderator (email address at the top of the forum), or to the moderation team by using the Report this! button. Please don't just complain on your blog or LiveJournal or to friends; while we understand venting, if you feel strongly that someone has crossed the line or broken a boards rule, we need to know about it. We can't take action about something we haven't been informed of.

- Following on from this, we cannot and will not take action on the basis of anonymous complaints and word-of-mouth. It's happened before that people have complained elsewhere, and then the mods are informed by someone that 'people' are unhappy, not coming to the boards, wanting something to be done about the person or subject-matter they're unhappy about. We can't take action if no-one directly affected tells us about it. 'People are unhappy' is hardly a reason to censor.

- Finally, if you know a particular topic or thread is likely to send your blood-pressure sky-rocketing, then please just don't read it. Now, we all understand that impossible-to-resist impulse that hits us when our buttons are ready to be pressed. Please believe me when I say I'm speaking from bitter experience that it really is better to stay away. I made the mistake of not staying away from those kind of threads too many times. It's just not worth it.

We want these boards to be a place you visit to relax, have fun, read fic and chat with friends. If they're not, then find something to do that is fun and relaxing, or stick to forums and threads which you do enjoy, 'kay? Some people can debate and disagree without seeing their stress-levels rising, and it looks as if there are a few here who are like that. Others find reading posts which are in stark disagreement with their own opinions, perspectives and beliefs to be incredibly stressful. Do yourself a favour and recognise which one you are

I leave you on a humorous note, with this from the brilliant XKCD :




This mod post has been brought to you by:


Wendy
Boards Administration Team

ETA: It took me quite a while to compose this last night and I never noticed that while I was writing two other mods posted. Now it's looking kind of like overkill. I won't delete this post, but I did just want to mention that I never realised Bethy and LabRat had also posted.

Yes, I was posting personally.

For the record, I don't think anyone is stupid or evil or anything for voting for the other side. Skewed by the propoganda, perhaps. There's so much of it around from all sides, and with so many channels and sites and everything, it's easy to get nothing but propoganda from one side. But I don't think that's all there is to it. I respect the rights of others to disagree, to have other views, and all that.

I do, however, feel very strongly about this election. About where policy in this country has been and where it needs to go. And I've seen a lot more from the right in this thread than the left.

As for the comment about the election scaring me... I was, in part, responding to this from Roger:

If anyone found my comment offensive, then consider how much more offensive that looks.

There have been a lot of things like that tossed around in this thread.

But... as strongly as I feel about this, as upsetting as I find some of what's been said... I should just go back to avoiding it. Even if it does mean letting this blow-up over lipstick and everything else go with one less voice to challenge it. Even if it does mean that much less support for what I believe in, and correspondingly that much more for what I believe would be disastrous.

I'm sorry I added more flames to the fire. It upsets me knowing the thread is here, filled with right-wing voices. It upsets me hearing about people who are avoiding the boards entirely because of things like this. But, clearly, it upsets me much more just seeing what some people are saying and claiming. And it truly upsets me to see this country going for four more years of what we've had for the last eight.

I disagree with the policies. I disagree with the slander. I disagree with the bickering over minutia. That doesn't mean anything about the people who hold those beliefs other than that I strongly disagree with them and their choices.

As for the mod's list emails... I'm sorry I missed them. I got the copy of the email I sent. I don't know why the others went astray.

Anyway... that's it from me.

Paul

Um. No. But I can see why someone from the right would read it that way. I read your defense of Bush in the same way--trivializing.

Let me state yet again, for the record, that my interest is in representing what it might look like from where I stand. What anyone else thinks it's not my concern.

Clearly, I have a different reading of what Ware pointed out. The two facts that matter to me are these:

1. The surge (defined as increased troops and involvement) is one aspect of a complicated situation.

2.There are downfalls.

Now these might not be important facts to you or we might disagree on terminology, but that would be another argument. Maybe the "Surge" officially refetred to that two-pronged approach, but regardless, it's understood from where I stand as an increase in resources-troops specifically. It was a risk. One that worked. Like the war, which IMO did not.

A similar structure becomes visible here: Judgement on the surge vs judgement of Iraq. Up to the individual where they come down on. There's reasonable positions for both.

Like I said, To me the central issue against the Surge was precisely the risks from an increase in troops. The frequent back and forth over what to call it suggests how important this was.


I would say a large majority was naive then. Except, of course, Ware is in Iraq. Might not matter to some. Matters to me in how I judge his information.

You think I'm willfully ignoring Obama's concession, I think you're willfully ignoring that Obama is saying essentially the same thing as Ware, albeit more diplomatically.

O'Reilly is just interrupting the crap out of him, maybe that's what you mean by "forced":

In my view, you're taking O'Reilly's position, trying to distill a complicated situation into the simple concept of violence down= win. There's no better example of trivializing than the above.

You will most assuredly disagree.

I reiterate, I'm not trying to convince anyone, just trying to avoid being misrepresented. You're presenting your point of view as if anything else has no sensible logic.

In the interest of representing my point as fairly as I can, here is one of the examples listed, which I found quite compelling:

Regardless of the discussion about WMD (which I suppose I might come back to later) this is a particularly interesting example to look at because I'd be hard-pressed to call it an "intelligence failure" especially when a CIA operative is citing a lack of information while Cheney is giving out information. I'd call it "making stuff up."

But let's go to the dictionary, lying is:

A long, incorrect statement given when there is a proven lack of information. Don't know about your dictionary, but if we're going to the above, it looks a lot like lying.

You will most assuredly disagree. *shrug*

And the conspiracy theories are out. We can go all day on that, I mean I have yet to see your sources for Iraq-- I could just as easily use your argument to invalidate them regardless of there being ample evidence of their credibility.

Just because something disagrees with your worldview that doesn't make it automatically wrong.

You might wish it were though.

You mean said what you wanted to hear? Is that what "impartiality" means now? You made your mind up from before and you want to sell it as a "fact." Surprise, surprise, I'm not buying. That's your point of view, you got your reasons, but they're not hard science. Otherwise this dicussion wouldn't be happening.

To repeat, I'm just stating how the Iraq issue looks from my side. Just to get it out there, what anyone else believes or doesn't believe is really not my concern.

But that doesn't mean I'll let anyone walk all over my point of view either.

alcyone

PS Also, Roger you cannot and do not speak for all military personnel.

Were the complaints merely about politics being discussed or about forum members being insulted? As far as I can tell, this has been a very civil discussion where no forum members have been insulted or put down.

Like Paul, I have very strong feelings about this election and to me, it's obvious who the better candidate is. These are important and dangerous times and a full vetting is always useful before such an important election.

There have been minor points discussed such as the lipstick issue. On that no one took a stand one way or the other as to whether it was an insult directed at Sarah Palin but was merely discussed as one of the topics of the day, so I'm not sure why Paul was upset about that.

Most of the more heated issues have been over foreign policy. In that respect, the candidates are diametrically apart on the issues as will happen when their philosophies are different.

Paul, what was so offensive about my statement that you quoted? He was campaigning for a pullout without securing the country. Not once did he ever say he was going to win first before pulling out. Is that not campaigning for defeat? Would the country not descend into chaos, at the mercy of al Qaeda? I didn't find any of your statements to be offensive. Why would this one be? If you did find it offensive, I'm sorry you took it that way but it's an absolutely fair statement to make.

There are several other points that do scream out for a correction.

Did you know John O'Neill, the chief spokesman of the Swift Boat Veterans was a registered Independent who supported John Edwards for president and had never before supported a Republican for president? Before 2004, O'Neill was a big supporter of Ross Perot. The members formed on their own, with the members encompassing both political parties. Blaming that on the right is simply wrong.

Look at the vitriol directed at President Bush over the last eight years. That was a true smear campaign that has destroyed the reputation of a good and honest man who did what he thought was right no matter the cost. I would think you'd want more of those types of politicians in government. I could easily say the same that the left invented smear tactics. And with a media to carry their water for them, it can be very effective. And before you dispute media bias, just about every poll you see will show that the people believe the media is overwhelmingly biased towards the left. And the fact that they vote 93-7 Democrat might have something to do with that.

As an example of a smear tactic, Hurricane Katrina was what finally broke Bush's popularity sending it spiraling downward. Did you know that almost no one in New Orleans blamed President Bush? ABC tried to drum up blame by interviewing as many refugees as they could find, asking them, "Do you blame President Bush for this disaster?" They were surprised that almost nobody blamed President Bush, but almost universally blamed Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco and Democratic Mayor Ray Nagin. Blanco was easily defeated and replaced with Bobby Jindal in the next election. Why was Bush not blamed locally? Because he had no power to act. People down there knew that the president had insisted on an evacuation many days before the storm hit. Nagin ignored him until it was too late. Bush asked for control of the situation and the ability to send in the Coast Guard and Marines three times to Governor Blanco. She said no each and every time. With Posse Comitatus as law, the president was powerless to act. The Louisiana National Guard sat outside the city for three days with tons of food and water before Blanco gave them permission to go in.

Now people blamed FEMA. What people don't know is that FEMA is a coordination agency. It has almost no staff, almost no equipment to do anything. It's job is to talk with local agencies to help coordinate action. Also the organization had just been relocated into the new Department of Homeland Security, a department opposed by the president but insisted upon by Democrats.

As for being a smear, Democrats and their allies in the media successfully teamed up to blame Bush 100% for everything that went wrong when in fact he had little to do with it. Once Blanco finally agreed to let the president act five days after the storm, things cleaned up almost immediately as the Coast Guard went into emergency search and rescue and the Marines delivered supplies to people who needed it. Democrats and the media effectively destroyed the remainder of his presidency on a smear and he never recovered, politically, from Hurricane Katrina. They even tried hard to make people believe that the president knew the levees would break. When video appeared showing that not to be the case, they were forced to back off.

The ultimate smear job was that "Bush lied" when multiple bipartisan commissions could find not a shred of evidence that anyone lied or was pressured to manufacture evidence. So Paul, your accusations are totally unjustified.

The Democrats are experts at hatchet jobs. They did the same to Mark Foley, Tom DeLay (three grand juries before the Democratic DA could find someone willing to indict when it's well known prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich?), Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and a number of other prominent Republicans. Before you say "Bill Clinton" when it comes to Foley, Gingrich and Livingston, all of them resigned and none had the support of the Republican Party nor did anyone even try to defend them. Lott was forced to resign his Majority Leader post when he was accused of being a racist only because he toasted Strom Thurmond at a party for Thurmond.

They are trying to do the same with Sarah Palin as Obama sent in 30 lawyers and investigators to Alaska to dig up any dirt they could find on her.

Mark Foley, in particular, was portrayed as a predator when in fact he only propositioned people who never worked for him. Plus with the age of consent at 16 in Washington D.C., he broke no laws. How many people knew that? Yet, Foley was the notorious October surprise which Democrats spring like clockwork before every election. Republicans have never sprung an October surprise.

Anybody remember Bush's DUI report three days before the 2000 election that probably tipped Florida into a virtual tie when Bush was leading by 3% just the day before? Or Dan Rather's disgusting attempt to destroy Bush with forged documents three weeks before the 2004 election? Rather's problem was that he jumped the gun, giving people time to debunk his smear job, or Kerry would be president. Now tell me that Democrats are innocent victims.

I await the next Democratic October Surprise. It should come within the next five or six weeks.

Two words: Jimmy Carter.

Didn't Democrats say the same thing five years ago? Ten years ago? Fifteen years ago? Twenty? They say exactly the same thing every time it's proposed. If Democrats had listened five, ten, fifteen years ago, those offshore oil platforms would be producing today. The ANWR battle has been fought for decades, a source the size of LAX that could produce billions of barrels of oil.

How many years will alternative fuels take before they're practical? I'll bet it's a lot longer than five years, which is what Democrats say it'll take to produce more oil. The tide is moving against the Democrats on this. The American people don't understand the resistance to drilling and don't support the Democrats on this. Even Nancy Pelosi is feeling the pressure from Democrats who are fearful for their seats if they don't authorize drilling.

McCain is gaining on this because he supports both and the American people agree with him. While investing in long term alternative fuels, he also supports drilling for more oil to tide us over until those alternatives become practical.

As for the current economic situation, you didn't read my synopsis about economic bubbles? How would you blame the president for the real estate bubble? Is he supposed to tell people not to buy houses? And do you blame him for 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina for the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage caused by those two events and the resulting job losses from both. And as far as downturns go, this one's still rather mild. Unemployment is still historically low. Even the last jump to 6.1% had more to do with more people entering the workforce than people losing their jobs. If no jobs had been lost at all last month, the unemployment rate would still have gone from 5.7% to 6.0% as 500,000 more people entered the work force for the first time. I'll bet the hike in the minimum wage to $6.55 accounted for most of the rest.

The dollar is rising now like gangbusters having gained 13% against most major currencies in just the last month. I know because I was in Europe during almost all of August as I watched the dollar skyrocket. Gold and oil prices are falling like stones. The Euro is at $1.399 today, only about 10-12% above where it was when the dollar first started sliding.

Bill Clinton sailed through the 90's because of the rise of the Internet and got out right after the bubble burst. Anyone could have been president through that era and had a good economy. He did his very best to torpedo it with his tax hikes but even he couldn't hold down the dot com bubble. If you blame Bush for the real estate bubble, then you'd have to blame Clinton for the dot com bubble. I don't blame either one for something completely out of their control. Clinton was handed a growing economy and had nothing significant happen on his watch. Bush was handed a declining economy and two disasters. Which one had a tougher job? Be impartial about it. I even gave Clinton credit for a capital gains tax cut. Would you give Bush credit for anything on his watch?

I'll surprise you by praising Bill Clinton again. He passed welfare reform and it was wildly successful. Other Democrats predicted doom and gloom yet even they had to admit their predictions didn't come true. I even supported him when he sent troops into Bosnia. While I didn't support sending them in in the first place because we had absolutely no national interest there, I supported him when the soldiers went in. Once our forces were in harm's way, I supported both the president and the mission, rather than taking the easy way out by saying I supported the troops but not the president like so many have done with President Bush.

I'll praise Bill Clinton a fourth time. I supported him and Al Gore when they campaigned for and passed NAFTA even against their own party. There's evidence that Obama was promising people in Ohio that he would overturn NAFTA while at the same time promising the Canadian government he didn't mean it.

PM denies top aide leaked Obama NAFTA memo

Canadian memo suggests Obama\'s NAFTA comments \'political positioning\'

I praised Bill Clinton several times. And Al Gore, too, when they do something that's right. Would you do the same for George Bush?

Democrats have accused Bush for not listening to anyone as you, yourself have just claimed. Interesting that he's also criticized for listening to his commanders who almost universally got their way for several years until the president finally got fed up with his top generals and replaced both Abizaid and Casey with generals who knew how to win. Now the president is responsible for who he chooses as commander and has to take the blame for their failures, but he can't win for losing. When he listens, he's criticized, and when he doesn't, he's criticized.

You're attacking Palin's experience as governor when you've got Obama at the top of your ticket, the man with the empty resume who had only been in the US Senate for 143 days before he started campaigning for president? How about Joe Biden from Delaware, which has an similarly small population. Are you worried that because he represents a small state with almost no population that he shouldn't be VP?

As for whether we're safer today, I'll point you to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll at:


Terrorism Fears at Low Ebb Seven Years After 9/11

To sum it up, 62% say the War on Terror is going well, up from 54% last year. 62% think we're safer now than before 9/11. It seems the American people disagree with you.

I'm right, though.

Today's lesson in my Social Studies class was all about looking at things through multiple perspectives. For example, during the time period leading up to the American Revolution, why could Samuel Adams be viewed as a patriot by some but as a terrorist by others? Two American colonists living in the late 1700s could both have been "right" on the issue while having opposite opinions.

I have found this thread to be interesting because it has allowed me to see multiple perspectives on important political issues. I hardly know any Republicans at all, certainly none as passionate about the issues as I've seen in this thread, so it's given me a facinating insight into that point of view. I respectfully disagree with many of the opinions brought forth, but I've read them with interest. I think we can all agree that it's unlikely any post will change anyone's deeply held political beliefs, but as long as we attempt to withhold value judgments on those political opinions, I think it's possible to continue this important civil discourse of reasoned debate.

BBC News: No victory[/b] in Iraq, [b]says Petraeus[/b] Thursday, 11 September 2008

alcyone

The suggestion was, Roger, that some members of the forum have been venting elsewhere that this particular thread has been conducted in a less than friendly and polite manner.

Interestingly, the members in question - whoever they may be - appear to come from both sides of the political divide. (I'm always of the general view that if both sides are complaining of being mistreated in a political debate, it usually means something's being done right. )

Wendy and Bethy - who have read the thread - do not seem to be of the opinion that the debate has been conducted impolitely for the most part. So unless those members who are unhappy complain at an official level, with specifics of their concerns, we'll be taking this no further.

I think, perhaps, when politics is the subject under discussion, people's passions can easily allow them to see insult where none is intended. Perhaps more so than in other debates, when it is so close to their hearts.

Perhaps everyone could bear that in mind when posting and just take a moment or two to add an extra layer of courtesy, a little extra care in how they frame their words, to help smooth things along.

LabRat

Despite my resolution to stop reading this thread because I'm being convinced more and more to not vote (I really need to start looking for facts myself instead of being swayed by arguments and being convinced that neither party should be in office), I was confused by one thing.

Who are the 93-7? The media is more than 100 people, so could you clarify this, Roger?

Karen - I can't speak for Roger, but the percentages I've seen in a number of [obviously left leaning] Poli Sci text books is somewhere in the 85-90% range for members of the media who vote Democratic. I would imagine that he meant percentages there, but I'm sure he'll clarify when he's able .

Carol

Yes, the numbers refer to percentages. Lazy fingers. Sorry.

If I remember the registration numbers from the story I read last year, roughly 50% of people in the print and TV media are registered as Independents, about 25% are registered Democrats, and about 3% are registered Republicans. The rest are Other...

I started with Wikipedia's rundown as a primer here --it's a good stepping stone to other information. There's a lot of juicy stuff there--a brief history, links to watchdog groups, etc.

The often quoted one I've seen was done by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent. (from Wikipedia) There are tons of others, but the results are more or less the same.

It's always a good idea to try to read/watch from a variety of sources (then see who convices you) as opposed to holding out for a strictly unbiased view IMO. I think that sometimes the identity of the person writing an editorial is more important than the publication itself too.

alcyone

Apologies, I meant the nominee facts. Every time I read something here, it gets disputed by someone else, then that's disputed, then expanded on, then it gets lost in the shuffle. So it's time I went looking on my own.

No worries, at this point, I just have a bottomless bag o' links and a lot of restless energy.

Happy hunting.

alcyone

Here's an interesting article I read on Obama today.

Obama article

It's actually on a UK news(paper?) website, by a UK writer, so it's coming at it from a slightly different approach.

It doesn't discuss the positives or negatives of the issues on either side, but I thought he made interesting points about Obama as a candidate.

Bethy

I read as a very interested outsider, whose country has been very impacted by American decisions since the end of their Civil War (Okay, so they invaded what was to become Canada during their wee rebellion against Britain a million years ago... oh and the war of 1812... which the Euros refer to as the Napoleonic Wars and which started a tad earlier than 1812...)

Okay refocusing here:

Paul wrote:
Yes! Paul, important point!

I've followed US elections for some years (political junkie confession) and I've thought this election particularly has seen more propaganda, from all candidates, although some more than others.

Why? not sure, but I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the way in which the internet has been used. News cycles are momentary, and obsess with the trivial, personal details. As well, I see so little respect for the other side.

Why? That's a scary thing to see happening in America which, and I know this sounds corny, has demonstrated more than most other countries on earth, Voltaire's statement: "I disagree with what you say say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

At any rate, I don't think that most of those who disagree with me have been "skewed by propaganda" but have reached their different conclusions in an informed and reasoned way, based on different principles and values than mine, but no less valid.

And Roger, as always, I stand in awe at your command of information. (although, at times I do disagree with your conclusions, but hey, I was , at one time a card-carrying member of the NDP )

c.
.

Can I join your fan club too?

Roger, you are my CHAMPION. It is SO refreshing and gratifying to read your posts!

I'm a little busy here... what with relatives and friends coming up from the coast to escape IKE... But you are eloquently making great points, and I'm not so frustrated that I don't have time to jump in.



I'm not trying to infer this is "war," but speaking of champions... here's a little fix for ALL of us!




Especially us "FOX" fans!



Cain for McCain

Response to the TimesOnline article linked above.

This is why it's so tricky to maneuver through this political landscape.
I had read this article today and this distortion made me wince:

The problem here is that Obama's position as "extreme" is based on faulty evidence.

Factcheck (non-partisan) notes this:

(In this current climate, factcheck and politifact are my enclaves, there's very few others I will trust)

Anyway, in the article, Baker was referring to Obama's turn around in speaking of a common ground in his speech vs. his votes on the bills as inhumane "extremism."

Factcheck notes that Obama could have covered up/lied/misrepresented his position (it's all very complicated in the legalese), which is a totally legitimate criticism (although everyone misrepresents, it's a matter of if this is a big deal to one, I rush to add); we can speculate forever on his reasons, it makes no logical sense. Also, if a person's belief is strongly pro-life, well, that's what it is. These are deadenders.

However, the accusation of "extreme," which the article solidly puts forth as evidence of the disjunction between Obama the politician and Obama the speech-giver is distorted. It is another matter and one that can be looked at with respect to evidence. Going by factcheck (whose legitimacy I trust more than Baker's), Obama's position does not seem to be any more extreme than any mainstream pro-choice (that is Clinton herself was more entrenched in the pro-choice camp actually and called Obama on it). In fact, this article (also incorrect in the bill according to Factcheck and published before its analysis) notes:

(Politifact Confirms)

Now, what gets me is how easily faulty perceptions of character spread (what kind of person votes for infanticide?!). Because, in this case, one thing is to call anyone's views as "pro-choice" and another to call them "extreme," without solid evidence (unless all pro-choice are extreme, which is another deadender). In any case, I do not think it's a fair accusation based on the facts present.

alcyone (therapy, therapy, therapy)

Nice diversion, Cap. , I can appreciate those politics. I know I sound like a broken record, but I think Dean's "shirtless" state of the union would be a hit. I haven't heard yet what Dean thought of Sarah Palin as VP choice, not that his opinion means any more that anyone else's, but as a fan of both, it'd be fun to know.

TEEEEEEJ

^
Heh.

Well... since Dean is for McCain and also has an inclination towards beauty queens... safe to say, he's probably OK with the pick.

Kidding.

He probably likes her for other reasons too...

Let me, if you will, provide some insight from an Air Force brat on the subject of "war" and the subject of "winning a war."

Most civilians don't know the three basic ways to win a war. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Most civilians don't need that information to lead healthy, productive lives.

But military leaders do. Here they are, with a few comments.

• Destroy the enemy. This is the classic scenario, to destroy your enemy's fighting force on the battlefield and thereby destroy your enemy's ability to fight. This was how Napoleon was defeated in Russia. His army marched in with around four hundred thousand troops, then marched out again months later (after a horrible winter) with about forty thousand troops.
• Destroy your enemy's ability to make war. This was the outcome of the American Civil War. Sherman's march through Georgia was not a punitive expedition, it was intended to split the Confederacy's fighting forces from their supply bases. It worked, too, even if it took many months to finish up the killing. It was also the immediate agent which brought about the end of the Cold War. Russia and her satellites could no longer afford to keep up with American military spending.
• Destroy your enemy's willingness to make war. This was what happened in August of 1945. The Emperor of Japan was not willing to continue a conflict which had taken so many lives and which had ruined the Home Islands, so over the objections of most of his Cabinet, he ordered an end to the conflict by surrendering to the US. It was also the ultimate reason North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam in 1975. The United States, as a nation, was unwilling to assist South Vietnam against the final invasion from the North despite treaties and mutual defense pacts. America never lost a major battlefield engagement to North Vietnam or the Viet Cong.

When General Petraeus was quoted as saying

he was referring to the first way to win a war. Why? Because that's what most civilians in America and the UK and Canada think that's the only way to "win" any war, including the war against terror. But you can't plant a flag on a hill that doesn't exist. You can't occupy the homeland of an enemy who doesn't have a home base. If you want to make the case that the Iraq war was a mistake (or that it was exactly the right thing to do), you must do so from social, political, historical, and the military points of view. Picking just one POV and running with it presents an incomplete picture.

Let me add that the general was also not saying that this conflict is "unwinnable." He simply meant that victory must be defined by destroying either the terrorists' ability or willingness to make war. By those criteria, the war is not yet won, but is winnable. It's simply much more difficult to determine when that might happen for such a nebulous and variable enemy.

Hope this helps and doesn't spread gasoline on the fire.

One thing I discuss with my students isn't necessarily the whole 'No one died when Clinton lied' bumper stickers they have around here [which really only serves to remind me that Clinton lied - go figure. Took me ages to get the 'Bush lied, people died' reference. ].

Anyway - we discuss whether today, in 2008, can we TRULY know if going into Iraq was a huge mistake or the smartest thing we ever did [or somewhere in the middle]. The answer is - regardless of what anyone thinks now - we CAN'T know. Twenty years from now, we could look back and say, 'You know, even after the Surge and the Iraqis taking over things went to hell in a handbasket. Surely there was a better way to oust Saddam and deal with his ties to terror and genocide and human rights violations.' *OR* We could say 'Wow. Look at all the democracies in the Middle East and the extreme decline in Radical Islam since Iraqi Freedom started. That was the right way to deal with Saddam. Wonder what would have happened if GHW had done more in '91.' [but I'll leave that argument out of here]

The answer is, we can't know until we have some time between us and the event. Presidents aren't 'graded' by historians [not the media and whoever who would likely give Bush whatever comes after F at the moment] for 10 or 15 or 20 years after they leave office because it takes time to get perspective on what happened. *I* haven't seen a 'grading scale' with Clinton on it yet [that doesn't mean they're not out there, but I haven't seen one]. And actually, the last time I purposefully went out and sought one in... 04?, HW wasn't on there either. I've seen others since then but have only glanced at them as I wasn't looking for one to use at the time and I don't recall anything about them.

Anyway - that goes along with what Terry said. I think. Or someone else. I forget .

Carol

I just wanted to clarify, because I have seen on other websites people claiming that the bills Obama voted against were unnecessary because there were "already laws in Illinois that protect these children". That is, I have seen people claim that what happened at Christ Hospital (leaving aborted babies to die, unattended, in the hospital's dirty linens room) was clearly illegal under existing laws, and no additional laws were necessary.

The laws already in effect in Illinois covered "viable fetuses", or what FactCheck, above, calls "infant[s] that would otherwise live." The babies left to die at Christ Hospital were deemed "pre-viable", and thus were not protected by current Illinois law.

It is my understanding that the determination as to whether these babies were "viable" was not done on an infant-by-infant basis. That is, prior to being aborted, the babies (based, I assume, on the number of weeks of pregnancy) had already been deemed "pre-viable". According to nurse Stanek's testimony, these babies were issued birth certificates upon their birth, and, when they died they were issued death certificates.

Unless FactChecks has data to back up their claim, I think the assertation that "perhaps most" people would not call what happened at Christ Hospital infanticide is more opinion (dare I say bias?) than fact. It is certainly true that "many" don't. I will say those who *do* consider it infanticide are sincere in their beliefs... that is, they are not merely playing games with words in order to smear Obama.

But this is the problem, because this wanders into the pro-life/pro-choice debate and we shouldn't, because we have even less chance of reaching a common ground. That was never my point and I would suggest it is not the point of the misrepresentation, either (otherwise the accusation would be of being pro-choice, not "infanticide" which has a different weight)

If you're pro-life, as factcheck states with the example of Alan Keyes, it will always be infanticide. If you're pro-choice, this is a situation where it is important to consider what is at stake with the right to choose, etc, etc. I do not have the legal background to be able to dive into that argument, nor do I think that it's a discussion I should have with people not in the pro-choice camp.

Note that factcheck also tries to stay clear from the pro-life/pro-choice debate. It says on top:

So what happened at the hospital is not the issue (again, that's the realm of the pro-choice/pro-life debates), the issue for factcheck's clarification is what the bill is being used for in politics--it's used as evidence of Obama's extremism towards the wide public (echoed by the TimesOnline article, for ex.).

However, within the realm of "pro-choice," there's considerable evidence against this--suggested by the fact that the bills were opposed by pro-choice orgs like Planned Parenthood, not just Obama acting alone (as the extremist wing of the pro-choice stance). The insinuations surprise me, considering the earlier critique that Obama was not pro-choice enough because he claimed to be ok with to the state restricting late term abortions (making exceptions for the woman's health). I looked at his record and am at pains to see how he's any more extremist than your average pro-choice--his record mirrors Hillary as far as my untrained eye could see.

In my view, it is a case of distortions and oversimplifications, considering that the accusation means to scare off the center, which might assume that the bills directly promote infanticide. These are in fact:

Now, if you're staunchly pro-life they do lead to infanticide by your worldview. For many pro-choice, however, there are shades of gray. If one is pro-life, it might make no difference ("pro-choice all support infanticide"), but if you're pro-choice, especially, I think it's a good idea to get the full story and not just the keyword, before taking it as gospel, like the news has.

Considering the near half divide of pro-choice/life in female voters (50%-43% pro-choice from Gallup (published Sept. 3), making the details known is important. Many polled don't consider it a dealbreaker, but labeling it "infanticide" might push it there. So even if the people are genuine the claim is misleading (again parting from the premise that it's directed at independent women who lean pro-choice (statistically).

I don't think factcheck made any claims like the one you express here. The line is:

I think that's an accurate statement. Then they speak of the existing laws and, note, they also point out the space for the critique you seem to be voicing for those laws:

Which would explain what happened with Illinois law from your perspective (again keeping it within the legal frame), if I'm reading you right.

So overall, I think you misunderstood factcheck, because you went at it from the pro-life perspective. Like I said factcheck is not interested in debating "viability" or "life" (they know that if you see these as clear-cut you're already in another issue), they're interested in looking at how these claims misrepresent Obama and the legal situation, which is significantly more complicated than killing infants (as the push and pull over definitions show). So I don't think factcheck shows bias here. They simply carve out a space where the interpretation is not so solidly in "infanticide" or "not infanticide." Those are not the terms of their argument.

Those are not the terms of my argument either--those belong in the pro-choice/pro-life debates like I said. My objection is to the claims of "extremism" put forth through incendiary language and its implications.

Yes, it's to be expected that the campaigns do this, both obviously, but I deplore it all the same, especially for how it spreads.

alcyone

FactCheck says Obama misrepresented the contents of the bill, and asks, "But does this mean... that he supports infanticide?" So, I assumed that their definition of infanticide as the killing of infants "that would otherwise live" was their way of saying, "no, he doesn't support infanticide" because "most" people apply the term only to viable infants, and the aborted infants were non-viable. Thus "most" people would agree that what was being done at Christ Hospital was not infanticide. As I say, I would question this assumption.

Anyway, my main intent for writing was merely to clarify that what was being done was, in fact, legal, and the only way to stop the procedure (assuming one wanted to stop it) would be to pass a bill such as SB 1082 or the BAIPA.

I found a pretty entertaining web page of Sarah Palin Tribute Editorial Cartoons . They aren't all pro-Palin, but what's funny is to see how obviously desperate the left is getting. Here's my favorite so far. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ObDz2JQfhTE/SM3hv7Z9o7I/AAAAAAAAApA/3ID95GvI33s/s400/SPVP.bmp[/img]

TEEEEEEEJ

WHOOT!!! here's another one that's right up this messageboard's alley!!! [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ObDz2JQfhTE/SM3onqf5AQI/AAAAAAAAApI/Lx_S2jlV8-I/s400/spvpsuper.bmp[/img]

TEEEEEJ

^



Yeah... I guess only liberal women are supposed to be leaders.

:rolleyes:

I'd say this is pretty telling (it may not sounds like much, but as a lifetime Alaskan, I know it's huge). They aren't even all democrats.

The "infanticide" word is obviously inflammatory, yes, and I ain't touching the definition argument. I do find it interesting that Obama voted against the bill even when all his colleagues were voting for it. Even after the language he insisted on was added, he voted "no." Seems kind of extremist to me.

Cape Fetish, I'm not surprised by the rally. When you look at the numbers, the McCain/Palin ticket is seeing most of their gains among men, not women. I know some ladies are offended by McCain's pick, on the theory that he thinks they're dumb enough to vote with their gender, regardless of policy positions. But then there are the ladies who have become convinced that the Democrat leadership is irredeemably sexist; though most of those were planning to vote against Obama no matter what McCain did, they apparently feel vidicated that he picked a woman. There's some complex stuff going on there.

PJ

Palin's popularity rating in Alaska is only a miniscule 83%. Those people are clearly part of the vast 17%.

Sidestepping the serious debate here for a moment to promote JibJab and their hilarious satirical videos. Some may remember This Land from the 2004 campaign [img]http://aka.content.jibjab.com/thumb/ea97dacfe031c14030e512b552a589a65bc0569d[/img]. Here's their 2008 video, Time for Some Campaigning .

And, given the discussion about the nature of news programmes these days, I recommend What We Call the News (also hilarious, but I'll warn for what some might consider poor taste).


Wendy

My caveat, as usual, if you're pro-life, certainly. It's always extremist then by definition.

But if one is "pro-choice" (here are the terms of my argument), one of the important things to consider when evaluating Obama's "extremism" is the reality that a vote in these matters means to protect "choice." That's what pro-choice means in terms of legality and work in legislature as I understand it.

So I dug a little further and the history says that there were actually valid concerns on the issue of choice. It's super long, but well documented with quotes from the bills and background on the writers and participants.

The summary gives some necessary background for informed judgement:

I get from this that there are more attacks on "choice" at the state level. Also, in speaking of language added at the federal level:

Apparently SB 1082's companion bill was SB 1083 which did have extra alarming language not in the Federal BAIPA (mind you the federal vote is that of people like Sen. Boxer and Sen. Clinton used as the yardstick to brand Obama an abortion extremist).

Anyway, yes, SB 1082 was ammended, but it's companion SB 1083 was not, even though Obama offered Sen. Winkel (writer of SB 1082) the opportunity to do so as it was his right. But he didn't. In fact, Sen. Winkel tried to pass it (without any change) in 2004 as is and failed again along with five other "born alive" bills. (Obama was campaigning for US Senate and didn't take part in these decisions)

That's a whole lot of extremists.

Note the Illinois Planned Parenthood made the distinction between SB 1082 and SB 1083 in it's documents (which are incidentally linked to on factcheck--I can forgive them for not blaring this, the matter is just complicated ).

The article concludes:

Again, if you know this and read his record and still think he's extremist, then *shrug* that's what you believe. Logically, that might make Illinois' Planned Parenthood extremists and the rest of the General Assembly that voted against these bills. Nevermind that Illinois' Planned Parenthood actually approved of "compromise bill" with HB 984, I believe, which passed in 2005 (after fully clearing it, which Stanek reportedly did not want to do because she felt it "redundant").

From a pro-choice standpoint, after viewing a lot of the context, I don't find the evidence of "extremism" all that persuasive.

But "oversimplification?" Yes. Although I guess I'm a bit more sympathetic.



alcyone

Very interesting. Thanks for the details. I hadn't really looked into it personally.

PJ

So, after researching a lot more sources for the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's becoming clear that the government had a direct role in the shaping of the sub-prime mortgage market, the creation of the real estate bubble and the crisis in the financial markets today.

First, a Carter-era law known as the Community Redevelopment Act was created to allow low income families to buy their own homes. During the Clinton Administration, Clinton redefined the act and gave it some teeth by imposing financial penalties if banks did not loan money to low income home buyers. Along with the practically free money in terms of real interest rates along with the threat of penalties, banks relaxed many of their lending requirements and loaned money to virtually everyone who wanted it. Robert B. Reich, Clinton's Labor Secretary, verified on television that this information was correct.

Then there's Fannie Mae. Two recent CEO's of Fannie Mae were prominent Democrats, Franklin Raines (Clinton's Director of the Office of Management and the Budget) and Jim Johnson. Both are now primary economic advisors to Barack Obama. Both are under investigation for Enron-style accounting where the profits of Fannie Mae were drastically inflated in order to generate additional bonuses for their CEO's only to revise those profits after the bonuses were awarded. Franklin Raines alone collected $100 million in bonuses. Another prominent Democrat who also advises the Obama campaign, Jamie Gorelick, famous for writing the memo that created the "wall of separation" between the nation's law enforcement and intelligence services, pocketed millions as well.

In addition, Fannie Mae, along with Freddie Mac, offered incredible financing deals on sub-prime mortgages for home buyers who would not qualify at any bank due to credit risk. Since those two quasi-governmental entities have such a dominant presence in the mortgage market, banks had to match those deals in order to compete.

All of these factors helped to create the real estate bubble where people who could not afford to buy homes did buy homes. The Clinton Administration was directly responsible for the creation of the sub-prime mortgage market. With that result, a minor increase in interest rates burst the bubble as those risky home buyers defaulted on their adjustable rate mortgages and has resulted in the disasters at Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and so many other banks.

In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed a law to add a new agency to oversee and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of fears of insufficient oversight and signs of corruption. In addition, the administration was afraid insufficient reserve funds were being maintained at these quasi-governmental companies in case interest rates were to rise. Democrats like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd stopped the administration in its tracks, claiming that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not in trouble and any additional oversight and regulations were an attack on the poor, preventing the poor from buying homes. The Bush Administration got nowhere on new regulations.

In 2005, John McCain gave a speech on the floor of the Senate decrying insufficient oversight over the two mortgage agencies and sponsored a bill to regulate the two companies and add additional oversight, making similar arguments the administration had done two years earlier. Once again, Democrats stopped the bill, again accusing Republicans of wanting to keep poor people from buying homes.

Fast forward to 2008. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go into bankruptcy and the government has to bail them out at a cost of $200-300 billion of taxpayer money. And instead of being quasi-government agencies, they are now fully government agencies.

There is a lot of evidence that it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the Clinton Administration, that helped to create the real estate bubble that has now burst and is sending the economy into the tank and financial markets into turmoil.

Yet here's Obama blaming it on Republicans when the finger can be pointed straight at two men who are part of the Obama campaign who were intimately involved in the fall of Fannie Mae. Any time markets are distorted by government intervention, bubbles form and must eventually burst.

Obama wants more of the same and wants even more direct government involvement in the financial and mortgage markets.

Oh, and since 1989, guess who are the people who have gotten more political contributions from Fannie Mae than anyone else? Number one is Christopher Dodd, who along with Jim Johnson were embroiled in the Countrywide Mortgage scandal. Number two, despite having been in the US Senate for less than four years is... Barack Obama. Number three is Hillary Clinton. John McCain is so far down the list of 325 that he barely registers.

John McCain has called for a criminal investigation into Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac's fall and a commission to study new regulations. Guess who opposes such an investigation? Yep, Barack Obama, knowing that the ties to Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick will come to the foreground.

P.S. It occurred to me I never really identified what a bubble was in terms of economics. A bubble occurs under artificial circumstances that are not tied to market forces (supply/demand). In the case of a real estate bubble, artificially low interest rates promoted by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac plus the threat of government penalties caused lenders to loan money they otherwise would not have to people who couldn't actually afford a home.

A few people were appalled that McCain had accused Obama of wanting to teach sex ed to kindergartners. Not knowing much about the issue, I thought I'd do some research. Evidence shows that McCain was correct in his accusation that Obama wanted to teach sex education to kindergartners. The bill in question actually reads that sexually transmitted diseases and how they are passed were to be taught to any K-12 students. Uncovering the actual details of the syllabus show that for Illinois students ages 5-8 were to be taught the names of all body parts involved in sex, how the sexual act occurs, and the pleasures of masturbation. The syllabus also discusses same-sex relationships for students ages 5-8.

The exact text of the bill includes this passage:

Obama claimed that his bill only was meant to discuss inappropriate touching. Byron York of the National Review did an investigation and found that while that is in the bill, it was a very minor part and was not the primary focus of the bill. The primary purpose of the bill was to move sex education from grades 6-12 to occur from K-12. Parents were only given an opt-out provision for the teaching about the transmission and prevention of HIV.

Whether you approve of such a syllabus or not, John McCain was not incorrect in his ad.

I, myself, am making no judgments as to whether this type of curriculum is appropriate or not. That is not the purpose of this post. The purpose is to show that McCain has been unfairly maligned and accused of a false ad when in fact it is not false at all.

Here is a copy of the syllabus that is used for Illinois schools:

http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf

Students who are aged 5-8 are taught the Level 1 curriculum. When looking at the syllabus, just search for "Level 1" repeatedly to find what is taught to the students.

Here is the actual NRO article .

It's very much a right publication, but the background it gives on the bill (especially in the quotes) is extremely helpful, even for people on the left.

The article covers the questions of what was the bill about, which groups/people sponsored it and why. It also quotes Obama's position on it in 2004 Senate race when he was accused by Keyes.

Very informative.

alcyone

For those who want to see a Sarah Palin interview (seeing as this is the Sarah Palin thread), she's being interviewed on Hannity and Colmes on the Fox News Channel today and tomorrow at 9 pm EDT/6 pm PDT.

The real biyatch about this situation is that now banks are so tight that my hubby and I, with our individual 700+ credit ratings, solid payment history and both working, now no longer qualify for a house loan because the companies we work for are contracting companies. My hubby got offered a position in AZ with the promise that he would be eventually hired(it's one of the reasons we moved) but now the company wants to hold off hiring until "the economy gets more solid". We are doing fine financially(the economy isn't depression era, I promise), but we can't get a house and don't want to pay for an apartment unless either of us have permanent jobs. I'm not suprised to see this closed door back pay stuff happening based on the folks involved, but it's annoyingly inconvienant.

Meantime, Sarah Palin is getting her email hacked by a left swung gossip group. Great ethics going there /sarc :rolleyes:

Thanks for the Hannity update Roger, I've been hearing about it on 100.3 Ktlk; I hope to catch it on TV tonight if the in laws'll relinquish the remote.

TEEEEEEEEEJ

TEEJ -

I thought of you guys as I was reading/hearing some of this.

And H/C is on twice .

Carol

Barack Obama has released a very offensive Spanish language ad by linking completely out-of-context comments by Rush Limbaugh with McCain. Anyone who has ever heard Limbaugh knows McCain is not exactly Limbaugh's favorite person, considering a large number of his parody skits are directed at McCain. To link them together, especially when Limbaugh opposed McCain every step of the way on illegal immigration, is disingenuous at best.

Here's a link to an ABC News piece about the complete distortions, i.e. lies, Obama has made in order to win the Hispanic vote.

Political Punch

What shocks me is that ABC News called him on it. That must mean ABC really thinks it's bad.

Just to even things out a bit:
The AP looks at the distortion/lies in both Obama and McCain's Spanish language ads.

The offense, I imagine is similar to the one I felt about the Sex Ed one. Speaking of that ad, I'd be remiss if I didn't post Factcheck's disagreement with York:

Factcheck bites York back.

alcyone

It seems to me FactCheck didn't read the syllabus that formed the basis of Senate Bill 99, which is the one I posted a link to, since they make no mention of it. While the bill does not explicitly say that kindergartners will be taught the names of body parts, how sex works, how same sex relationships work, and so on, the syllabus does show what it means by the phrase, "age appropriate."

By reading all the Level 1 entries, you can see what "age appropriate" meant to the authors of the bill for kindergartners. Whether Obama read it, I don't know so I cannot read his intent, seeing as he wasn't a co-sponsor. But given the syllabus used to formulate the bill, McCain's ad is accurate. Again, I make no value judgment about whether it's appropriate to teach kindergartners those types of things, but the syllabus goes beyond simply teaching kids about inappropriate touching.

As for Obama's ad using Limbaugh, the reason I found it offensive was the way Limbaugh's words were being taken completely out of context making him look like a racist, and by trying to tie McCain to Limbaugh, Obama tried to make McCain look like a racist. This one wasn't even close to being accurate on so many levels. Ads always stretch things, but this one was way over the line, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.

And it seems to me that you haven't read the Factcheck article. I find it hard to believe they haven't read the bill when they actually cite SB 99 and dissect it at length, based on the exact wording.

Its conclusion is:

The extremely partisan defense of the ad is the very definition of a specious argument. It's quite obvious what the insinuation was and what kind of disturbing image it was supposed to send. The distortion becomes even more evident when you read what's actually on the bill, who sponsored it and the intention of the interested parties.

I won't defend the Obama ad. I am not so blinded by my ideology that I don't recognize when the truth is twisted beyond recognition.

alcyone

I think you misread what I wrote. I said they failed to read what was behind the bill. They may have read the bill but not the source material used to make the bill. Did you read the syllabus? I read the bill, the syllabus, and the FactCheck article. My claim is that they didn't read the syllabus behind the bill. It's the syllabus that defined the details of what "age appropriate" meant. They gave no indication that they did since it wasn't mentioned. I found a hole in their research. While it doesn't invalidate all of their research, it does leave them open to the wrong conclusion.

If I had only read the bill and FactCheck, I probably would have come up with the same conclusion they did, but they didn't go deep enough.

And if you had read my disclaimers, I gave Obama an out, recognizing he may not have read the syllabus. If he had, perhaps he would have voted no, or perhaps not. I don't know. My point was only to prove the ad wasn't false. No more, no less. If this had been ideology driven, I wouldn't have given him the out.

Here's the relevant disclaimer I posted earlier:

Starting to get personal, are you?

The bill was not Obama's one accomplishment and it was not to teach explicit sex education to young children.

Nevermind how inaccurate it is to call is Obama's one accomplishment, which is the more explicitly false claim. That last is the main insinuation that carries the ad and the reason why it's so shocking. I see nothing in your post or the York article that counters this.

I do see however a lot of partisan defense for a candidate's distortion of the truth under the interrogation of "age appropriate" and questioning the importance of "inappropriate touching" based on the syllabus used to formulate the bill.

Oh, and--

The actual bill reads at the beginning:

This why I trust factcheck more. Their agenda is to contextualize the facts in their situation, no wonder there are loopholes--those are what is needed to twist the facts one way or another.

This argument and York's switches from the facts to a defense that only has currency from a conservative perspective, but tries to sell itself as somehow neutral. It's that false pretense of neutrality that I take issue with.

Apparently there is a history that a lot of people from the left recognize with respect to sex ed and politics, btw (speaking of partisan interpretations).

I'm not enthused that National Journal said Obama was number one most liberal or whatever, and Media Matters gave some "loopholes" to question that, but ultimately they're biased and National Journal is not, which is why a partisan defense of those findings is nothing more than that: a partisan defense.

Likewise, when the only places that support a certain interpretation are conservative spaces, it's very clear we're not in the realm of facts anymore.

Without facts through a common ground (something deemed "non-partisan"), any sort of dialogue is impossible.

alcyone

PS ABC is known by some in the left as "Fox-lite."

ETA: Politifact also factchecks with the same result.

Umm, did you actually watch the ad? It never used the word, "explicit." It quoted the bill with the use of the phrase, "comprehensive sex education." When you used the word, "explicit," that set off all sorts of warning bells so I went back to watch the ad again, twice just to make sure I didn't miss anything. That word appears nowhere in the ad, nor does any other word that's similar in meaning.

As for "one accomplishment," it's all in the eye of the beholder what is classified as an accomplishment. That's an opinion, not one subject to fact checking. My opinion is that he hasn't accomplished a thing, so McCain gives him more credit than I do.

Now yes, he did get it wrong with the quote allegedly from the Chicago Tribune. Big deal. That's about the only thing you could say was inaccurate. The quote was real, just the attribution was wrong.

I have never heard ABC called Fox-lite. If anything, conservatives consider ABC the enemy. That Charles Gibson is such a conservative, right?

Here's a sample of those questions:

Gibson to Obama: "How do you spell C-A-T?"
EDIT: Better question: "What's your favorite color?" <g>

Gibson to Palin: "What's the average airspeed of an unladen swallow?"
Palin to Gibson: "African or European?"
Gibson to Palin: "Gotcha!"

<bg>

Umm, did you actually read my post? I said:

I won't press the issue of "one accomplishment" further.

I'm not surprised. You don't strike me as the type to trawl through the left blogosphere much. Or at all.


alcyone

I do occasionally read DU and DK just to find out what the other side is saying. These days I've been going through the HillaryClintonForum and finding it amusing what those people think. I don't do it that frequently, so I must have missed those references to ABC News. You may be surprised that I don't read any conservative blogs. I find it funny when you say I'm spewing things straight out of the conservative blogs that I've never read. LOL

My favorite political links are to Fox News, since I can't get any real news from anywhere else <g>, RealClearPolitics, and opinionjournal.com. I spend more time reading about football and Apple (Macintoshes and iPods/iPhones) than I do about politics. One of my favorite things to read on foxnews.com is the frequent columns by that ultraconservative Susan Estrich. She has to be since so many people tell me there are no liberal voices on Fox News. <g>

I do venture over to cnn.com, abcnews.com, cbsnews.com, and so on on occasion just also to find out what the opposition is saying or more importantly, isn't bothering to cover.

You know, this has been a really interesting thread to read. I'll rephrase that old statement "The first casualty of war is truth" - The first casualty of politics is truth.

No one should be taking blogs seriously as hard information - they're only quick fire opinion pieces at the best of times.

Perhaps that consumer warning applies to all major network news , too.

The old fairy tale,The Emperor Has No Clothes, has become a parable for these treacherously "interesting times".

c.

In the interest of fairness and courtesy, I'd like to propose something.

Here’s a test. After you read both of these totally fake, completely fictitious, and absolutely made-up news releases, let me know which one is biased. And for the purposes of this test, please ignore any scientific or technical limitations which might exist in the real world.

[Disclaimer]
(Note: The information contained in these news releases is UNTRUE and should NOT be taken seriously!)
[/Disclaimer]

Which one is biased? Careful. The answer may surprise you.

Give up? The answer is: both of them are biased.

Here’s how this works. While both blurbs list the same claim and both quote the same two authorities, the first one is biased towards the truth of Dr. Freedman’s assertion while the second is biased against it. Human psychology is the key. We tend to recall the first few items and the last few items of a long list, especially if we have no more than a passing acquaintance with them. For example, a beginning chemistry student with no previous study would tend to recall the first few and the last few elements in the periodic table after the first attempt to memorize it. And our minds work the same way with short stories and quick news releases.

A listener or reader would, after a single exposure to the first release, be slightly more willing to believe that personal fusion reactors are just around the corner because the release ends on a positive note. A listener or reader would, after a single exposure to the second release, be slightly more willing to class Dr. Freedman’s claims with phrenology, eugenics, and claims of invaders from Mars in New York and London because the release ends on a negative note.

My point is simple. There is no such thing as a completely unbiased news organization. No matter who reports the news, there will be a bias there. It may be subtle, it may be difficult to detect, it may be very tiny, but there will be one. We just can’t help it.

Human nature is such that we cannot be completely objective. Our personal worldview and our beliefs and convictions will affect us whether we are aware of it or not. I would ask that we please keep that in mind as we discuss (in a civil tone, I hope) politics and religion, those two hottest of hot-button issues.

You won't find any argument from me. I've said time and time again that everything is biased and because of that context is paramount.

Now, that doesn't mean that everything is equally biased. Certain outlets are held to higher standards that others. Certain organizations have a longer history than others, are affiliated explicitly with a particular view, etc. That's why exploring the specifics of the organization/writer that provides the information is so important.

Not because it is "the truth," because reaching such a thing is impossible (everyone makes mistakes/the writer is not the organization/has his own views/the readers might interpret it differently/so on)--but because from the recognized bias and general background one gets an idea of how much to trust a source--the difference between The National Enquirer and The National Journal, to be dramatic. But it's not as much an issue of absolutes as it is of degree.

Also, as in with the difference between an article versus a poll/numeric chart there are some sources that leave more room for interpretation than others.

I said it before in the global warming thread and I think it bears mentioning again that whatever "truth" we have that is not narrowly mapped out by science/personal belief system is put into play (so to speak) through consensus. I think this makes it doubly important that one be as informed as possible.

alcyone

ETA: For anyone interested, neoliberal Slate comments on Gibson-Palin interview 1 and 2 . As you can expect, it takes a completely different perspective than what I've seen represented on the boards. I believe this sort of perspective is why some from the left refer to ABC as Fox-lite. The thought that it gets fire from both sides is heartening to me.

I said that I wasn't going to join the Palin debate, but I saw something in today's New York Times that I just have to comment on. According to NYT, when Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the town made rape victims pay for their own rape kits and forensics exams. Which means that if a woman was raped and she didn't have perhaps a thousand dollars to spare, she couldn't afford to get legal evidence that she had been raped, and there would be no forensic evidence against the rapist.

Is it really true that Wasilla wouldn't pay for rape kits and forensic exams for rape victims? I don't know. I only read that claim in the New York Times. The article sounds reliable to me, but, as I said, ultimately I don't know if it tells me the truth. But if indeed it does, and Wasilla under Palin really made rape victims pay for their own rape kits even though the town helped other victims of crime for nothing, then I find this discrimination against rape victims totally shocking, and just about incredibly sexist.

The article is here .

Ann

As I understand it... The victim's insurance company was billed through the hospital and, if convicted, the costs were recouped from the perpetrator. It would be similar, I suppose, to filing a claim with your homeowner's insurance for goods that were stolen and then the ins. co [and possibly you] suing the perpetrator for reimbursement of those costs at a later date. The city/state/whoever doesn't cover the costs of goods lost anywhere, afaik. The same? No, of course not, but a similar MONETARY principle [I'm not talking about the emotional etc., but ONLY the monetary aspect].

That said, I believe it's a City Council decision how to handle those things and not a mayoral one. Part of the separation of powers bit. So just because she was mayor doesn't mean that SHE was making victims or alleged victims pay for them.

Perhaps someone else - RL? - has more info on how this works, but that's my understanding of how those things work.

Carol

Thanks for the info, Carol. In view of what you told me, is it a moderately common practice in the United States to let rape victims pay for their own rape kits and forensic exams through their insurance? And if so, does that mean that women who haven't got insurance have to pay the full cost of the rape kit and forensic exams themselves?

Ann

Ann - Each area is different. I did read a couple articles about it and it seems that Wasilla was the only one in Alaska this way, but the articles I did read were blatantly anti-Palin [will look for more later] so I don't know if they were including... not misinformation, but not including all details. I do know it had to do with a bill the former Gov. signed that said municipalities were supposed to pay for them but offered no reimbursement [on a federal level these are 'unfunded mandates' and a cost analysis has to be done now before they go through in large part because so many unfunded mandates were being pushed through Congress and state/local governments simply could not afford them but had to do them anyway]. On a federal level, in order to qualify for grants under the Violence Against Women Act, *states* are supposed to cover the costs and not pass it on to victims. It seems Alaska may have been passing that cost on to municipalities.

According to City Data [and I have no idea how accurate it is, though the stats for my town that's slightly bigger than Wasilla seems pretty accurate], there's been between 1 and 3 rapes per year this century. I'm guessing those are convictions not accusations, but I don't know that. I have no idea what the average number of rape kits v. convictions are.

This is a US News article from Feb. that talks about this in other places [as Palin wasn't even in the news at this point].

More info is needed IMO about how Wasilla government works and how those decisions are arrived at and whether the state was basically passing an unfunded mandate to pass those costs onto municipalities instead of funding the costs through the state budget. I'd also be more interested to know what, if anything changed between then and when she became governor and if anything was done about it then [if anything needed to be depending on what exactly state law was when she took office].

Carol

Edit: Missed the part about those without insurance - in some places there are charitable organizations etc that will help with expenses incurred. I would think that it's very possible as well, that hospitals would write off those charges if asked [though the victim would have to ask] and try to get reimbursed through the state or by the perpetrator.

Thanks for the additional info, Carol.

A few days ago there was a sensationalist column in the Swedish tabloid Expressen, written by a very popular writer of crime fiction, Liza Marklund . In this column, Marklund painted a horrible picture of what the future United States would be like if McCain/Palin won the upcoming election. One of Marklund's main points was that rapists would be able to roam the country and rape women at their hearts' content, since their victims, the raped women, wouldn't be able to pay for the evidence needed to get the rapists convicted.

Here is Liza Marklund's column, in Swedish of course. The last line of her column reads, 'God help us if McCain wins the election'. The caption under the picture reads, 'In the United States of Sarah Palin women have to arm themselves, because if they get raped they have to pay for parts of the police investigation themselves'.

Marklund's column did not seem serious to me. How can she claim to know what McCain/Palin's policy on rape will be, if they become President and VP? There is no way any of us can know the future. And I had read nothing that suggested that McCain and Palin were the least bit lenient on rape.

However, now that I have read that article in the New York Times, I understand what sort of info Marklund has come across. Clearly it has to do with Palin's record as mayor of Wasilla, and Wasilla's policy of billing rape victims for rape kits and forensic exams.

I understand very well that Palin was not the dictator of Wasilla, and that she was not responsible for all the political decisions there. I'm not really interested in trying to sort out exactly what sort of responsibility she had for the treatment of rape victims there.

But something else is important to me. Good judgement is important to me. Which is why I wonder if Palin will go on record saying that if she becomes VP, she will fight for rape victims' right to have a forensic exam free of charge. In my opinion, she should say just that. She may not have been responsible for the rape victim policy in Wasilla, but her own views on rape become suspect because of what things were like in that town. Will Palin have the courage and strength of character to say that although raped women were billed for their rape kits in Wasilla when she was mayor there, she will do her very best to see to it that all American women who need a rape kit and a forensic exam free will get it free of charge, if she becomes VP of the United States?

The alternative for Sarah Palin, as I see it, is to either refuse to talk about rape or Wasilla in the first place, or else to insist that it is a good policy to bill rape victims for the forensic evidence they need. Either alternative, and particularly the last one, will make many women both in the United States and abroad quite horrified. And even if McCain and Palin can win the upcoming election anyway, it is a bad idea to start off a presidency by making people horrified at one's apparent policy on rape. It is not a sign of good judgement.

Ann

I would like to mention that this is a state and local issue for which the federal government has little to no say. It doesn't matter what their (McCain and Palin, nor Obama and Biden for that matter) opinions are since they don't control local crime policies. Many people not from the US aren't familiar with the concept of federalism where most matters are actually the responsibility of localities and not the federal government.

There are federal crimes that encompass crimes that cross state lines or are committed on federal property but the vast majority of crimes are matters for state and local laws.

This concept is why so many strict constructionists (those who believe the Constitution should be adhered to as intended and not as a living document) oppose the federal Education Department as well as hot button issues like Roe v. Wade. Strict constructionists feel these are issues to be decided by the states and localities, not the feds. The reason for this is the 10'th Amendment of the Constitution which states that any responsibilities not given to the federal government and not denied to the states is exclusively the domain of the states.

A little known thing is that even if Roe v. Wade were to overturned, not much would change since the decision would revert to the states. I saw a study a while back that said perhaps eight states would pass abortion bans while the rest would leave things the way they are. Most people are told that if the case were to be overturned that abortion would be immediately banned in all 50 states. That's not the case.

That's all I'll ever say on that issue, btw. It is used merely as an illustration of how federalism works.

Education is not even mentioned in the Constitution, which is why so many strict constructionists believe the federal government should butt out of an exclusively state issue.

Ann,

Gov. Palin has already issued a statement that she “does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.”

Jim Geraghty writes:

When the practice came to light, the state passed a law banning it, and the minutes from the state-legislature committees reveal several missing details. Among them:

1.Wasilla was not mentioned in any of the hearings. In a conference call with reporters earlier this month, Tony Knowles (the man Palin beat in her governor’s race) claimed Wasilla was the lone town with the practice. This isn’t true.

In fact, at a Finance Committee hearing, Representative Gail Phillips (R., Homer) “read for the record, a statement from a woman in Juneau who had experienced the charges as indicated.”

In six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged.

2. The deputy commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Public Safety told the State Affairs Committee that he has never found a police agency that has billed a victim. In light of Wasilla’s low number of rapes according to available FBI statistics (one to two per year, compared to Juneau’s 30-39), and the fact that the Wasilla Finance Department cannot find any record of charging a victim for a rape kit, it is entirely possible that no victim was ever charged.

To clarify: In preparation to attend a hearing and support the bill, one of the state’s top law-enforcement officials found no case of a rape victim ever being charged. And roughly a month after 30 Democratic lawyers, investigators, and opposition researchers, not to mention reporters from every major news agency in the country, landed in Alaska, we still have no instances to consider.

3. Three times, witnesses told the committees that hospitals were responsible for passing the bill on to victims, not police agencies. This information also fortifies Palin’s claim that she was never aware of the policy, as it is more plausible that a mayor would not be aware of a private hospitals’ billing policy than of the police department’s billing policy.

At one of the meetings, Trisha Gentile, executive director of the Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, said some Alaska hospitals “have chosen to separate some of the costs of sexual-assault exams. Hospitals are adding sexually-transmitted-disease (STD) and blood tests to the cost of sexual-assault exams, and the hospital makes a choice to bill the victim for those charges. Police departments are willing to pay for sexual assault exams, but it is an internal decision on the part of the hospital as to who pays the hospital bill.” (emphasis mine)

From the beginning, the story didn’t seem to add up. Nothing in Sarah Palin’s background suggested a callousness to rape victims; it seemed particularly unlikely that a female mayor would support such a bad policy.

Since I assume that most of you have never had to deal with this, I thought I'd point you to this article , which describes what it's like to be subjected to the rape kit collection process.

I found the story to be very similar to my situation. It begins to capture the humiliation of standing completely naked on butcher paper as someone intensely scrutinizes every inch of your body in a brightly lit room and the embarrasment of having to tell mutliple health and law officials about the exact details of what happened. It gives people an idea of how long the process takes...but of course, the rape kit collection process is just the beginning of a long investigation process.

As a victim, I never was told about the status of the investigation. I assumed, as anyone would, that the rape kit would be processed and that might lead to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator (who was a stranger). Imagine how I must have felt when I learned that the city of San Diego had disposed of over 100,000 rape kits that had never been processed because the backlog was too great and the statute of limitations had run out on the cases. The police certainly never notified victims that this had occured - I had to find out about it through a newspaper investigation. This has happened time and time again throughout the country.

The rape kit collection process made me feel like just another victim. The lackluster investigation made me feel like just another victim. The unprocessed dna evidence that had been collected then thrown away was the final indignity. It's difficult enough for rape victims to come forward in the first place - we don't need to be victimized by the legal system as well.

This is all I'm gonna say....

So, when do we see the apology from those who have jumped to conclusions about Gov. Palin and accused her of some pretty nasty things? And will we get a link from the Swedish columnist when she writes her apology column?

I don't expect to see either, frankly. Truth should not get in the way of good political mud-slinging.

Trinity, I couldn't see that video. All I got was a message that it wasn't available in my country.

And Terry, it's not as if I regularly read that tabloid, Expressen, where Liza Marklund wrote her column about Sarah Palin. I happened to buy it the day Expressen ran it. And it's not as if I keep track of Marklund's columns. But I agree with your assessment that it is exceedingly unlikely that Marklund will apologize. Columnists who attack politicians whose views they don't share hardly ever apologize for their attacks, or at least it seems that way to me. Moreover, based on the general impression I have of Liza Marklund (and of Sarah Palin), I would guess that Marklund thinks that she has nothing to apologize for.

Ann

Sorry, Ann. That video was a skit of a show here called Saturday Night Live spoofing Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. It's copyrighted so there's no full version anywhere else that I can see.

I have no clue on what the facts are of the rape kit in particular. However, from what I've gathered of Sarah Palin, she tends to say one thing and act another and I've come to the conclusion that nothing she says should be taken at face value. She seems perfectly capable of denying events/facts exist, even when there is recorded evidence to prove her wrong or to be 'being economical with the truth'.

And, Terry - I've seen nothing to suggest that those who've questioned Sarah Palin's character or suitability for office have been wrong. Quite the opposite. So...no apologies necessary there, imo.

Have you called, incidentally, for apologies from those who continually try to suggest that Obama's name is so close to Bin Laden's he must be a terrorist? Or that he's a Muslim, so he must be a terrorist? If not, you have no grounds to complain/demand apologies when your own candidate is targeted. Fair play and respect for all, please. Not just for those you agree with.

LabRat

Whatever your personal views of Palin may be, the facts speak for themselves.

Crime statistics show one (1) reported rape in the city of Wasilla between the time Palin was elected and the time the law was changed. City financial records indicate no rape victim was billed for rape kits while Palin was mayor; women *were* charged in other cities in Alaska, including Juneau.

Although rape victims in Alaska are no longer billed for rape kits, US World and News Reports reported this past February that rape victims continue to be charged for forensic exams in Illinois, Georgia and Arkansas. This, despite HB1814 , the bill sponsored by Obama in 2000. Obama's bill states that crime victims are entitled to compensation (that is, rape victims can file a claim to be reembursed for the charge of rape kits) IF the application is filed within 2 years of the crime, law enforcement officials were notified with 72 hours of the perpetration of the crime, the applicant cooperated fully with law enforcement officials, and the injury of the victim was not substancially attributable to his(her) own wrongful act, and was not provoked by the victim.

Labby, you say you don't know the facts of the rape kit case first-hand, yet you conclude that "nothing she says should be taken at face value." It's a good thing she's not a member of this board, or that might be construed as a flame.

And saying:
misses my point completely. I was referring only to those who have either left feedback or who were referenced in this thread. Sarah Marklund of Sweden is, as Ann said, unlikely to apologize for her characterization of the governor.

Just to be clear, Ann linked to that editorial in the New York Times by Dorothy Samuels slamming Sarah Palin for what has turned out to be a false report and incorrectly called it an article. I don't know what the accepted practice is in either Sweden or Britain, but over on this side of the pond, an "article" is supposed to be a news item, not an expression of someone's opinion. And yes, I know that every news source is biased, as Alcyone has stated. And no, I doubt that Ms. Samuels plans to print an apology.

You also wrote:
which seems to be a bit harsh, especially since the Democrats over here haven't caught her in a deliberate lie. You can be sure that if they had, it would be all over the news channels and would have been trumpeted by Joe Biden during the VP candidate debate last night. If you have such proof, I would like to read it. I don't want to support a candidate who lies repeatedly.

I have not read anything in this thread about Barack Obama being a Muslim or a terrorist. And I don't believe that he is either one. I disagree with his stated policies and political beliefs, but I do not think he is an evil person. I have nothing personal against him at all. My comments were not prompted by attacks against "my candidate." If posters in this thread were making unwarranted attacks on Senator Obama, I would feel the same way. I want to know the truth, an chiding me for expressing my desire for those truths isn't productive.

In the interest of fairness there's been quite a bit of "flaming" towards Obama on the boards, definitely more hostility towards him than towards Palin, so I do think that the defensiveness is a bit uneven.

The hoopla around "lipstickgate" was pretty unwarranted imo.

And generally that's why I stopped posting--it seems that "unwarranted" is in the eye of the beholder too.

alcyone

I think that there appears to have been some merit in that report, although it turns out to be unfair to single out Wasilla (and Sarah Palin) for a practice that appears to have been in effect in other parts of the United States, too.

But, Terry, you are right that I called an editorial an article. That was wrong and misleading, and I apologize for that.

Ann

That's an interesting observation. My perception of this thread and other political threads on these boards is that there has been very little flaming of either Obama or Pailin. Of course, there has been criticism of both candidates, but that's to be expected in discussions of this sort.

Also it strikes me that there has been not been substantially more hostility to one candidate than another. It may be, Alcyone, that you percieve that there has been more toward Obama because he has been a candidate for a much longer time than has Palin and so there have been more comments about him? Just a thought.

Actually I haven't detected much *hostility* (although there has been some) -instead, what I have sensed is a respect by most commentators for the 'other' side's candidate even as they critique that person.

This is not to say that some people haven't offered up quickly written and unsupported generalizations, both for or against either candidate, but that's the nature of mbs , here or elsewhere. MSM too.

Also, these "hasty generalizations" have hardly ever crossed the line into "flames", imo.

btw , and this is very OT, are sites like Salon, Huffington Post, etc now considered MSM? (I have such a short attention span these days )

c.

"Sir, I disagree with what you have said but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
(attributed to Voltaire)

To specify, I was taking issue with Terry's assertion that Palin just got "flamed." And I put it in scare quotes for a reason. Terry said:

I really don't want get into the gray area of the hows and whys of the hostility I've seen, so let me walk that back and suppose, okay *qualitatively* they've been criticized about the same (I don't feel this, but for the sake of argument...). Under that metric then they both got "flamed" or neither did.

Quantitatively, however, there's been significant pro-right voices over pro-left voices. So that's a more tangible reason why Terry's protests over Palin's treatment on the boards (how many questioned her again? Two?) appears harsh and uneven to me.

I was thinking specifically about this thread, plus the Wall Street thread. So, not from where I'm standing.

But complaining (as far as my feelings about hostility and the number of voices on one side or another go), I want to stress, was never the point.

My statements centered around Terry's strong assertion (to the extent of stating Palin got "flamed") that Palin was somehow recieving "unwarranted attacks" on the boards supported by some implicitly objective metric ("My comments were not prompted by attacks against "my candidate."[...]"), that he would also stand up if the same had been thrown at Obama.

That claim shows me that "unwarranted" is not really an objective judgement though its being presented as such (it's that last part that strikes me). As I mentioned, in light of the support Palin has recieved on this thread, the lack of objectivity (the "uneveness") in that statement/defense becomes all the more clear to me.

alcyone

Speaking about hostility and flaming, this is from today's Washington Post:

This sounds really bad to me, and it smacks of the Swift Boat campaign that helped George W. Bush defeat John Kerry. I'm still appalled at how the GOP smear campaign managed to make a decorated Vietnam war hero look cowardly compared with a man who never served his country in Vietnam at all, perhaps thanks to his infuential father. Well, I think I understand why the Swift Boat campaign worked, and it was not because Americans were almost criminally gullible and willing to listen to anything the GOP said. No, it was because most Americans wanted to give Bush more time to win the war on terror that he himself had started. Most Americans probably felt, and probably rightly so, that John Kerry wouldn't be as committed to winning the Iraq war as George Bush would be. To put it simply, the question of who had been a war hero in the past paled beside the question of who would be a war hero in the present.

Well, the American people shouldn't feel obliged to give McCain more time to steer America down a path along which America has already been shooed for almost eight years now. I fervently hope that a GOP smear campaign won't work this time.

Ann

I very much want to know if either of the candidates for president has executed bad judgment in the past. I also want to know if either has been, or is being, dishonest. And, yes, I want to know who their friends are, who their mentors were, who they listen to and who's opinions they respect. These are all valid areas in inquiry, as far as I am concerned.

It is only a "smear campaign" if the allegations are known to be false by the persons making or repeating them. Or if the persons repeating the charge have no idea what the facts are, but repeat the allegations anyway. Or, if the "search" for facts was one-sided. For example, if a liberal repeated an allegation against the GOP, after having "verified" the charge by looking for confirmation in the New York Times. I would call that a "smear".

I think I must not be understanding this comment because it reads as though "criticize" means the same as "flame". That's not what you meant, is it?

Ann, I agree with your concern that attacks on character can easily cross the line into "Swift Boating" a candidate. But remember that character attacks have been a feature of this campaign from the beginning. All candidates have engaged in it. Remember too that the NY Times is pro- Democrat ( but I have no idea what on earth Maureen Dowd is . ) and that bias is often evident in its selection of news items.

Vicki raises a good point - we need to assess the integrity of the people we vote for, as well as their experience and their policies. Their character is a legitimate concern for voters. But sometimes campaigns cross the line into what's now become known as 'Swfit boating".

btw, what to make of Biden's reference to Franklin Roosevelt being President in 1929 and his television chats? Did he mean that as a joke?

The New Scientist has an interesting article on political spin in the sept 17 issue. Not sure any of the candidates would be too happy with it. The chart alone is worth looking at.

New Scientist: Political Spin

c.

From my point of view there have been very few to no attacks on any of the candidates that don't have some sort of backing from other sources, though of course everyone is entitled to ignore or disagree with the sources presented. None of the criticisms have come out of left field. Of course, liberals have a much easier time when virtually the entire media is on their side. When conservatives are left with basically the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (the main paper is very liberal, and oddly liberal Al Hunt is the editor of the editorial section), Fox News, the Boston Herald, the New York Post, and the Washington Times, we have to rely on liberals to criticize their own when coming up with evidence against them, seeing as the use of any of the sources above or the blogosphere are immediately discounted by leftists. Fortunately, that's not too hard to do since there's so much to criticize about them that they eventually leak into the leftist press. <beg>

I will have to say that the blogosphere, though rarely used as a source here, has its own uses especially when the MSM ignores certain issues, and they do so often. Without the blogosphere, Dan Rather's fraud against President Bush with those forged documents would never have come to light.

I'm still wondering why people are criticizing the Swift Boat Veterans so much as a tool of the right, especially since they weren't. Agree with them or not, they independently formed out of people who had served with John Kerry, not all of them being right wing Republicans. Many of the members were liberals who supported other Democratic candidates. Their chief spokesman was an Edwards supporter. When all but four of the people who served with him joined the group (who were still alive), and only one of those four came out to support Kerry, that tells me there's something to them. It seems to me, though, that the left wanted to delegitimize them somehow as a defense of Kerry by casting them all as the far right wing. Perhaps the men were angry that Kerry had turned into a big anti-war activist who accused his fellow soldiers of killing civilians deliberately, and were making everything up. We'll never know since we weren't with those men. But to dismiss them out of hand as a tool of the right wing shows a disregard of the mounds of eye witness testimony they produced.

You can even say that the left invented things about Bush when it came to his Air National Guard service to unjustly smear him. It was a myth that his dad got him in when the man in charge of recruiting said that there was no waiting list for officers, only for enlisted men. It was a myth that he had tried to avoid combat when he volunteered three times for Palace Alert, a program that would have sent him immediately to Vietnam. He was turned down by his superiors each time because he lacked sufficient hours in his jet. It was also little known that his unit was actually in Vietnam at the time he joined, but had returned by the time he completing basic training. To me, that doesn't sound like a coward who was trying to avoid combat at all costs.


It's quite well known that Joe Biden makes A LOT of gaffes when he isn't reading prepared material. I think he just didn't think through his answer very well and said something that gave his opponents a lot to laugh about. I'm sure if he sat down and thought about it, he would have remembered that Hoover was president and that TV's didn't reach the American public until the early 1950's. Most will just laugh and say, "Oh, that's just Joe."

Another recent Joe gaffe was when he insisted he would never support clean coal ("Not here in America!"), only to be reminded that his boss supported clean coal. He then had to backtrack and claim he'd always supported it and was merely misquoted, despite his voting record that was solidly against clean coal. That was one of his whoppers in the debate. I'm not sure why he had to do that since no two people agree on everything. Just as an example, it's well known Palin and McCain disagree on drilling in ANWR.

Of course not. As I stated before, I'm responding to Terry's assertion that Labrat's Palin skepticism was equal to "flaming." I even quoted his exact words.

And like I said, I disagree with that assertion since I don't see Palin getting significantly different treatment on the boards than Obama.

That is all.

I also wanted to weigh in on the bias, because I initially did think there was a pro-left bias (as does a majority of people according to Gallup). But after digging around about bias quite a bit, I don't think that liberal bias is to the proportions that the right claims it is. For one, I've seen both sides make complaints about the MSM and I've noticed a conservative presence even in so-called liberal newspapers (gasp! ). There was also that study I posted on in the Gibson interview thread, which went counter to what I thought, so I decided to be more skeptical.

Now, does that mean I think that there is no bias? That wouldn't be accurate either in my view. What seems reasonable to me is that it shifts up and down depending on what story garners the most interest at any given cycle. The most salacious story will be given the most interest regardless who is at the center. I think it's more about what pays the bills than ideology in the mainstream.

I just don't buy that just because media people vote democratic that they're all out to get republicans. That's too big a jump for me. I should make it clear that while I wouldn't deny that people's beliefs influence them, I don't think it's to the extent that the right makes it out to be with this liberal conspiracy theory.

alcyone

PS
Factcheck has a fact-filled article on one of the Swiftboat smear ads, most people link them to the right because more than half their funding according to the IRS was from prominent members of the Republican party.

This is a small detail, Carol, but since you seemed to say that to me, I want to point out that I'm fully aware that the New York Times is a liberal newspaper promoting liberal ideas (although they do have a few conservative columnists too, among them William Kristol), and I also want to point out that I don't always quote the New York Times. In my post about the upcoming GOP smear campaign, I quoted the Washington Post.

Ann

(emphasis mine)

It hasn't even happened yet, but I see your mind is already made up. You have determined in advance that any criticisms made by the GOP regarding Obama's judgment, honesty, or associates will be, ipso facto, lies and smears.

And you'd expect their funding to come from pro-Kerry, left-wing sources? After they formed, of course they'd go to more right wing sources for money. To do otherwise would be like Bush going to Hollywood for a fundraiser. He'd get, what? Maybe three people who'd donate to him? And of those, maybe only one who would admit to donating? To say that right wing sources funded the Swift Boaters is rather an obvious statement. Who else would give them money when their objective was to take down the Democratic nominee? I would have expected it to be 100%, not just more than half. That doesn't mean they're a creation of the right wing or that they had anything to do with the Republican Party. That just means when they needed money for their political activities, they knew where to go.

You go where the donations are, just as I'd expect MoveOn.org's funding to come from prominent Democratic sources. I simply can't imagine them going up to Richard Mellon Scaife for a donation, would you?

I would define bias as more that not using objective standards when covering a candidate.

Bias is also there in the application of more rigorous standards to one candidate than the other. (for example, using follow-up questions more on one candidate than the other). As well it's there in the selection of material that's presented plus the time alloted to each candidate.

two example from recent news: (neither American, btw just to show that I'm as critical of other media, too )

1. Tom Clark, who's US bureau chief for CTV- News (a major Canadian network_ reporting on the CTV news channel about the US VP debate was critical of Palin but did not mention any of the factual errors that Biden made during the debate.

2. I was watching last night's BBC news. They had an item on the latest US election poll. Then they cut to a clip of Obama on stage making a speech - the clip was long enough for him to present a list of what he stands for and also to criticise McCain. In the interest of balanced reporting, what I would then have expected a similar clip of McCain. But there was nothing, only one simple sentence that McCain was campaigning.

I'm going to repeat here what I've said before - I'm not a conservative. Palin has some beliefs and views that I don't.

But I've been dismayed by the bias shown in this election by both the MSM and by websites like Salon, Slate, The Huffington Post, etc. This goes beyond editorial and journalist's columns. It's there in the selection of material for news reports, in the narrative used to cover political events, the amount of time/space given to candidates, the headlines used, the visuals, etc.

Ann, I apologise for thinking you were quoting the NY Times rather than the Post. But yes, I'm aware that the Times have a few conservative writers - that was the point of my , I admit snarky, comment about Dowd )

Thanks for clarifying what you meant Alcyone.

c.

If Moveon.org was behind an attack on a Republican candidate (as they have been in this cycle with some ads) then most people would associate that attack with the left. It wouldn't be an unreasonable link, so it's an obvious statement, of course. I don't see what you're refuting. In my eyes it's quite obvious that they are a tool of the right.

But I do know the benefit of the doubt is pretty one-sided here, so I'll leave it there, before we get into semantics and what "tool" or "right" or "Republican Party" means.

Like I said in my post above, in my view the bias is towards what sells. Palin as the new addition to politics will sell stories, so reporters will pursue dirt on her at the expense of others. That is because as it goes nice stories don't sell as much as tabloid junk. Same with Obama when you place him side by side with McCain (the more appropriate comparison for coverage imo), people want to see the new kid, unless they have something else to go on. Again, the bias I see has to do with what generates money. The two examples above actually fit cleanly into this, even being outside of the US.

Also I question the unproblematic assertion (mostly peddled by the right) that Obama hasn't been vetted by the media. That's a double standard in play. As the study results suggest (the ones I posted in the interview thread), once the gen elections started the media was much more critical of Obama than McCain (again fitting into the "new kid" theory). And according to that study IIRC up until the Girbson interview the Palin coverage was pretty positive. Following the right's complaints about the Gibson-Palin interview, I immediately remembered that debate in the primaries where Obama got questioned pretty harshly about flagpins and so on--that was when he was new--and quite a few people from the right enjoyed that grilling (lol even the Bush Doctrine came up, seems Gibson likes that topic). As it was mentioned in a previous post, he's been a candidate longer, so expecting him to get treated like Palin at this stage of the race, considering that Palin hasn't had that media spotlight and has a more unconventional/interesting story, is rather unrealistic. Cycles are by definition constant flux, so it's not as clean cut as it might seem on one side or another. It could have to do as was mentioned in the interview thread with lacking certain channels to complement the material. Watching FOX or MSNBC exclusively would give one a very different perspective than if one alternated between both and then went on to CNN, ABC, CBS.

And I also want to add that no news isn't necessarily good news either (as McCain would tell you, when he got shafted by Obama's European tour). Biden operated under complete silence from the media for several weeks despite being open to the media and seeking coverage. It was to be expected however, because he was just not selling as much as the Governor.

For me, as I've repeated, it goes up and down in the MSM (which includes big newspapers and local ones which btw are much less left-leaning, not the online publications you mention here). McCain got focused on a couple of cycles ago (although he whined about it--my bias here-- which made the media smell blood and go after him some more). I expect it's Obama's turn now, if that non-article on Ayers is to stand as an example. Oooh and from a liberal newspaper (what was it again a "pro-Obama advocacy org"?).

And by the way speaking of the phenomenon of the one-sided benefit of the doubt, how is Palin's assertion that Obama "pals around with terrorists" not a smear when the Times article she cites concludes that the men are not close?

Oh right, it depends what the meaning of "is" is.

Which is to say, if you're right-leaning it's not a smear--unless someone from the left had made a similarly assertion about someone from the right. Then it's groundless and a smear. Double standards.

I think HuffPo is much, much more liberal than the MSM (I don't see it as the MSM myself) and extremely unapologetic about it's bias. I wouldn't be surprised at the pro-Obama sentiment there. I personally go there when I want to get a political "pick me up," not when I want news.

Slate and Salon try to show less their leanings, but they also are both associated with the left. I'm not sure I would read them as straight news either. There's a study out there showing that the internet is extremely polarized, which makes it hard to get news online without it being substancially left or right leaning. I've come to believe that.

Now, I usually read/see something from the MSM and skim online sources from both sides to judge the validity of it. That means I trawl through Slate and Salon, but I also trawl through the Weekly Standard and NRO (I hate Drudge's layout) before figuring out how best to take it (keeping their biases in mind). Among others. I read more than watch tv (though my husband is the opposite), so my blogroll is pretty extensive and I try to keep it diverse.

That is, as I wait for the claims to hit factcheck and politifact which have that mystical non-partisanship I find incredibly helpful.

Generally though when I feel the left is being too biased, I think it's a good time to see what the right is saying (with the same skepticism of course).

alcyone

The implication was that the Republican Party created the Swift Boat organization in order to unfairly smear John Kerry. That has certain implications as it puts into question the validity of the organization and its credibility. That is why the left tried so hard to tie them to Republicans to delegitimize them.

If they are considered to be a group that was created independent of the political parties, that gives them a powerful legitimacy because groups don't come into being for no reason.

That is why I try to make the distinction between an entity created by the Republican Party or its operatives and one that came into being on its own. It all has to do with legitimacy. People tend to disregard party machines, naturally assuming that they're going to attack the other party and ignore them as part of standard partisanship. When they are a separate group that had nothing to do with the party apparatus, then people sit up and take notice as they are not part of the standard partisan noise. MoveOn.org, for instance, is basically made up of ex-Clinton people, so people treat them as just another cog in the Democratic Party machine. The Swift Boaters differed in that they self-organized with people who had no ties to any particular political party and in fact differed greatly in their party affiliation. That gives them a certain credibility that a cog in the Republican apparatus wouldn't have, and that's why they were so effective in bringing down John Kerry.

Do you see the difference now in what I'm trying to say and why funding by the right in no way actually ties them to the official Republican Party apparatus? With no ties to the GOP, that means they were not considered by the public to be a right-wing smear machine, but rather a group with legitimate criticisms.

Yes, Vicki, I'm afraid I jumped to conclusions when I talked about the upcoming GOP smear campaign. It hasn't happened yet, and I can't know if it will. I apologize.

Ann

How so?

Perhaps his more critical, and really, it hasn't been all that critical, treatment by the MSM since the pres. campaigns started is a reflection of the lighter treatment he received during the primaries?

Not going to disagree that 'selling papers' isn't behind the volume of coverage. Has been so since the days of Pulitzer at al. Nevertheless, I don't think it's just a one variable thing.

I have to admit, I'm not too familiar with right-wing American media. I've never watched Fox news, for example. I do read the Globe and Mail which some Canadians regard as somewhat conservative, although it depends on which columnists you read. But I also read the Toronto Star, a liberal paper, and listen to the CBc, definitely liberal. Was at one time a card carrying NDP'r (am now politically promiscuous, however )

Won't bore you with the rest of my sources.

c.

To you. We can agree to disagree, since we're definitely reading/viewing different things (both only accessing a teensy bit of the vast US MSM)-- to name one of the multiple factors that shape our perception of bias.

But I will agree, however, that I don't think there is a way to get to a black and white assessment of bias. How could I? It's much more complicated than one person's perception (like my own which changes depending on a number of things), conventional wisdom or even the mathematical formula in that study I cited. Not that both aren't helpful--I don't discount any of those possibilities working together at any number of points. All I said was that I find money on the whole more persuasive than ideology. But it's not an either/or proposition.

I do, however, dispute the conventional wisdom in the US (evidenced by the Gallup survey of Americans who feel the news is more liberal) that coverage is defined by a liberal tilt alone. I am also skeptical of the idea that the media has always treated Obama with kid gloves and continues to do so. I find that notion reductive. I don't think it acknowledges all the possible factors that make up coverage and it's ups and downs, which are probably impossible to pin down that definitively.

The MSM is huge and ever-changing, anything but chaos and disorder within it is hard for me to believe, especially when thinking about it over time.

*shrug*

alcyone

Oh yes, most definitely. That's been something I've been trying to get at, although very clumsily.

That was my point. I'd also add to that list of variables, btw.

I'm not familiar with this poll, but am going to ask anyway. How did Gallop define "news". For most Americans, I'd guess that would mean TV major network news. But that news source has a limited audience these days. It also depends, I gather on demographics. For example, I saw one poll that indicated that more Americans under the age of 30 cited The Daily report as their major news source. Really?? Were the respondents being ironic?

So, back to my question how did the respondents define 'news'? How did Gallop?

I've certainly never made that claim, nor have I seen it here on the mbs. "Always" is an extreme term.

This is such an important election - the issues the US faces are daunting, perhaps the most serious of the last 60 years. Sadly, there is no more wiggle room.

c.

Sadly, probably not. I know a number of people who would say that. Or if not the major source, one of very few.

Carol

Before someone else brings it up to fingerpoint I'll do it, because it's only fair.

Seems like the Obama campaign is going to step into the muck as well.

Let me be very clear, I don't like stuff like this from any side. I'm not surprised, but I don't welcome it. I'll echo the person that said that there's a very thin line between judgement questions and character assassination (smear) or something like that. Thin enough, so I sleep better as long as each camp keeps away from it with an occassional slip up now and then.

One thing is to attack taxes and health care plans, another is to consistently paint someone as morally suspect based on admited mistakes and circumstancial evidence. That goes for both candidates, because it's not my style to pretend there's moral superiority in either. This is politics.

I was naive enougn to wish this election could be completed without descending into a character assassination war. Who knows...maybe it will, but I'm not holding my breath.

alcyone

I've been thinking about this a bit, Carol, and I think you mean that Sarah Palin has been slammed and spoofed mercilessly, far, far more so than either Obama, McCain or Biden. And I think you definitely have a point. I think it can be illustrated with this link to a Newsweek commentary, which features no less than five Palin closeups in a row, where she is seen making faces. There is something painful and degrading about it, in my opinion. I think it has something to do with the fact that Palin is a woman, and that women running for the very highest offices are so extremely uncommon. When a man is running for President or VP, there have probably been hundreds much like him before. We all recognize his general appearance, the neat suit, the impeccable shirt, the tie, and the well-groomed hairstyle. When a male candidate is shown in the same way as Palin is in that Newsweek commentary, most people see Candidate X pulling faces. Candidate X does not symbolize male candidates in general. There are so many other male candidates who look and sound much like him, but who don't make faces.

But because female candidates in this position are so extremely unusual, Sarah Palin becomes more than Candidate Palin. She becomes that woman candidate, with that hairstyle, those glasses, those dresses, that lipstick. And when she comes through as confused, her floundering can easily be seen as symbolic and typical of her gender. She is already different from the men because she is a woman, so maybe she is bungling it because she is a woman?

I have not seen any of the interviews with Palin, although I did see parts of her debate with Biden. But I have read transcripts of her interview with Kate Couric, and I agree that Palin made a really bad impression there. My impression is that Sarah Palin is not ready to become VP, let alone the President of the United States. And in view of the fact that McCain is a 72-year-old cancer survivor, the chances of Palin beoming President if McCain is elected are not that slim.

My impression of Palin is, as I said, that she is unqualified for the job of being VP or President. But then we must remember that those jobs must be among the most demanding jobs on this Earth. To be qualified to hold such a position, I think you must at least have made up your mind that that is what you want to do, and then you must set out, methodically, to get yourself the qualifications you are going to need. You must dedicate yourself to getting yourself as much knowledge and experience as possible, and you must do so with the goal of running for President in mind. But Sarah Palin, as far as I can understand, has never done that. She has been Governor of Alaska, which is demanding enough, but it is not comparable to being VP or President of the United States of America.

So why did John McCain pick her as his running mate? I'm afraid I believe that his reasons had comparatively little to do with his respect for Palin's Presidential qualifications. I suspect that he saw her as someone who could revive his own flagging candidacy. Remember that just before McCain named his VP, he was lagging behind in the polls. Right after Palin was introduced to America, and everybody could see her charm and charisma, McCain forged ahead in the polls, leaving Obama well behind him.

But that could mean that McCain picked Palin because of her charm, not because of her qualifications. I find that depressingly sexist. I find it hard to believe that a male VP candidate would be picked because he was charming, if there were reasons to believe he was fundamentally unqualified. Just imagine that Hillary Clinton had been chosen to run for President instead of Obama, and imagine that she had picked a little-known, fresh-faced young man as her VP. And imagine that this young man had a charming smile, but floundered when you asked him questions. Wouldn't Clinton's tactics have backfired? Wouldn't people have thought that her VP candidate was some sort of vapid 'boy toy', and that her choice actually showed her contempt for young men in particular and voters in general? I'm not saying that this unfortunate young man wouldn't have been the target of spoofs. Of course he would. But I think, above all, that Clinton's candidacy would have sunk like a stone if she had chosen such a running mate.

Good choice for Clinton\'s running mate?

But now imagine that this young male VP candidate had been black. And imagine that he knew had to deliver a number of catch phrases with great panache, but he didn't know how to answer questions. Wouldn't he have become a favorite laughingstock and target of spoofs? And wouldn't the color of his skin have added to the pleasure people took in laughing at him, no matter how much everybody tried to prove that their mockery had nothing to do with racism? And wouldn't this young man's ineptness reflect badly on the entire black community?

Good VP candidate?

So I think that Sarah Palin has been treated unfairly. And the rather respectless treatment of her reflects badly on women in general. Yes, Palin herself should have realized when she accepted her VP candidacy that she was really, really jumping into the pool without checking the water level first, but I still think she has been treated unfairly, and respectlessly. And when she suffers spoofs and ridicule, it somehow spills over on other women too, reinforcing the idea that women can't do the most demanding jobs.

I recommend this editorial from New York Times by Judith Warner.

Ann

Keep in mind Sarah Palin was brought to McCain's attention by Newt Gingrich, a good friend of hers, so it's not like McCain picked her out of thin air. If the press had been paying attention, she'd been on the short list for quite a while.

She was picked for four reasons. One was to shake up the campaign because he was behind by doing something unexpected. If you want to say she was picked because she's a woman, you certainly could but it's not the only reason for it.

The second reason is that she's a solid conservative. McCain's first choice was Joe Lieberman. But he was told by many that picking Lieberman would have fractured the party and would have sunk any chance he would have had to unify the party. As a solid conservative and a dynamic one, Palin certainly did that.

The third reason was that they're political soul mates. McCain has always called himself a maverick, so that's nothing new. She is a true reformer and one who's willing to tackle the hard jobs, even going against his own party. In that way, she's just like him. There's a lot to be said for compatibility.

The fourth reason is that Palin is an expert on energy policy, being steeped in it as governor of our largest energy-producing state. She was also chairwoman of the state's Oil and Gas Commission. She knows about oil backwards and forwards. With high gas prices as THE top issue in the campaign until this financial crisis came to the foreground in only the last couple of weeks, she was the logical pick to reinforce his ticket, giving it instant credibility on energy policy.

Now let's look at the other possible candidates and see if he chose the right person.

Number one was Mitt Romney. Romney excited nobody. He would have been the safe, unexciting pick, except that he has a lot of baggage. Lots of conservatives remember his Senate run against Ted Kennedy. Romney had a real chance to beat Kennedy while campaigning as a conservative. Then he blew it by morphing in the last debate into Ted Kennedy, Jr. and espousing basically whatever Kennedy was saying. Many conservatives never forgave him for that, including me. I will never vote for Mitt Romney. I dislike him that much.

Number two was Mike Huckabee. He's earned the ire of a number of southern conservatives and is highly distrusted by some. So he's out.

Number three was Tim Pawlenty. He's got reformers credentials as well but is not nearly the maverick Sarah Palin is. He's also only been in office for five years, less than George W. Bush had when he ran for president. And Bush was hit for lacking "gravitas." With all else being equal, Pawlenty is an unexciting candidate and isn't one that would excite the base.

With no chance of winning without unifying the Republican base, he really didn't have a whole lot of choices this year. Sarah Palin was probably his best choice. As a governor, she has executive experience, something none of the other three have. She has a remarkable record of achievement for someone who's been governor for such a short time. While some may think she's not qualified to be president, you still have to say she has more experience than Barack Obama, who's at the top of his ticket.

Obama had been in the Senate for 143 days when he began running for president. That's less than five months. If you counted his time actually spent in the Senate, it's probably been less than a year, counting the nearly two straight years he's been doing nothing but campaigning. Remember that Senators spend more than half the year at home doing nothing (or raising money or campaigning) while governors are on the job every day of the year with no time off. As junior Senator from Illinois, Obama's not had to make any decisions or make any hard choices while Senator, so he's completely untested. So who really is the less experienced one? The woman who's had executive experience for two years and is at the bottom of her ticket versus the man who's only effectively been a Senator for six to eight months and has no executive experience and not one bill to his name outside of naming a courthouse and is at the TOP of his ticket? Palin can tick off a number of achievements she's had while she's been governor. Obama has no significant achievements while Senator. By saying Sarah Palin has no experience and isn't ready but saying Barack Obama has experience shows that ideology trumps all. For those Obama supporters out there, doesn't it worry you that he has less experience than Sarah Palin does?

So much opinion dressed as fact...



alcyone

No, it's opinion dressed as opinion. The only fact in there was that Obama was Senator for 143 days when he started running for president. That's fact.

Good. Glad that's cleared up.

alcyone

So question to you. If you think Obama has so much experience, can you tell me what he's done in his year in the Senate?

I'll give you a head start. The only thing I know of after quite extensive searching, is a rider he and Dick Lugar placed in a bill to extend additional funding for processing ex-Soviet nuclear warheads. I could find nothing else except for the naming of a court house that has his name anywhere near it.

So what is Obama's vast experience?

Where does this come from? I mean it’s kind of a jump from:

And then:

I guess (implied) disagreement means I automatically think that Obama "has so much experience" or "vast experience?" Nevermind that I haven't even gone into what exactly I disagree with in that long response to Ann. Since it’s quite a bit of opinion, I assure you, there’s plenty to disagree with.

Still…perhaps you know something I don’t about what I think about Obama’s experience.

But if you know what I think already, I don’t see the use in me bothering with a researched response. Anything I write would be endlessly boring in comparison to that alcyone that thinks Obama has “vast experience” and goodness knows what else. It's her you seem to want to argue with.

Ultimately this sounds too much like another one of those my-candidate-is-better-than-yours carnivals to me. Predictably, I'm still not taking the bait, since I'm still not a fan.

Pass.

alcyone

Sorry, my mistake for believing you thought Obama had experience.

Mistaken again. You misread.

alcyone

/cue moderator post

This seems to be getting a little bit personal, Alcyone and Roger. Up until now, you've both been posting very courteous and informative posts, and you've managed to disagree while maintaining good manners. The last few posts aren't quite so courteous. Can I suggest you both take a deep breath, calm down and come back to this thread tomorrow?

Thank you

/end moderator post


Wendy
Board moderation team

Roger, I'm sure you are absolutely right when you says that Obama doesn't have that much experience from the Senate. And for those who were looking for experience from their Democratic candidate, clearly Hillary Clinton was the far better choice. And if you are looking for as much experience as possible from whoever gets elected, there is no doubt that John McCain is your man.

But while there can be no doubt that Obama has a lot less experience than McCain, Obama has, nevertheless, never come through looking inexperienced. He has never famously gaffed during interviews. More importantly, the American people apparently thinks that he has comported himself better than McCain during the present Wall Street crisis, since Obama is once again ahead in the polls. Unless the reason for Obama's lead is precisely that a sufficient number of people don't trust Sarah Palin, presumably because of what they perceive as her lack of experience.

Experience is not just about how many years you have spent doing what precisely, but also about what you appear to have learnt during that time.

Ann

I suspect the polls have nothing to do with Obama's comportment in the financial crisis, seeing as he's been mostly MIA through most of it, essentially staying on the campaign trail and saying, "if you need me, just call me," but playing a very small role in the negotiations.

I suspect the polls are moving in his direction solely because the public blames President Bush for the crisis. The party in power (meaning who's got the White House) historically always takes the blame for things that go wrong. That can be seen by Bush's poll numbers falling to its all-time low. The steady drumbeat that it was Republican deregulation that caused it is completely wrong, but has taken hold in the public.

It's only leaking into the mainstream press now that the Democrats are knee deep in this crisis and have far more to do with it than any Republican. If that takes hold, and it only has a few weeks to do so, I suspect you'll see the polls reversing as people see that Democrats have brought the world to the brink of financial disaster.

Obama's also terrible in public speaking when he doesn't have certain phrases memorized or if he gets off-script. He quite frequently gets into periods of "umm, ah, umm, well, umm" for minutes at a time.

Interesting. I just saw a report that says that Sarah Palin is related to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They are ninth cousins, once removed.

She is also related to Princess Diana, a tenth cousin.

I suppose if you dig deep enough, everybody's related to everyone. I remember a report back in 2004 that said that John Kerry was distantly related to Queen Elizabeth. Does this mean Sarah Palin is now related to John Kerry since Diana Spencer married Prince Charles?

A while ago I talked about an upcoming GOP smear campaign of Obama. I was out of line there, since I couldn't know what was coming up in the future. But it does seem that a very ugly campaign against Obama is going on. What is ugly about it is that it appears to encourage, or at least not discourage, Republican crowds to basically cry out for Obama's blood. Frank Rich, who - I know, I know - is one of the most left-wing of the Op-Editors of NYT, says this today about crowds that have appeared at McCain rallies:

Frank Rich's point is that the McCain campaign encourages, or at least not discourages, Republican crowds to work themselves into such a frenzy that they might actually, truly, want to kill Obama. And they might actually, truly, try to act on that death wish, too. Remember that some American Presidents, Presidential candidates and other important policial figures have indeed been killed because of what they stood for and fought for. Perhaps not coincidentally, many of those who have actually been assassinated have been prominantly associated with the fight for the rights of black people - I'm talking about Lincoln, JFK, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, of course. It is hard not to think that Obama's life might in fact be in very real danger.

I don't know if this can be described as a GOP smear campaign, but I do know that it gives me the creeps, all the same.

The full Frank Rich editorial is here .

Ann

It'll come to no surprise that this makes me very uneasy as well, so I've been following various discussions on the subject. I was comforted when McCain took a stand (see vid here ).

Anyway, with regards to that, I found this exchange really interesting--

There's TNR (moderate left)'s brief post arguing that it's no big deal.

Political reporter Ben Smith seems to take a similar line here as well.

Both of those are short--then there's Glen Greenwald from Salon who takes issue with those arguments here .

His column is in some respects challenging to me because I am one of these "balance" people and what Greenwald argues sounds to me as a slippery slope (it starts getting into the bias question again) especially in reporting, but at the same time, some of his points are pretty compelling.

alcyone

I was very impressed by McCain's stance at that rally, when he forcefully told people that Obama is a decent man and no-one to be afraid of. I wasn't too surprised, as I've always thought that McCain is fundamentally a decent man himself, much though I disagree with most of his politics.

However, he needs to get that message across to his running-mate and his ad creators; I'm just a little tired of that 'pals around with terrorists' line that Palin trots out with tiresome frequency.


Wendy

I agree with Wendy regarding the "pals around with terrorist" line. People who view Obama in a favorable light find the line tiresome, especially when you consider Obama's standard come back: Ayers blew up buildings when I was 8 years old. When I met him, he was a distinguished member of the community and an educator.

In my opinion, the focus needs to be not on what Ayers did as a domestic terrorist when Obama was a child, but rather on Ayers's philosophy of education reform and his views during the 90s, when Obama was chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

Ayers has visited Venezuela on numerous occasions, at the invitation of his good friend, Luis Bonilla. Luis Bonilla is a member of Hugo Chavez's regime, responsible for "education reform". Bonilla is founder of Centro International Miranda (CIM) , the goal of which is to train and educate "cadres who agree completely" with the Bolivarian Revolution.

In one videotaped interview , Bonilla introduces Ayers as an "educator, social activist, and military revolutionary". The interview takes place in 2006, when Obama was in his 40s.

In the interview, Bonilla asks Ayers about the beginning of his teaching career, in the 60s. Ayers says, "I understood very early that teaching, education, is linked to social justice." Bonilla then asks Ayers what made him change his chalk and blackboard for the clandestine life of the armed struggle. Ayers replies, "You know, I've never changed my piece of chalk. I think the revolutionary struggle, I think that political organizing, always has a pedagogical connection." Bonilla asks then about the transition from the active armed struggle back to the inactive "talk-only" pedagogical struggle for social change, and Ayers replies, "You know, the transition process is still going on." He adds, "When we left the underground, we lost something valuable - we lost our treasure."

Ayers makes it exceedingly clear that bombs and chalk are both legitimate tools toward achieving the same aim. In a speech given in Venezuela in 2006 (the text of which is on Ayers's webpage), he makes his views on the goal of education reform even more clear. Education is "never neutral. It always has a view, a position, a politics." Ayers says he is complete agreement with Bonilla that "education is the motor-force of revolution."

Given that Ayers believes in education reform as the motor-force in a revolution whose goal is to eliminate capitalism; and given that Ayers created the CAC as a means of bringing education reform to Chicago, and given that Ayers specifically links the revolutionary struggle, political organizing, and pedagogy; and given that Barack Obama (a pedagogue and political organizer) was chosen to be CAC's chairman and executive leader, this raises serious questions about Obama. (Serious questions for those of us who do not want America to become a socialist country. Obviously, those who prefer socialism over capitalism will not share our concerns.)

Oh, and since this has already been mentioned before, yes, I am aware that the philanthropic Annenberg Foundation was founded by a Republican. I am sure that the irony of obtaining money from a capitalist to fund his project was not lost on Ayers. That was, as they say, icing on the cake.

Non-partisan Politifact explores the matter.

Regardless of Ayer's views however, it seems the CAC was not exactly out of the mainstream when it came to education reform, at least when you compare it to other education programs. It was rather conventional, in fact.

Also, it was not only founded by a Republican as Vicki mentions, but Ayers was one of a diverse group of people involved in the project. People like Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Journalism. I'm not sure you can count all of these people as like-minded or even sympathetic to the views elaborated above on anti-capitalist revolution.

Further, although Ayers was one of three activists that got the Annenberg grant, when it came to the day-to-day of the CAC, according to the executive director, Ayers himself "never made a decision programmatically or had a vote." He was part of an advisory group to the board. Politifact states:

There is little evidence to indicate the CAC was proposing education reform that purports anything that is not to improve public schools in Chicago, despite Ayer's participation and whatever views he might have on revolution, education and capitalism.

Also, not that this was mentioned in the post, but Obama was recruited by Deborah Leff, who had worked with Obama before in another foundation. There is no evidence to indicate that his appointment there had anything to do with Ayers.

So it seems to me like another round of the guilt by association claim where because Ayers had certain views on education, this somehow bears on Obama. But this is all based on circumstancial evidence and tenous connections. It entails disregarding a large amount of evidence to the contrary by people in a better position to know than those disseminating these insinuations (such as conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz, who suggests the nefariousness of CAC).

The NYT had a good quote:

alcyone

I did not say that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was founded by a Republican; I said the philanthropic Annenberg Foundation (which funded the CAC) was founded by a Republican. Obama's campaign describes him as: "Nixon Ambassador and Reagan friend Walter Annenberg."

I would beg to differ. Programs accepted for grants include The South Shore African Village Collaborative for their “Celebrate African-American Holiday of Juneteenth”, and Ayers's own small private school, "The Peace School". Compare these with projects which were rejected, such as The Chicago Algebra Project: goal to increase student achievement and The District 5 Math Initiative: goal to aid Hispanic students in the process of learning English, to further learn math and science. Sounds very much to me like Ayers's definition of an education which is "never neutral" but always has "a value, a position, a politics."
According to the NY Times, no. According to Stanley Kurtz, who spent days meticulously digging through the original documentation of the project, this was Ayers's pet project and his baby from the start. He was very hands-on, especially in the beginning. (Ayers distanced himself after the first year to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, as he was applying for funds himself, such as for the aforementioned "Peace School".) I believe there is no way Obama would have have gotten his position without Ayers's direct approval.

People interested in learning more can watch the latest CNN report.

[edited 3:05 pm, to clarify and modify run-on sentence.- V]

Sorry, I had responded to this in my previous post, but somehow when I was editing myself I managed to lose what I'd written.

I just wanted to comment on the use of italics to emphasis that Stanley Kurtz is conservative, followed by a quote by the NYT, with no corresponding liberal to identify it.

I have listened to Mr. Kurtz, and he does not resort to insinuations. He presents the facts, as he found them documented in the papers, notes, board meeting minutes, etc. of the CAC. Frankly, I have a great deal more confidence in this documented evidence than I do in the words of the "people in a position to know" - who also happen to be people who have a vested interest in presenting a sanitized rendition of the story.

Which, actually, brings up another point. Until just a few years ago, I would have described myself as a died-in-the-wool Democrat. I was raised by liberal parents, grew up in liberal NY, went to a liberal college, read all the liberal newspapers, and, like all my liberal friends laughed at the audacity of "Faux News" when they reported obvious "conservative propoganda" as if it were news! (which is to say, the conservative side of the story, which to us was, of course "propoganda" - the liberal side of the story was the "truth".)

My paradigm shift came as a result of my realization that I can actually trust conservative sources more than I can liberal. I find them much more likely to be intellectually honest, and less likely to resort to bias as a means of distorting the truth. (I have a theory that this is related to the conflicting views of "relative truth" vs. "absolute truth".)

On this boards NYT's liberalism has been discussed quite a bit (especially with respect to politics-didn't Ann bring it up recently?), whereas I don't know how many people know who Kurtz is. I know I didn't before I took an interest in politics, which is why I thought it important to bring up.

I read the Kurtz articles myself some time ago and came, not surprisingly, to the opposite conclusion. My interpretation was that Kurtz's framing of the activities of CAC leads to insinuations of wrongdoing (I mean the title of his Sept. 23 WSJ article was: "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools").

But the most compelling evidence to me is actually, not what CAC founders have said, but the fact that so many different people where involved in the project, including Republicans, Democrats, venture capitalists and educators. Even if Ayers was part part of an advisory group, the projects that were approved, were approved by a board, not him alone. And he was not the sole advisor either. Because of this, I'm not sure that Ayer's more radical personal beliefs and links to the Bolivarian Revolution philosophies, etc. carry that much importance when thinking about CAC and by extension Obama himself and what he would implement as president.

Further, if we're following that logic to raise questions about Obama, it's only fair that the same logic would be used when evaluating the people McCain had similarly tenous associations with. And ultimately, there is so much nebulousness and open-endedness with these statements (usually people fall along partisan lines), that I personally don't consider them productive. A person's milleage obviously varies.

I had a completely opposite paradigm shift, I should say. But in any case, I don't think the liberal or conservative side of any story is "truth," which is why I try to get both sides, crosscheck, etc. I subscribe to a theory of degree not absolutes. Subjective judgements always creep in when assigning value to one thing or another; there's no escaping that ever, but the attempt to use the same standard when judging is a good exercise.

alcyone

If Obama's participation in Ayers's CAC project is not convincing enough, I submit the following:

Plumber to Obama: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”

Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Hallelujah!

Ann

I'm a little curious about something related to tax cuts. I'm speaking directly to Roger, since he has been the most vocal about the benefits of tax cuts, but certainly anyone is more than welcome to weigh in here. Roger, if I have understood your previous posts correctly, you support tax cuts because these rich people - who own businesses both big and small - will take the money from the cuts and put it back into the economy, creating jobs/new companies/etc.

I saw part of Obama on the trail today, and I believe he stated that big businesses are currently receiving tax credits for outsourcing. Have I misunderstood, or do you think Obama's mistaken? I know that tax credits and tax rate cuts are two different things, but both serve the same bottom line: to lower the amount of tax an individual/business pays in a given year. There is undeniably lots of outsourcing going on - presumably just an issue with big businesses. And we know that all this outsourcing is occurring because labor costs are considerably cheaper in other countries.

Big business is looking to their bottom line by outsourcing, because it cuts their costs. If they are actually being rewarded by the US government for this, that saves them even more money, but presumably this money is NOT being returned to the economy, since in the US jobs are being lost - not created - by outsourcing.

I'm not looking for a complicated explanation; mostly just a simple yes or no - and why - if you feel that I have misunderstood this issue.

Kathy

Here is more on the South Shore African Village Cooperative (SSAFC, which I mentioned before was a recipient of funds from the Obama chaired Chicago Annenberg Cooperative)

Apparently, the SSAVC "featured “African-Centered” curricula built around “rites of passage” ceremonies inspired by the puberty rites found in many African societies. In and of themselves, these ceremonies were harmless. Yet the philosophy that accompanied them was not. On the contrary, it was a carbon-copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview."

For more on exactly how Jeremiah Wright's worldview coincides with that of the "rights of passage" movement, click on the link and read the entire article.

Supporters of the rites of passage movement describe it as "a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

This is completely consistant with Ayers's philosophy of education reform as a "motor-force of revolution", a non-neutral, value-based, political tool to be used by social reformers in their fight against capitalism.

Ann wrote:
"Hallelujah?" A presidential candidate is promising to take my hard-earned money out of my wallet and give it to someone who hasn't earned it and you break into religious cheer? Sorry, but that doesn't rate any kind of approval in my book.

Some people talk about the "uneven distribution of wealth" as if it were a new phenomenon, or that government can somehow wave a magic wand and make everyone happy with equal amounts of money. It doesn't work that way, not in the US or in Russia or in China or Sweden or Iraq or anywhere else.

I recognize that there are people who need help feeding and housing and clothing themselves either through no real fault of their own or because life has simply overwhelmed them. And my wife and I have personally assisted people who have been trapped in bad circumstances on several occasions. If one takes the position that those with more resources ought to assist those with fewer resources, I have no quarrel with that statement. In fact, I live my agreement with it.

I do quarrel, however, with any position which holds that I must help with fewer resources without the choice of who I might assist. Some of the "less fortunate" only need a helping hand for a short time. I have been in that position before, and I know what it's like to have to depend on outside assistance to feed my children.

But some of the "less fortunate" are where they are because they don't want to work, they don't want to improve themselves, they don't want to sacrifice today to make a better life for themselves and for their families tomorrow. I'd rather not give those folks a dime.

Senator Obama's economic plan, if I understand it correctly, will take money out of my pocket and out of the accounts of my employer. It will hinder my employer's ability to give me raises in the future and my ability to plan for my retirement. It will reduce the ability of small businesses to expand and produce more jobs, and will give money to people who do not deserve it and are not willing to work for it.

Have we not learned that enforced socialism never works? We have the example of the former Soviet Union, which collapsed economically and politically when they were unable to produce enough food and shelter and clothing for their citizens. We have the example of China, which is wrenching itself apart economically trying to maintain a centrally planned society while competing in a global economy which shifts daily. And we see OPEC trying to keep prices up and production controlled to maintain their wildly lavish lifestyles.

(Wait, the Middle Eastern OPEC countries don't have lavish lifestyles for all of their citizens. Where's the outrage on the boards for the inequity in those nations? Why is the US the target for those critics when we are far from the worst "offenders?")

I do not plan to vote for Senator Obama for President in November. And my vote has nothing to do with his age, his skin color, or the gender and attractiveness quotient of his running mate. I am voting for my family's future security, and Barak Obama doesn't have my family's best interests in mind in his economic plan.

Terry, I'm a bit exhausted from defending my postion in the Wall Street thread, the one I started. I have posted many replies there, trying to explain my views. I'm not asking you to read everything I have written, of course. But I get the impression that you have not read any of my posts at all, if you can say this to me:

I think I posted thirty-seven replies in the Wall Street thread, give or take a few. I really tried to explain how I look at taxes and equality in those thirty-seven replies. So tell me, Terry. In which of them did I say that I want a society where everybody has, as you put it, 'equal amounts of money'? Where did I say that? Please tell me, so I can check the date of that post and go back and find out what I did that day, and who put the hallucinogenic or mind-altering drug in whatever I was drinking that day, to make me write something like that.

No, Terry. I do not believe that everybody in a society should have exactly the same amount of money. I don't believe that that is a worthy goal for any society. And I reject it as a goal for two reasons. First, that it can never, and I mean never, be realized. It is a pipe dream. It is more impossible than men who can fly.

The second reason why I don't consider that sort of perfect equality a worthy goal is that anyone who even tries to realize it will have to become a horrible dictator in the process. Talk about interfering with other people's lives. But no matter how such a dictator would use terror to try to distribute all the wealth in his country perfectly equally, he would still fail miserably at making everybody economically just the same.

So, Terry. NO. I do NOT believe that everybody should be perfectly equal in terms of income and property.

What I do believe - and indeed, I really do believe it - is that it is a good thing if those who are rich in a society are required to pay taxes, so that the government can use that tax revenue to make things better for all of those who are not among the richest in that society.

I believe that it is bad if a government cuts taxes for the rich. I believe that it is particularly bad if a government allows the richest people in their society to become even richer, while those who are poorest become even poorer. Even more than that, I think it is morally wrong and financially unsound if the majority of a population actually becomes poorer, while a small minority becomes almost exponentially richer. It offends my sense of fairness, my belief that we are all basically equals. I think that if a society allows the rich to become infinitely richer and the majority of the population to become poorer, then that society approaches a situation where a small, super-rich minority can basically own the majority of the population. If a small minority of the population owns most of the property in a country, then what is going to stop them from basically owning their fellow men, too?

So I think it is noble as well as financially sound to try to create a measure of economic equality in any society. But I most certainly realize that you can never, never have complete equality, and it is the worst kind of folly to try to strive for it. Indeed, it is not only folly, but it is madness, and it can only lead to what I would describe as a 1984 kind of society.

But, yes, I think taxes are good. I like taxes. I think everybody should pay taxes, except those who only earn the minimum wage. And I think that the richer you are, the more of your income you should be required to pay in taxes.

I don't mean that some people shouldn't be allowed to become filthy rich. Why shouldn't Bill Gates be allowed to become mega-rich? Why shouldn't J.K. Rowling be allowed to become a super-billionaire? I see no reason at all why some extremely talented and hard-working people should not be allowed to become incredibly wealthy.

On the other hand, I see no reason at all to cut Bill Gates' or J.K. Rowling's taxes. I see no reason at all to cut taxes for the rich. The rich should pay taxes, and that money should be used for the good of society as a whole and for the good of the majority of the population in that society. And it should definitely be used to help the most vulnerable and helpless in that society.

Let me add one more thing. Terry, I thought you sounded almost defensive about the fact that you are not going to vote for Obama in this election:

Well, you live in a democracy. That means that you don't have to defend your reasons for voting for a certain candidate. You shouldn't have to tell us that it isn't Obama's age or skin color that has convinced you not to vote for him. I don't think you decide who you will vote for based on such things. You shouldn't be obliged to tell us that you don't pick your candidate for such trivial reasons. Basically we should respect each other when we discuss these things, and that means we are wildly out of line if we assume that people who post in this thread are, for example, racists, airheads or simply uninterested in politics. No one should have to, sort of, almost apologize for either voting or not voting for Obama (or for McCain).

Ann

I was pleasantly surprised to find this topic. I'm eagerly awaiting my chance to vote for McCain/Palin. He wasn't my first choice for candidate
but Palin makes up for a lot. I haven't read all the posts yet, but i'm sure there are a lot of negative posts from Obama fans. Well, i'm a lifelong Democrat and i would not dream of voting for him. The Ayers and Wright connections are just a couple of the many reasons to NOT vote for him. Not to mention the fact that he was involved with Acorn which is under inditement in several states for doing things like registering Mickey Mouse to vote or the same person 30 times, etc. Why people can't see he is a Socialist with exrremely dangerous connections who
is dangerous for this country i just don't understand. I just hope and pray the polls will be wrong and he will get his comeuppance Election Day. Certainly no pollster has called me. LOL I so look forward to a real hero, Senator McCain taking the oath on Inaugeration Day.

Patti, I understand that you personally have serious concerns about Obama. IIRC, in this and any other political threads, there have been both positive and negative things said about all of the candidates. But I must admit that I was concerned by the way you phrased the following:

If you feel that Obama is "...", that's your opinion and you have every right to it. But the way you phrased that sentence was, to me, an implication that the people who don't agree with you on this are blind or stupid or...I don't know what. And they're none of the above - just people with other opinions.

Kathy

Hey Patti Welcome to the thread, and enjoy the discussion!

I want to avoid getting into discussion here, as I know I don't know enough of the detail, and I also don't have the time to get into it as carefully as some posters, but I did want to comment on the use of language and 'labels':

I'm not going to get into the 'dangerous connections' bit; others are talking about that and I really am not qualified to comment. But on the 'socialist' thing... no. Obama is not a socialist. He wouldn't even be considered as a social democrat. In some of his policies, he's to the right of Bill Clinton, who was not a social democrat in European terms.

Obama clearly believes in the provision of a state safety-net, and you'd be hard-pushed to find many Republicans who disagree with the principle there. He talks about some redistribution of wealth and about using the tax system to accomplish that, and of course redistribution is a socialist principle. Even conservatives aren't opposed in principle to redistribution, however: that's what a progressive tax system (one where you pay a greater % of your marginal income in tax the more your income increases) is for. The 'trickle-down' theory of Reaganomics is also redistributive; however, experience has shown that it just doesn't work - as Ann commented, the gap between rich and poor has widened significantly over the past 25 or so years. What she didn't say is that this is a relationship - between the top and bottom deciles in the income scale - which had remained relatively stable for over 100 years.

Anyway, Obama's not a socialist. - and, for some commenters here, 'socialism' isn't a dirty word! Just as an added note, socialism is not the same as communism; I sometimes get the feeling that people see them as the same. Communism is complete State control. Under a socialist government, private industry can and does exist - see France for many years. The Labour Party in Britain, in power for the past 10 or so years, is not a socialist party; they now call themselves social democrats, not even democratic socialists. Obama would be to the right of the Labour Party and probably closer, in political philosophy, to the British Conservative Party.


Wendy

First, a point of clarification. According to Dana Milbank, who was actually at the rally, and whose column Frank Rich refers to when he talks about the "frenzied" crowds, the man in the crowd yelled "Kill him!" immediately following Palin's comment about Bill Ayers and his bombing campaign. Milbank says his impression was that the man was talking about Ayers, not Obama. This still does not excuse the comment, however, and I commend McCain's calls for decorum.

That this isolated event could lead Frank Rich to conclude that mobs of frenzied Republicans might actually attempt to kill Obama is beyond ludicrous.

And, speaking about suggestions to kill politicans, go to Google images and search for the words "Kill Bush". Where has Frank Rich been for the past 8 years?

Now, for something that really gave *me* the creeps... the newest anti-Palin t-shirt goes completely beyong the pale.

WARNING! The t-shirt in this picture contains obscenity.

I've read more of the discussion now, but am
still catching up. It's early, so i won't get into much right now. However, a few things struck me. To a conservative, socialist IS a dirty word.
A filthy word because its essentially Communism light as far as i'm concerned. I don't know how old most of you are, but i'm in my mid fifties and grew up with the the threat of Soviet communism. I was not one of the idiots who joined the counter culture during the sixties. Many of the leftists from the 60's and 70's are now entrenched at our countries' colleges and poisoning the minds of young people. Ayers is a prime example. I, like a lot of other people are just extremely frustrated that so many people are just ignoring the associations
that Obama has had for many years. Well, i want to catch up on the posts then i'll post more.
Oh yes, before i forget it, the post, i think it was from rl awhile back about the success of the Iraq War was wonderful. Well said indeed
Patti

In this column, Roger Cohen of New York Times pays tribute to heartland America, and explains what he considers its values to be. He also explains why he considers those values far better than the values that he believes that Sarah Palin represents. Check it out. I thought it was interesting.

Ann

Ann,

I am surprised that someone who in this same thread expressed such disgust at smear campaigns, could read this hatchet-job, with it's continual smears, lies, and insults, and offer "I thought it was interesting" as your only comment.

Words Cohen uses to describe Palin and her actions, include rabble-rousing, nonsense, unbalanced attacks, vile, cloying, with-us-or-against us, imposter, fear-mongering, ideological confusion, trash talk."

The interesting thing about this hit piece is that the Cohen acknowledges that he was surprised at what he found in the Republican town of Branson. He found a mayor who is practical, has common-sense, and is interested in balancing the books of her town. People come to the town in search of "religion, family, and patriotic entertainment." In fact, Cohen is totally disarmed by Reanne Presley's values - little tolerance for debt, delinquency, dumbness, or dereliction of duty. Perhaps most surprising of all, this liberal author was surprised to see a woman who expressed pride in America that a black man was running for President and a woman for Vice President. (Stop the Presses! This goes directly against the most prevalent, persistent, and vicious of all liberal smears against the right - that those on the right are racist, sexist bigots.)

All of what he found in Branson, contrary to his expectations, actually appealed to this liberal author. What a surprise! The values of the Republicans are actually... good! Well, yes, they are good. And they are the values of Sarah Palin.

The author gives no evidence that Sarah Palin's values differ from Reanne Presley's. In fact, Palin's years as mayor and then governor show that she holds exactly the same values as Presley. Get on with it. Do the job. No tolerance for corruption. No tolerance for dereliction of duty. Balance the books. Practicality and common sense. All of this describes Sarah Palin.

I would say that every word highlighted in bold above is applicable to Roger Cohen's vicious, dishonest, and unwarrented attack on Sarah Palin.

Well, what was most interesting about the column, to me, was the way Cohen praised Branson, not the way he attacked Palin. There was nothing original about what he said about Palin, and he didn't back his attacks on Palin up with any supporting evidence. But I did think his praise of Branson was interesting. And I still feel that way. Maybe because I am a left-wing person myself, and Cohen sums up quite well what I admire about Republican, heartland America.

Ann

We actually agree, then.

As I say in my third paragraph, I also found Cohen's praise of Republican values most interesting.

It was his 'comparison' of these values with Palin that I found dishonest. Palin's popularity with the right rests entirely on the fact that she shares these values. I believe it is also the reason the left has been so aggressively attacking her - their implicit recognition that her values reflect those of the persons whose votes they are attempting to attain. They need to attempt to separate her from those values, at all costs.

Well, I think I can discern a difference between what Cohen says about Branson and what he implies about Palin. I think it has to do with anger and the readiness to attack. Cohen found no aggressiveness in Brandon, only the good values and virtues that I think most people can admire. I personally think that Sarah Palin has been very 'negative' when she has talked about Obama, apparently describing him on at least one occasion as a man who is friendly with terrorists (note the plural), and to me that is a far cry from the warm acceptance and pride of both Obama and Palin that the mayor of Branson talked about. Now that is something that warms my heart, where Sarah Palin fails to do so.

Ann

I live within spitting distance of Branson [okay not really, but close enough and I have family that lives there]. I don't know anything about Ms. Presley and I have heard horns a time or two on the strip. That said, I disagree with his contrast of Palin to the culture of the Ozarks [as embodied by Ms. Presley]. I think she'd fit right in around here and so do most people I know.

Take the abortion issue for instance... you *can't* get an abortion in this area. In an extreme life of the mother situation possibly, but an abortion on demand isn't going to happen. There used to be doctors who came in from St. Louis or Kansas City regularly, but they don't do that anymore. I don't know if it's a supply/demand issue or that the doctors in the area are ethically/morally opposed to it or some combination of the two. Most other 'small town values' that are represented by both Palin and Presley are found here.

Just a guess... but I'd imagine that Wasilla is probably a bit more liberal than Branson, but that's pure speculation on my part.

I would imagine that, had Ms. Presley [yes, I've forgotten her first name and don't want to go look it up again ] gotten the nomination, or if she does in a few years having followed in Palin's footsteps, he would find just as much wrong with her as he does Palin.

Perhaps it's simply a personality clash thing, but somehow I doubt it. This guy just likes Presley's personality better than Palin's. And Presley's not a threat. Yet.

*We're* not rednecks but we're awful close and only a few miles from those who are. We don't hunt but we own a weapon [and no, my kids can't get to it]. The guy four doors down brings home a deer as often as he can. Our pastor rescheduled our premarital counseling meeting 11 years ago because he accidentally scheduled it for the opening day of turkey season. My step-father in law used to reload his own ammo.

I think that any running mate McCain chose would have done/said much of the same things Palin has. Of course liberals are going to coming out with scathing attacks against her. If Lieberman had been the choice he would have been 'hate mongering' or whatever. If Ms. Presley had been the choice, I'm sure the same would be true.

I found it to be... disingenuous, I think is the word I'm looking for. For instance, the tourism comparison between Branson and Wasilla is invalid. Branson *is* a tourist town. Wasilla isn't. That's the only reason it has a population of 7500 - because of the tourism industry there. Unemployment in Branson is traditionally VERY low and pay relatively high for entry level work because the market is so competitive because it provides services to so many more people than actually live there. It's comparing apples to oranges in that sense. Branson has issues that Wasilla doesn't and Wasilla has issues that Branson doesn't.

He seemed to go into Branson with a semi-open mind, but not in Wasilla. His mind is made up there and I don't think that anything could change it.

By the way, if you ever go to Branson, don't drive a standard. The hills'll kill ya.

Carol [who had hoped to be a bit more coherent but who didn't get nearly enough sleep last night..]

Mayor Presley is not running against Obama for office. Palin's job is to highlight the differences between herself and her political opponent.

It is unfortunate that McCain and Palin have been pressed into the position of having to point out the negatives of Obama. That should have been the media's job. I do not mean a smear campaign. I mean the same thing they did with Palin - they should have searched out and reported the good AND THE BAD on Obama, as they did with Palin. It is not fair to hold it against McCain that he has been forced to do the media's job.

Here is exerpt from an interview with Connie Chung, in 2001 (immediately following 9/11):

Connie Chung: A lot of people out there are probably saying, "I would love to hear them say, 'We were young; we were idealistic; we were foolish, and we were probably stupid. We made mistakes and we're sorry about it. We're grown up now.'"

Bill Ayers: I'd say we were young. We were idealistic. We made mistakes.

Bernadine Dohrn: We made mistakes and we'd do it again. I wish that we'd done more, that we'd been more militant.

I feel like I am living in an alternate universe. Bizarro World. Since when is it considered acceptable to associate with terrorists? Since when is it considered 'negative' and contrary to the values of heartland America to question the association with terrorists? Since when are the candidates in a political race forbidden from pointing out the actions or words of their opponent which they feel highlight the differences between the two candidates?

Bill Ayers's wife, Bernadine Dohrn was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. Both she and husband committed acts of domestic terrorism. Obama launched his career in the home of these two unrepentent terrorists. Palin's statement stands.

Patti, just to play devil's advocate for a moment:

As a 'leftist' myself, I could equally complain about all these hard-right conservatives around the place, in universities and business and everywhere, 'poisoning' the minds of young people in favour of right-wing views. It does work both ways.

Whatever you think of communism, and I won't defend it, socialism is not the same thing. It's a perfectly legitimate political philosophy, just as free-market capitalism is, and there are socialist governments in countries not on the US embargo list. Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed in the US constitution, so why shouldn't people with views which diverge from the majority have the right to voice their opinions also?


Wendy

Have you read the Factcheck article on the Ayers connection? Factcheck finds that the accusations of a close relationship are on tenuous ground at best. The conclusion of the article is as follows:

Whatever you may think of Ayers, and I don't know enough to draw my own conclusion, Obama's acquaintance with him appears to be pretty slight. Certainly nothing that would justify the accusation of 'palling around'. Can any politician say that they did not shake the hand of, or were not in the same meeting, or a member of the same organisation, or in the same room at some point as someone they would rather not be associated with?

One thing I found interesting, in last night's post-debate analysis, was the very negative reaction of undecided voters to McCain's pushing of the Ayers issue. It turned them right off McCain at that moment - his negatives shot up. Now, whether they think that Ayers is a distraction from the real issues, or whether it's more to do with undecided voters really hating negative campaigning, I don't know, but it definitely had a huge adverse impact on them.

Wendy

Carol, thanks for your post. I found all that you said very thoughtful and believable.

So let me just say that there is a lot in both Branson and Wasilla to like and admire. And for left-wing people like me, it is good to be reminded about all of those things.

But there are things I would be uncomfortable with in Brandon and Wasilla, which I might describe as an "unforgiveness" about certain things. I believe that these heartland American towns may well resemble the Pentecostalist community of my relatives, who live on an island with a population of circa 3,000. I spent all the summers of the 1960s on that island, although I have grown more and more and more apart from my relatives over the years, and I haven't visited the island for several years.

My relatives were kind, smiling, happy and generous. They loved big get-togethers, and it was easy to be included and feel welcomed at all their parties and festivities. They did a lot of laughing, joking and singing.

But there was this "unforgiveness" about them. For example, my oldest cousin became a father only seven months after getting married. When this embarrassing fact became public knowledge, my cousin was ordered to stand up in church during a packed Sunday service, confess his sin, and ask the congregation to forgive him. And if he didn't do it, he would no longer be welcome in his church. (He didn't do it, by the way, and he left the island and joined another church instead.)

Like I said, I grew up learning about this unforgiveness of the Pentecostalists. And no, they don't treat people who become fathers and mothers only seven months after their wedding like that any more. Today, it is actually possible to be a member of their church even if you are openly living with a person you aren't even married to. But there is still an "unforgiveness" about at least some of the Pentecostalists, although today it is about other things. And like I said, I haven't visited their island for several years.

But it is good for me to be reminded of the warmth, friendliness and generosity of the Pentecostalist community I spent all my childhood summers in. And it is good for me to be reminded that many of the virtues and values I learnt about on the Pentecostalist island are to be found in so many places in heartland America.

Ann

Ann -

To be perfectly honest, I was a bit afraid to open your post for fear that I hadn't been coherent or that you might take issue with something - most likely the abortion thing [don't ask me why except I was most specific there ]. Is abortion legal in the area? Of course. There's just no clinic that currently provides that service. Springfield recently [last year? Two years?] passed or tried to pass an ordinance that said any doctor performing an abortion had to have privileges at a hospital within 50 miles of where it was being performed [so they could admit the patient if needed etc.]. None of the doctors who were providing abortion services at the time were. I believe it was overturned or not passed because it would be overturned, but I forget on what grounds exactly. The doctors who had been traveling once a week or every other week no longer come [though it's possible this has changed since I last heard]. My guess is that the time/cost analysis was not worth it. Women from the area can, of course, travel elsewhere in the state or to surrounding states if they desire [Branson, for instance, is about 5 miles from Arkansas so that's not necessarily the hardship it may sound like].

There are Pentacostals like that in this area - and in many areas. The Assemblies of God and Baptists are headquartered here [not HERE but in Springfield]. I think more and more, however, acceptance is the norm. Not necessarily acceptance of whatever behavior, but certainly not like your cousin [rather he would likely be commended for not choosing/pressuring for abortion and taking care of his family]. Support and compassion are generally found instead - at least among those I know/know of. Does that mean the church doesn't... support abstinence rather than premarital sex? Of course not, but once a young lady/couple finds themselves in that situation, they need compassion and care and support in making the decision whether to put the child up for adoption or not [very few would condone abortions, but I would hope continue to love the young woman if she did].

That is one thing that I commend the Palin family for. My understanding is that most [not sure what the percentages are - I want to say over 75%, probably more like 90%] Downs pregnancies are aborted. They have chosen a difficult row to hoe. Bristol Palin's pregnancy was dealt with - afaik - in the manner I described above. Probable disappointment, but love and support as well. Whether you [the ubiquitous you, not you Ann], agree with their beliefs or not, they are living what they believe and that's commendable. They're not saying one thing and doing another on this issue.

Whether she should have accepted the nomination given Bristol's pregnancy is another matter all together.

On a quasi related note...

I did find this opinion piece regarding the facts of the VP debate. I don't know anything about John Lott, but the VP/Constitution stuff seems to line up with what I've read/etc on the VP's role in the Senate. As for the rest, I didn't check his links or anything. It is... slanted towards Palin [defending some of what she said, has been attacked for while take a hard look at what Biden said], but I haven't seen that in any of the other ones I've looked at. [And yes it is on Fox News... Without FoxNews Obama thnks he'd be 3-4 points farther ahead, but I'm sure McCain thinks the same thing about MSNBC ].

Carol [who needs to write before Beth gets back online and they watch NCIS 'together']

I came in here to express exactly what Wendy pointed out about Ayers. I'd like to particularly note the:

"The group was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, started by a $49 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, which was established by the publisher Walter Annenberg, a prominent Republican whose widow, Leonore, is a contributor to the McCain campaign."

Does this mean that McCain also pals around with terrorist associates? Does that make him frightening and should we consider not voting for him? After all he is taking contributions from "terrorist" supporters.

No of course not.

It is amazing to me how ugly and horrible people have been toward this man. He is very well respected in his field now and has worked to turn his life around and the life of others. He has worked with groups concerning poverty and many other worthwhile organizations. Much more than I would gather other people in this thread have done for underprivelaged children and poverty stricken families. (However I may be wrong. Maybe some of you have done this. It is not my place to assume but I can tell you he has done far more than most people I personally know.)

I was a Christian Studies major in college and I find it appalling how many good Christian people I have seen turn on this man and call him a terrorist with little provocation. Aren't we taught forgiveness and that people can change? This man has shown he has changed and all people want to do is point a finger for crimes from 40 years ago. Crimes he has been atoning for through his service to the community and through his works to make things better for those who don't have the resources to do so.

I'd also like to point out that many quotes attributed to Bill Ayers have been taken out of context (below from wikipedia):

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication. The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade." Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.

The article further goes on to state:

In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."

Ann wrote:
By this, I take it to mean that you believe that religious people should accept people just as they are and not try to alter their behavior or lifestyles in any way. But what about a man who likes to have sex with ten-year-old girls? Would you "accept" and "forgive" this man also? What about a pickpocket who went home after every service with two or three wallets which were taken out of others' pockets? Would you "accept" and "forgive" this person also?

You have conveniently forgotten that forgiveness requires something from the one being forgiven. One cannot grant forgiveness to one who hasn't requested it. And a person cannot request forgiveness without admitting that the behavior prompting the request was wrong. "Forgiveness" which requires no admission of wrongdoing is not forgiveness, it is denial and enabling wrong behavior.

I suspect that your cousin already knew - or at least suspected - what the church would require of him if he married a pregnant bride. I also suspect that he was not the only person who was asked to request forgiveness from the congregation for some act. I take no position on whether or not the congregation should or should not have expected a public confession. That is the business of the congregation and I will not meddle.

It seems to me, though, that you are once again bringing in your avowed dislike of organized religion in general and using one incident to illustrate a point only peripherally related to it. I find this especially curious, given that you haven't told us of any personal experience in either Branson or Wasilla. You appear to be condemning the populations of two entire communities without any hard evidence at all. And that's not good. You have no personal knowledge of these towns or the people in them, unless you haven't shared it with us. And your ongoing blanket condemnation of church-going people in general irks me, despite the experiences of which you have told us. While they may justify hard feelings towards the people in that congregation, they do not justify them towards every congregation in the world.

Terry, I think I'm going to regret this. But the incident of my cousin was not the only time I thought that my relatives were unforgiving.

Personally I took pains not to infuriate my relatives, and I realized after a while that not seeing them so much was a good way of staying out of their wrath. There was, however, one incident when I was at the receiving end of Pentecostalist wrath. I was fourteen or fifteen years old and had just finished sewing a missing button onto a blouse, and I was moderately proud of myself, since it was usually my mother who did those things. Just then my grandfather called. We chatted for a bit, and he asked me what I had been doing that day, and I told him about the button. Adn he blew his top. Didn't I realize that it was Sunday? Didn't I know I could go to hell for doing work on a Sunday?

Like I said, I took care not to infuriate my relatives. Well, when I was ten years old, my mother decided that it would be good for me to join a children's theater company. We were going to rehearse and stage plays for kids, such as H.C. Andersen's story about the ugly duckling.

My mother impressed on me that I must never, ever let my relatives know that I was actually performing on stage. Never mind that I was a kid, and that I was performing for other kids, and that it was as innocent as could be.

Let me tell you, Terry, that it made me quite uncomfortable to know that my relatives would condemn me to hell if they knew what I was doing. It made me feel uncomfortable around them. And it wasn't even my own idea to defy them, as it were. It was my mother's.

Let me talk a bit more about my relatives. They though it was a next-to-mortal sin to see a movie in a movie theater. (Seeing a movie on TV was okay.) I remember one occasion when my favorite aunt called me, almost disconsolate because she had seen Sound of Music in a movie theater. She loved that movie. But now she was worried about the fate of her immortal soul.

Why was it such a horrible sin to see a movie in a movie theater? Long after my childhood was over, probably when I was in my forties, my mother told me that it says somewhere in the Bible that those who believe in God are not allowed to "sit down with sinners". Or something like that. And of course, if you go to a movie theater, there will be all those sinners sitting down all around you.

Also, when something bad happened to people who my relatives regarded as sinners, they - my relatives - would indeed sometimes say that the sinners were getting their just rewards by God. Their misery was their richly deserved punishment, inflicted on them by God. That is why somebody had cancer or some other serious condition or disease, or why somebody had become a widow or a widower.

Of course, when a good Pentecostalist came down with a serious disease or lost his or her spouse, that was never regarded as punishment inflicted by God. Pentecostalists were good people, so when something bad happened to them, God was just trying and testing their faith. Pentecostalists suffered not for their sins, but so that God could be even more certain than before that the suffering Pentecostalists were as good as God already knew them to be.

So the thing is, Terry, my relatives really scared me. For all their warmth and smiles and easy laughter, for all their generosity and hospitality, for all their jokes and all their songs, they scared me. Because when you didn't behave the way they wanted you to behave - even if it was about small things like sewing a button on a blouse on a Sunday or seeing a movie in a movie theater instead of on TV, they could condemn you to hell. Because, bottom line, they knew that they were good and other people weren't. They knew that they had God on their side, and if they didn't like you and things turned sour for you, it was God who punished you like they knew he would.

All that I have said right now describes a small circle of Swedish Pentecostalists in the sixties and seventies on an island with a population of about 3,000.

But I admit that I have no knowledge of what things are like in Wasilla or Brandon. I have certainly never visited them. I suspect that I would be uncomfortable there. But it could very well be that I'm totally wrong about Wasilla and Brandon.

Finally, I don't - I repeat, I so don't want to turn this thread into a mud-slinging smear campaign about religion. And just so that everybody knows, I'm not - I'm not!!!! - saying that all, or most, religious people are ......... (fill in any negative adjective or noun that appeals to you). All I'm saying, really, is that I thought that my Pentecostalist relatives were cruel when they condemned my cousin for becoming a father seven months after his wedding. My goodness, he and his wife are still married after 40+ years. What did the two of them do that was so horrible? How can it be so awful to fall in love, make love, make a baby, get married, and stick by one another and one's children for forty years? I'm not backing down from my position that my relatives were cruel and completely unwilling to follow the example of Jesus when they made my cousin choose between public humiliation and expulsion. My post should be regarded as a reply to Terry's seeming defence of my relatives' treatment of my cousin, not as a general condemnation of religious people. I do hope you all understand that.

Ann

Subsequent to Factcheck’s premature pronouncement that the relationship was “never very close”, CNN reported :

the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show.

Vicki... if this is the truth. Please show us the actual evidence. Point to something factual and not just something that CNN may have spouted and regurgitated per their normal routine when everyone has a bit of juicy possible news on one of the candidates or their VP candidates.

Think it doesn't happen? Isn't what this whole thread has been about with Palin? I'm pretty sure I've heard CNN make some statements about her that weren't true.

For comedy relief: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=173522

Just a note -- please bear in mind that FactCheck is connected to the Annenberg Fund, which is connected to Barack Obama. Which does *not* mean they're lying through their teeth, of course. I'm just saying, they may not be as impartial and nonpartisan as they appear. So don't use them as your only source for anything.

PJ

Jojo said:

[Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication. The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."]

Okay, that does happen sometimes, so I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt. Now, can you find me one single instance *in* context where Ayers and/or his charming bride have expressed any regret or remorse? At all?

PJ

Terry said to Ann:

[And your ongoing blanket condemnation of church-going people in general irks me, despite the experiences of which you have told us. While they may justify hard feelings towards the people in that congregation, they do not justify them towards every congregation in the world.]

Thank you, Terry. Well said. Me, too.

PJ

Ann wrote:
I have no direct knowledge of the people to whom Ann is referring. I don't know any of them personally, nor have I ever spoken to them about their beliefs and practices. Were I to do so, I suspect that I would find areas of both agreement and disagreement.

And I defend Ann's right to be bothered by their actions towards her. If she is relating these incidents accurately - and I have absolutely no doubt that this is her intention - then she has a right to have hard feelings towards them.

My problem is not that she feels the way she does, it is because Ann paints all Christians with the same brush with which she paints her relatives and those in that community. Her very valid negative feelings towards that group of people color her feelings towards people she's never met, like the folks in Branson and Wasilla. This isn't fair to either the folks in those towns or to Ann herself.

I applaud Ann's cousin for remaining married for more than forty years. That's not an easy thing to do in any culture, and both he and his wife are to be highly commended for staying together through all the tough times every married couple goes through, with the added social pressure from that community of Pentecostalists.

But here's the kicker, Ann. All of these bad experiences do not mean that every Believer in the world is like those folks. It does not mean that the church-going population in Brandon and Wasilla is like them. It doesn't even mean that every believer signed onto these boards is like them. You are doing the very same thing you rightly condemn in their actions, Ann - you are condemning others for believing and acting differently from you.

Maybe you would be uncomfortable in either of those towns. Maybe you wouldn't. Neither of us will ever know unless you have the opportunity to visit them and get to know the people there. I ask only that you not pre-judge people and allow them to unfold themselves before you without any preconceptions on your part.

Actually, that's pretty good advice for all of us. I think I'll try to take it myself.

Well, Terry, you offer no quotes to prove your point, so I can neither defend myself nor, if you could convince me that I should do so, apologize. But I said that I'm not going to try to turn this thread into a general discussion about religion. I'm also not going to turn it into a general discussion about me or my views on religion, either. The rest of you are free to hold such a discussion, of course, at least if the moderators don't stop you, but I'm not going to participate. Personally, I don't appreciate it.

I'm not going to participate in a general discussion about Brandon or Wasilla, either, since indeed I know so extremely little about those places.

I think it might be fair to hold a general discussion about Sarah Palin's religious views, except that I know little about them, too. I know that Sarah Palin is a religious conservative, but I haven't heard her make any specific statements and back them up with religious arguments. So again, I have little to comment on. I know that she is against abortions, but many Americans are against abortions, and I'm not sure that all of them reject abortions on religious grounds. In any case, I'm not going to take part in a general discussion about abortions here.

No, I think that all I'm going to say for now is that I agree with Carol, who pointed out that Sarah Palin chose to keep her youngest child instead of aborting it, even though she knew that the baby would have Down's syndrome. I agree with Carol that I admire Palin for sticking to her beliefs and choosing not to have an abortion for herself, even though she knew that her baby was going to be handicapped.

Ann

Even if this is true...

... it sounds kind of like McCain's relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. People in glass houses and all that...

Pam, here is a blog entry from Ayer's own blog.

http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008...-letter-to-the-new-york-times-9-15-2001/

I do not see him expressing regret or remorse over the bombs he planted. I do not see an apology. I see justification for his actions - he was living in a culture of violence with "structures of racism." His choices were complex, extreme and desperate. They were not wrong.

He focuses the attention on America's responsibility, - for the murder of innocents in Vietnam, for racism, for his own anger. He never once mentions his own personal responsibility.

He condemns terrorism, but is careful to define it as violence that is "indisrcriminate," "clean", and "distant". Can't you see what he is doing? - To Ayers, the 911 highjackers and America are the terrorists. He remains totally unrepentant.

I posted a link to the actual CNN article. In the article they document their evidence.

If that does not satisfy, I recommend a few minutes with Google. The evidence is overwhelming.

try googling word combinations such as:
juvenile Ayers Obama
rules radicals Alynski Obama
Sidley Austin Obama Dohrn
Woods Foundation Obama Dohrn

Happy hunting.

You can read into his statements what you will. Others have and we will just have to agree to disagree.

I choose to read them how he explains them. That he is remorseful for many things among them bombs (as he points out he has no love for bombs) but he wasn't not remorseful for being against the war and the terrible things that were going on. I don't condone what he did so many years ago... but as I have pointed out he is remorseful for them and has done MANY things for the Chicago community to help make it a better place. The mayor of Chicago has even stepped up to defend him as well many many scholars in the academia. All of them say the same thing, they don't condone his past but he is a respectable figure now that he has turned his life around to better pursuits and they would stand by him and vouch for him.

I could go on, but it is obvious that those of you who feel this is something more will continue to believe this. Nothing I write here is going to change that.

And you know what? That's okay. It the beauty of our nation that we can all have an opinion and that on November 4th we can put those opinions to good use.

He is playing word games with you. Having no love of bombs is not the same as being remorseful over using them. He did nothing he needs to apologize for. If anything, America should apologize to him! What he did was totally justified in his own mind. America *made* him do it.

Read what he posted on his blog :

I've never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use of it in its own cause consistently.

I repeat:

You know I was going to respond here... but I'm backing out now.

It is obvious as I said before nothing is going to change your mind. You are going to read that quote the way you want to and I'll read it mine.

*steps out of thread*

Jojo,

I respect your decision to bow out of the discussion.

For the sake of those who were might be reading along, I will say the following:

Jojo maintains that Ayers is a changed man who regrets his terrorist past and is now atoning for his crimes through community service. I say he is a militant radical who has merely changed tactics while remaining true to his ideological objectives. The media and Obama's campaign say Ayers is a man of no consequence in Obama’s life who happens to live in his neighborhood. I say he is someone who, over the course of a close and ongoing personal and professional relationship spanning more than a decade, has greatly influenced Obama’s thinking, and the way he views America.

This is not a question of “you say tomato and I say tomahto.” It is not a question of “believe whatever you want to believe.”

Clark to Lois: You're an investigative reporter, investigate!

Just a note, since I'm the one who asked for the evidence -- thank you for the link, Jojo. However, I don't see anything in there that even comes close to saying "I'm sorry for what we did. I regret killing people." Saying "Well, the other guy started it" or "Those were desperate times" or "I regret not doing more to stop the war" i.e., killing *more* people, since that seemed to be his main way to protest the Vietnam War, is not at all the same thing.

Thought experiment -- say McCain was acquainted with and spent ten years working with an abortion clinic bomber. One who said he *had* to do it, because he sincerely believed innocent lives were at stake, and he's just sorry he couldn't do more to protect them. One who would wax eloquent about the horrors and holocaust of abortion. Your sentiments about abortion aside, you think anybody's gonna give McCain a pass on that? Just because it's been, like, two decades since the guy blew anything up? What would that association/alliance say about McCain?

I'm just saying.

PJ

Well I suppose at this point all I can say is that McCain's money to hire the same robocall firm that smeared him in 2000 to smear Obama wasn't a total waste. His supporters seem to be buying the connection. The rest of us are tired of hearing it (as seen by McCain's increasing drop in polls as he continues to push the issue).

100,000 who don't think Obama is a terrorist gathered in Missouri (historically a red state) to hear Obama speak last night. The biggest US crowd to hear him speak:



75,000 more gathered that night in Kansas.

We got Colin Powell's endorsement this morning: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/colin.powell/index.html

Newspapers that have always favored Republicans and always endorsed republicans are for first time in 60 years (or ever) endorsing Obama. But I'm sure that it isn't because they've done their research. I'm sure it's just them turning liberal and being one sided.

See you guys at the polls on the 4th.

~Jojo, who has also always voted Republican until this election.

From the transcript of the 1980s documentary No Place to Hide:

Griffin: Larry Grathwohl became a member of the Weather Underground organization as an undercover operative for law enforcement agencies in Cincinnati.

Grathwohl: I asked, "Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't re&#8209;educate, that are die-hard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they'd have to eliminate 25 million people in these re&#8209;education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.

Griffin: The Weather Underground Organization officially describes itself as follows: "...a revolutionary organization of communist men and women .... Our goal is the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless state: world communism."

=======

Interview of William Ayers (April 2002): I considered myself partly an anarchist then, and I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean, I’m as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist [...] I know what I think, and I’ve very open about what I think, and nobody here is surprised by what I think.

I have a question, Vicki. I see what you've quoted Ayers as saying, and I'm still not getting into his specific case or the nature of his relationship with Barack Obama as I don't know anything like enough to draw conclusions.

But this looks dangerously like policing what people think. Your country has one of the most entrenched set of legal protections for freedom of speech in the world. It's not as if any of the statements you've quoted from Ayers himself actually advocate anything that's illegal. I don't think that being a Marxist or an anarchist in and of itself is illegal, right? Just like someone openly stating that they're opposed to gay rights or that they believe Creationism (or intelligent design or whatever) should be taught in preference to evolution - or vice versa; they're all just opinions.

I'm honestly not trying to argue with you here; I'm just genuinely interested to know why - in and of itself - that statement from Ayers that you have bolded is something you consider inappropriate, other than the fact that (as is your right) you disagree with his political opinions.


Wendy

I did not make these words bold because I find them inappropriate. I made them bold to give emphasis to the fact that Ayers is very outspoken about his current beliefs - which, in fact, are the same beliefs he has always held. He does not hide them, and those who associate with him are well aware of how he thinks and what his opinions are.

Originally, Obama tried to downplay his relationship with Ayers, calling him "someone who lives in my neighborshood." When it came out that they had served together on the Woods Foundation, Obama had to change his story, and he then admitted Ayers was more than someone who just happened to live in the neighborhood, and that the two had "served on a board together". More facts started to be unearthed. The two served together on not one, but two different boards.

Obama's story changed again. In an interview with Michael Smerconish, on Oct. 9, 2008, Obama related how he worked with Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and said, "Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated."

Based on what I know of Ayers, and based on his own description of how open he is regarding his political beliefs, I find it about as hard to believe that Obama assumed Ayers was "rehabilitated" as to believe that Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years and didn't hear the racist, hateful comments of his own pastor.

Speaking of Rev. Wright, Ayers and Obama, while on the Woods Foundation, gave money to Rev. Wright's church. Rev. Wright claims the only way to fully understand the theology taught at his church is to read Dr. James Cone's "A Black Theology of Liberation". It turns out Black Liberation Theology has its roots in Marxism. Here is an excerpt: "Looting, burning, or the destruction of white property are not primary concerns. Such matters can only be decided by the oppressed themselves who are seeking to develop their images of the black Christ" Sounds a lot like something Ayers would say, doesn't it?

I am not in the least advocating policing what people think. As you quite rightly state, people are free to believe anything they want in America. It is not illegal by any means to be a Marxist in America. If we were discussing our neighborhood mailman, or a Hollywood actor, or my husband's barber, I would say they are free to believe what they want to believe and it is absolutely none of my business. But we are discussing a politician, and his political views are of utmost importance, and most certainly are my, and all of America's, business.


Edited to clarify: Obama is the politician, and it is Obama's political views which are of importance. But he doesn't hold those political views in a vacuum. The fact that he attended Rev. Wright's church, that he launched his career from Bill Ayer's living room, that he approved funds for the African village project, that he wrote a blurb for one of Ayers's books giving it a glowing review, the list goes on and on - all of these are very problematic to many Americans.

Obama mentor identified as communist
Frank Marshall Davis 'discussed American imperialism, colonialism, exploitation':

The mysterious "Frank" cited as a friend and adviser by Democratic president contender Barack Obama while he was growing up in Hawaii has been identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the old Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA.

----

Another Communist in Obama’s Orb
Meet Michael Klonsky , Obama's "social justice" education expert.

Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.

To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi …

The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology.

-----

As I say in my previous post, I have no problem with these men believing what they do. I disagree with them, obviously, but they are free to have their own beliefs. My problem is that these are the men Obama has chosen for his inner circle.

Wendy, quoting someone is the same as thought police? Nobody's saying Ayers ought to be arrested (he should have been, decades ago, for crimes committed back then, but that's water under the bridge). That's nowhere near the point. The point is, examining a man's allies will tell you something about him, and when a man's got lots and lots of repulsive allies, you gotta start wondering what all he agrees with them on. That's a legitimate area of inquiry.

And if Barack Obama is telling the truth that he didn't know what Ayers was all about, then obviously the man's too stupid to be president.

PJ

What I was actually trying to find out was why Vicki quoted Ayers: what specific point she was trying to make with the bolded remarks. Earlier, all references were to Ayers as an unrepentant terrorist, but the specific remarks only referred to his beliefs, not any planned or wished-for or unrepented actions.

Anyway, Vicki answered my question, and in the spirit I asked it, too. Sorry I didn't post again at the time, Vicki, but our internet was down all yesterday evening. I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to agree on this - personally, I see Marxism (as long as it's not tied with any kind of violent behaviour) as being as valid as any other political philosophy. Maybe as a result of working for too many years with people so fixed in their own perspective (one which, admittedly, I shared) that they automatically rejected any divergent view as 'wrong' and not worth listening to, but I see willingness to listen to other perspectives - particularly ones you disagree with - as a positive, not a negative Even if you still end up with the same beliefs you started with, it's generally on the basis of a better understanding of the opposing point of view.

(Not, of course, that I'm arguing that this is why Obama may speak to Ayers and others of similar views - I have no idea and am not speculating).


Wendy

Just one thought...

When I think 'socialist', I think Tommy Douglas, not Stalin. But, hey, I'm a Canadian so what can you expect .

ML

Well, Stalin was a Stalinist One of a kind, I think, and a good thing too. (And I made the point earlier on the thread that socialism isn't by any means the same as Marxism).


Wendy

But then, when I think 'Christian Politician', I also think... Tommy Douglas.

ML

Below is a link to an article called The
Comprehensive Arguement Against Barack Omama.
I wish some of you who think he is so wonderful
would read it with an open mind.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/

For those who question my concern over self-proclaimed anarchist/Marxist William Ayers and his radical version of "education reform", listen to Yuri Bezmenov , former KGB agent and expert on psychological warfare, discuss the results of what Bezmenov calls “pumping Marxist-Leninist theology into the soft heads of American students, without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of American patriotism”: “They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimulate in a certain way, in a certain fashion. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black. You still cannot change the basic perception and the logical behavior.” According to Bezmenov, you end up with someone who “is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic truth, with documents.”

I maintain that what Ayers calls “education reform”, Bezmenov says the KGB calls “ideological subversion” or “active measures”: “What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their family, their community, and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow, and it is divided into four basic stages – the first one being demoralization. It takes between 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why this many years? Because this is minimum number of years which it takes to educate one generation in the country of your enemy. [...] The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already. [...] Most of it is done by Americans to Americans.”

Patti: I read the page you linked to. If that's all they can come up with as reasons not to vote for Obama - perpetuating the same tired old stuff that's been hashed around by the McCain campaign for months and which many undecided voters have said they're fed up with hearing - it's pretty unimpressive on their part. I see circumstantial evidence and selective interpretations - and anyone can selectively interpret things like voting records. John McCain defends his voting record against certain legislation because of riders that were attached, and I've heard Obama say the same thing.

Overall, they seem to say don't vote for him because he's not a conservative... well, millions of Americans don't want to vote for a conservative, so that's not really a disqualification unless you do want a conservative in government - which I understand that you do, and that's your right, just as it's other people's right to want something different.


Wendy

Have you all heard the news that just came out about Obama being buddies with Rashid Khalidi?
He is with the Palestinian Hamas terrorist
organization. Yet another terrorist he is linked
with. Wake up people! You actually want this person to be President? I am just so appalled.
Patti

Yeah, Wendy, but I think the point is, a lot of people just don't know this stuff about him, since the mainstream media has pretty much refused to investigate and report any of this. (If an anchor with a Florida TV news show asks Joe Biden semi-tough questions, she's investigated, her husband is investigated, and we all know if he has unpaid parking tickets. But a Presidential candidate who disapproves of the Constitution? Hey, that's just not important. Nothing to see here. :rolleyes: )

Free choice is vital to democracy, but it ought to be an informed choice. In fact, without all the information being reported, you can't even really have a free choice.

PJ

Actually, I've seen plenty about Ayers, Acorn, Jeremiah what's-his-name and so on in mainstream media. As for that journalist in Florida, I don't know who's digging into her private life and that seems wrong to me, but the Democrats criticising her for her question isn't all that different from the way Palin kept slamming Katie Couric for what was, IMO, a perfectly reasonable set of interview questions.

In Biden's place, I would have wondered if the journalist was joking too. All those accusations based on Obama's comment about spreading the wealth is one thing (and ALL taxes are redistributive, after all, as is just about all government spending), but a Marxist? Since when has Obama even hinted at opposition to private enterprise? Has he so much as suggested public control of private corporations? Of course he hasn't. As I commented earlier, there's a huge difference between socialism and Marxism, and Obama's not even a socialist. If he were, he'd be advocating for workers' rights and huge extensions of labour laws to protect employees, representation of employees on boards of directors and many more things, including a steep increase in the minimum wage.

As for the Rashid Khalidi accusation Patty mentions, I'm waiting for that to appear on Factcheck, though CNN's own factcheck is calling it misleading at best - they say Obama has always made clear that he disagrees with Khalidi on Palestine. But that's CNN, and we'll see what Factcheck says.

This is one thing I loathe about modern-day politics; accusations which may be completely untrue - such as Obama not being born in the US, or Palin cutting spending on special needs - or which are at best misleading make their way around blogs and gossip sites as fast as a virus, and they're impossible to kill completely. There are plenty of voters out there who still believe some of these inaccurate or misleading rumours.


Wendy

Just to reiterate my own personal situation: I am not a US citizen, therefore I do not have the privilege of casting a vote for either candidate.

About Khalidi: Based on the statements that he and Obama lived in the same neighborhood and attended some of the same dinner parties, their "friendship" could run the gamut from mere acquaintances to close friends. The spectrum is wide and I haven't seen anything thus far that provides evidence for one particular end of the scale as yet.

But for the sake of your argument, Patti, let's assume for a minute that they're quite close. Just because two people are friends does not automatically mean that they share all of the same personal beliefs.

My best friend and I do not agree politically. We have so many other things in common, but there we disagree. She's still my best friend. I can be best friends with her without believing all the same things that she does.

Patti, for every post you have made in this thread, the suggestion comes across (in my opinion) as though you think Obama supporters are stupid, or idiots, or blind to the truth, or I don't know what. Fine, don't support him, but please remember that others may be as equally "well-informed" as you are, yet feel differently on these issues. The point of view of the "other side" is valid too.

Kathy

The Khalidi thing strikes me as nothing more than desperate from a campaign that is already deep in the gutter.

As Stephen Colbert noted - next we'll be learning all about Obama's association with the chupacabra. "He started his campaign in its lagoon!"

You might just as well be appalled at this, Patti:

The source here is The Huffington Post - which is, of course, hardly unbiased. But no more so than Fox is for McCain and the Republicans, so it's probably an equally valid source of info. Or not, as the case may be.

Me, I'd check out anything said on either very carefully before forming an opinion on it or, indeed, expressing my astonishment that anyone else wouldn't take it at face value and gospel truth without checking it at all. :rolleyes:

If it is true however, then McCain is either treading on very thin ice by trying to make a mountain out of a molehill on Obama's links to this man or he is confident that the US media will not mention his own dealings on the subject.

Given their silence on his associations with Falwell when he made such a song and dance about Wright, perhaps it's a pretty good gamble at that. :p

LabRat

Wendy,

re: the difference between socialism and Marxism. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing. As you know, I'm taking college courses, and one of them touched on the difference between socialism and communism, which made things clearer for me. Communism (more or less the same as Marxism?) is a system where the state has total control over labor, capital, and all other resources (factors of production). Socialism, according to the text, is when the state has control over *some* key industries (like, for instance, banking... hmm), or only part of the economy. But the redistribution of wealth part wasn't discussed.

Um, no. Ideally, in America, taxes go to pay for state and federal services like interstate highways, the courts, and defense. Services that can't be provided by anyone else. There's been a lot of redistribution built into the system over the decades, but that's a bug, not a feature. IMO. Obama, however, clearly likes that part, and wants to increase it. Come to think of it, I'm guessing the socialism part is because with higher tax rates, government controls a larger percentage of GDP?

No, other than railing against "greed on Wall Street" etc (which McCain does, too ), and Joe Biden telling an audience that they'll make those CEOs pay for their errors, and, I quote, "their pensions go first." I thought pensions were supposed to be private property? I heard something about increasing the minimum wage, too, but that may have been Congress. But anyway, no, of course he hasn't openly campaigned that way, because he knows that in America, it would be toxic to his campaign.

Agreed. If we truly had impartial journalism, that would cut down on it. But since very few people think *any* networks are unbiased, there's room for rumors to thrive. Think about it -- you try to prove something to me based on the New York Times, I'm gonna dismiss it out of hand. Vice versa, if I'm citing Fox News, ditto.

Patti -- I know how you feel, but Kathy's right. We've got to keep this respectful to all the viewpoints. If you want to vent, there are lots of places where you can do that among friends. Here's not the right place for that.

LabRat, I tend to agree with you, which is why I haven't paid much attention to the Khalidi stuff. But video of Obama actually applauding anti-Semitism would stir up quite a fuss. We don't have nearly the level of anti-Semitism over here as you do in Europe. And US policy towards Israel is a definite issue. It would probably change some votes. Not a lot, probably, but it's a close election to start with.

PJ

Pam -

the number I heard is Obama wants minimum wage to 9.50 by 2010.

I shudder at that. that's a 50%ish hike in minimum wage and I know small business that would go under/hike prices/cut jobs but I GUARANTEE you DH or I [salaried] won't see an extra dime while all of our costs go up.

His own website

Minimum wage was never meant to be a LIVING wage... it's for high school kids and those who've never been in the work force not to try to raise a family on - and those who do try to do that - IMO - will likely never be able to do so easily because the costs of goods and services goes up in proportion to the 'wholesale' cost of those those goods and services. Gas/distribution costs go up? So does the price of goods. Wages go up? So does the price of goods - proportionally or even out of proportion if businesses feel they can get away with it. Those that can't get away with it will go under/cut jobs/cut benefits/etc.

Carol

Carol, as for the minimum wage, I think there are two good reasons for keeping it low. First of all, if the minimum wage is low it will be cheap for employers to hire. People who can't find a job any other way may find that an emplyer is willing to give them a chance if the pay they'll get is so low anyway. But if the minimum wage is raised, it's going to cost employers more to hire, and more of them may be unwilling to hire, and unemployment could rise. That would certainly not be a good thing, not for anybody.

The second benefit of a low minimum wage is that the goods and services produced by people earning the minimum wage will be cheap. It is going to be cheap for the rest of us to buy the stuff that the minimum earners produce. That is certainly very good for the rest of us, those of us who earn more than the minimum wage.

But for me, a left-wing person, a low minimum wage is nevertheless very problematical. Take a look at this picture from 'Västra Hamnen', a newly-built and uppity part of my hometown of Malmö. As you can see, lots of big rocks and boulders have been placed right next to the waterline. But if you look at this picture very closely, you may be able to see that some of the boulders, though none of the most nearby ones, look extremely smooth and shiny:

Rocks and boulders in \'Västra Hamnen\'

How did some of the rocks get so shiny? Well, because they were ground and polished until they shone, of course. But here's the deal. They were not polished in Sweden, but in China. Take a look at this map of the world:

Map of the world

Can you see Sweden, marked in purple in northern Europe? Well, the boulders in Västra hamnen were loaded onto a ship and brought by that ship to China, marked in yellow on that map. Can you imagine the cost and general bother of shipping those boulders all the way to China and back again? Just to have them ground and polished? Why couldn't we do that in Sweden instead?

Well, you guessed it. In Sweden, the people who do that sort of work cost too much, that is, their wages are 'too high'. Also, they have the right to all sorts of protection and good working conditions. Grounding and polishing rocks creates a lot of silicate dust, which clogs up and destroys people's lungs. Last year there was a documentary on Swedish television about workers who ground and polished rocks in China. Not only was their pay lousy, but almost all of them died in their fifties or earlier, because their lungs were clogged up with silicate dust.

Ah, but it was cheap for us to have those boulders polished. And the boulders do look pretty when they glitter and shine. So who cares about those Chinese workers and their clogged-up lungs? And who cares about those Swedish stone workers who remained umemployed while the Swedish boulders were being polished in China? It was a good deal for the rest of us Swedes.

I once saw a documentary about illegal immigrants picking oranges at an orange plantation in Florida. These workers were not given money in exchange for their work, but instead they were given tokens which they could use to buy goods in the store which was owned by the their employer. The documentary followed one of these workers, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, and kept check, more or less, on what he bought in that store. It wasn't very much. However, when the fruit-picking season was over, this worker ended up owing his employer about a thousand dollars! Yes, because the employer said that the worker had bought too much in the employer's store, so after working in the orange yard during the whole fruit-picking season the worker had not earned a cent, but instead he ended up being in debt!

Now you may point out that the worker in question was an illegal immigrant, and no one had forced him to make his way into the United States to work. That's a good point. But here's the deal. According to the documentary, most oranges in Florida are in fact picked by illegal immigrants, who earn next to nothing. And because these workers earn so little, or nothing at all, oranges that are sold all over the United States are cheap. If they had been picked by American workers earning the minimum wage, they would have been much more expensive. And if they had been picked by American workers earning 9.50, they would have been really very much more expensive.

Middle class people like you and me, Carol, benefit if poor people work for terribly low wages under terrible working conditions. Because the stuff we buy get cheaper that way. But can we be proud of ourselves for asking for the cheapest stuff, even if it gets that cheap only if it is produced by people earning hardly any money at all?

As for the economic difficulties of the middle class, remember that not all of it, and probably not most of it, has been caused by the poorest people, regardless of how you look at it. One reason for the current economic crisis is that so much money has been redistributed from low- and middle-income people to the very richest ones, who have become almost exponentially richer while the low-and middle-income people generally have become somewhat poorer. One thing that happened at the banks was that up to 50% of the banks' profits went into bonuses for its executives! The banks would certainly have been better off if most of their profits had been invested back into the banking business instead. By the way, I read in the New York Times (I know, I know...) that at least some banks planned to use their 'bailout money' not to give loans to people who needed it, but to buy other banks and give bonuses to their executives.

It's easy to blame poor people, but I think rich people have done more to create the economic downturn that we see today.

Ann

I don't know about the illegal worker but for the moment I'll keep my thoughts on that to myself...

However, minimum wages don't apply to farm workers - they have a different system for them.

I'm not saying that being one step above slave labor is a good thing. What I am saying is that when minimum wage goes up to 9.50, I won't be able to afford to take my kids to Wendy's [like I did last night b/c they did a GREAT job sitting at Walmart while we got the oil changed/battery checked] because instead of costing me $6, it would cost $10 and my oil change would have cost me $35 instead of $22 and all the other costs have gone up accordingly. My husband and I will not get raises, but all of our goods that we buy will go up in price and our real buying power will go WAY down with a 50%ish raise in minimum wage. Why? Because we've worked our tails off to get an education and a job that pays [currently] well above minimum wage. Our bosses would already have to give considerable raises to employees that do make minimum or less than the new minimum. They won't be able to afford to give us raises as well.

Just guessing that the real buying power of 95% of Americans would go down. Especially with such a huge jump in such a short time.

So much for that new flat screen TV we've been eyeing - we wouldn't be able to afford it after we bought food and clothes for our family.

Carol [who will probably get said TV before Christmas but that's not the point]

Edit: It's early and I missed my point... My point is that if real buying power goes down for most Americans, all that discretionary buying stops. Fast food restaurants might be okay because they're fairly cheap, but slightly nicer ones won't be. Pizza will be picked up, not delivered. Best Buy will see a decrease in sales. So will all the other places. Then they've laid people off already because of the increase of minimum wage, so they lay more off because of the decrease in sales. The buying power of those on minimum wage won't actually increase nearly as much either because all of the goods they buy will go up in price for them too. So I fail to see how raising something that wasn't designed to be lived on in the first place is going to solve the problems of the poor.

I'm solidly middle class, and my 'wealth' hasn't been redistributed to the wealthy. The top 5% already pays something like 90% of all taxes and 40% [or more] Americans don't pay any at all. I get a tax welfare check every year - I get back more than I pay in. I disagree COMPLETELY with the principle, but I'm not going to turn it down either. That said, we plan on making a lot more money someday. The government already screws up enough with the money of mine they do get through payroll taxes etc, I have no desire to give them anymore. That said, I do plenty on my own - without government help - to help those less fortunate than myself. I don't need the people who can't balance a budget to save their life telling me the best way to take my money to give to someone else. Not even to me.

Carol [again, who's not sure that's coherent because she's on about 4.5 hours of sleep]

Carol, I'm not going to take part in a discussion about what the future will be like, because that is something we can't know. Personally, admittedly, I don't believe that a doubling of the minimum wage would lead to a loss of income for 95% of Americans. But there is nothing I can do to prove or bolster my view, so I'm reduced to stating it. And the future may prove me wrong anyway.

Let me tell you about the first time I had a discussion (or maybe an argument ) with a person who eventually invoked the future to 'win' our debate. This guy was a red-hot communist, really, and he kept insisting that we needed to bring the communist revolution to all of the world, because communism on Earth would eventually lead to Paradise on Earth. I kept insisting that he was wrong, and I cited as many examples as I could from communist countries where so many people didn't seem to think that they were living in Paradise at all.

But suddenly our debate was all over, and my opponent had won, even though I couldn't understand how it had happened. This was his closing argument:

"You criticize the communist countries of today for being imperfect. Well, remember that it took capitalism 200 years to achieve a measure of perfection. Communism has only been around since 1917. You have to wait for a hundred years, and then the Soviet Union and other communist countries will be like Paradise!"

When he had said that to me, I was speechless. My opponent was in fact telling me that he knew the future, while I would never presume to say that I did. And I was absolutely unprepared to respond to him.

Did this guy in fact believe that he knew the future? I have no way of knowing if he did think so. But if he did, it must have been because he had studied Marxism so thoroughly that he absolutely believed that history must unfold the way Marx had predicted that it would. It was a staggering thought. This guy believed in Marxism the way Evangelical Christians believe in the Bible. Or else, you know, he was just a fake who was looking for a way to win a debate.

Well, Carol, I think of my opponent from all those years ago as either a spineless fake or a scary, fanatical fundamentalist. You are definitely neither of those! You didn't claim to know what would happen if Obama gives the minimum wage a substantial hike. You told us that you were just guessing what the consequences would be. And guessing is all that any of us can do when it comes to the future, and that means we have only a limited opportunity to have a reasonable and rational debate. (I hope you understand I wasn't criticizing you here, only trying to explain why I generally shy away from debates about the future. It isn't as if I haven't stated my own beliefs about the future, though!)

Still, I want to quote the New York Times again. This is from a column by Paul Krugman:

So it appears that consumer spending is already down, even though the minimum wage hasn't been raised. Therefore, if Obama raises the minimum wage and consumer spending keeps on declining, maybe that will be because of the change of the minimum wage, but maybe the real reason will just be the general bear market and the recession.

Ann

Below is a link to a video on Youtube some of you might care to watch. I've heard it's the most watched election related video on Youtube. It is less than 2 minutes long but wonderful.
I won't comment further as i wouldn't want to be
accused of "venting".

Ann

I don't have to go into great detail but I will say that I feel my guesses are reasonably accurate because it has happened in the past. There are those who will probably show stats to the other side, but that's what happened to me, my family and those I know.

And *incomes* wouldn't go down for most, but *buying power* would. Based on what I've seen in my own personal experience, that's what would happen.

GTG kids ready...
Carol

Carol said:

<sarcasm>Yay another minimum wage hike being proposed.</sarcasm>

California minimum wage is already $8/hr. We've got the high cost of living here to go along with it, too. We've been seriously looking at moving out of California because the cost of living here is so high, but if we move and they raise the minimum wage that high, I guess the only thing we'd get out of it would be more annual rainfall (hate living in a desert).

I found an interesting website awhile back that lists information for cities all over the US, city-data.com . One of the things it lists is the cost of living index. 100 is the US average. My town (Ramona, CA) is 116.3 and New York, NY, is 135.9. Both are places where the state minimum wage is higher than the Federal minimum wage. I know this is just two examples, but here\'s a nifty website that lists minimum wages all across the country. Feel free to see if you can find a place with a higher minimum wage and a low cost of living.


Tara

Edited to add: This website has a color-coded map that shows costs of living on a state by state basis.

OMG... That was awe-inspiring. Thank you.

I'm very happy to live in Texas... where our cost of living is low, there is no state income tax and our overall economy is doing better than the rest of the nation.

Some stats in the state are skewed by the hispanic/illegal population near the border, but with that taken into consideration, we are doing fine.

The state is solidly Republican too...

May-be there's a lesson there... Just sayin' .

Speaking of economics, here's a nice tutorial...



Don't you just love common sense.

Sorry I've been gone for a while, but I've had a bear of a sickness lately and haven't done much but read about my favorite football team. (American football, not soccer)

Antibiotics have finally kicked in... it only took two doctors and two months to get them to prescribe it after I started getting far worse... so I'm feeling much better now.

And in time for the election tomorrow, too.

As for Kathy's question about tax credits for moving businesses out of the country, Obama's probably correct. There are thousands of little pieces of the tax code that do contradictory things, most of them put in by individual Congressmen or Senators into a much larger bill as riders or earmarks, usually to help a specific campaign contributor or business in his/her district. That there are tax laws like that in place is a disgrace. The tax code is so large that nobody knows everything that's in it, but what's most important is the big picture when it comes to taxes. I say simplify the whole thing and toss out all the special interest tax laws, but that was done once in 1986. But like cockroaches, they survive and come back little by little.

As for bad associations, people point out G. Gordon Liddy as the bad guy McCain's been associated with. What's he done that's comparable to all the bad guys associated with Obama? He was part of a group of third-rate burglars stealing information from the DNC headquarters at the Watergate Apartments. He was convicted and did his time and is now a radio talk show host, often regretting what he did earlier. He is not an unrepentant terrorist. And McCain was still an active duty Naval officer at the time Liddy got out, not even in politics yet.

Charles Keating was also brought up, but people forget that McCain was exonerated in court as a member of the Keating Five. Some say the prosecutors went after him just to fill a Republican quota since the other four were Democrats.

And what do you know? The Keating Five was a banking scandal where Dems were up to their eyeballs with sweetheart mortgage deals just like Jim Johnson and other Democrats are tied in with Countrywide Mortgage today. Some things never change.

Fast forward a few years and once again, Dems are up to their eyeballs in another banking catastrophe.

Oh, btw, people have this impression that Wall Street consists of Republicans. Virtually everyone high up in the investment banking community is a Democrat. The chairman, CEO of Lehman, chairman and CEO of AIG are Democrats. The same with Merrill Lynch. Even Hank Paulson from Goldman Sachs, while a Republican, is hardly a right winger. It's tough to find a conservative Republican anywhere there. That's one reason why Republican presidents have had such a hard time finding good candidates for Treasury Secretary that have a name on Wall Street. There aren't that many to choose from. They're about as rare as Republicans in Hollywood. Alan Greenspan, btw, is a Democrat, married to ultra-liberal Andrea Mitchell of NBC News.

Then again, my favorite Fed Chairman is a Democrat, Paul Volcker, so they're not all bad. Greenspan and Bernanke, the two who followed Volcker, were disasters.

Now on to policy.

On raising taxes and increased protectionism, does anyone remember what happened in 1929 after Wall Street had a meltdown? President Hoover raised taxes and increased protectionism by signing the Smoot-Hawley Act, two of the prime reasons the Great Depression came about. Hoover took a recession and made it the Great Depression as the double hit raised unemployment to a record 25%.

FDR failed to make much of a dent in the Great Depression with the New Deal as unemployment stayed at record highs and the economy stayed in the toilet for a decade. Most economists agree today that FDR prolonged the Great Depression with his policies and that it was World War II that brought us out of the Great Depression with near-universal employment as millions of men were drafted into the armed services and women were brought into the workforce for the first time out of necessity for the war effort, creating symbols like Rosie the Riveter.

Now it's 2008. We've had a banking catastrophe and Wall Street has had a meltdown. Obama proposes raising taxes and unilaterally redefining NAFTA and refusing to allow a free trade agreement with other nations in the western hemisphere, such as Colombia, all in the name of more protectionism. We've seen this act before. Recession + protectionism + higher taxes = Great Depression. We'll see how dynamic our economy is in warding off Obamanomics if he wins tomorrow since our economy is not the same as it was in 1929. Personally, I'd rather not see a repeat of the 1930's.

And on the issue of taxes, according to the latest IRS information, the top 50% pay 97.1% of all federal taxes while the lower 50% pay 2.9% while 40% pay zero income taxes. The percentage paid by the top 1%, 5%, 10%, and 50% have all doubled since the beginning of the Reagan Administration. Bush's tax cuts moved four million families off of the tax rolls making it even more progressive than before.

To get a perspective, the top 1% makes about 12% of the income. They pay about 35% of the taxes. The top 10% make about 25% of the income and pay about 60% of the taxes. The bottom 50% make about 25% of the income and pay 2.9% of the taxes.

The tax code is plenty progressive and doesn't need to be more progressive. Unfortunately, even when Republicans cut taxes, they make the tax code even more progressive. Ronald Reagan did it and so did George W. Bush.

As for Obama's tax plan, there aren't 95% of tax payers who can have their income taxes cut. So what's he going to do? He's going to increase tax credits, giving checks to people who don't pay taxes. That's called welfare, not a tax cut. There also aren't enough "rich" to pay for his $1 trillion in new spending. The only place to get that kind of money is from the middle class. It's no wonder the threshold for rich keeps dropping. Governor Bill Richardson and Joe Biden keep lowering that threshold.

I can already hear people saying, "but Ronald Reagan created the Earned Income Tax Credit that now pays people who don't pay taxes." Not true. Reagan did indeed create the EITC to help low-income families, all right. But his original EITC never gave people back money they didn't pay in. It was only later that the EITC began to pay people who didn't pay taxes.

Obama also plans to raise the capital gains taxes from its current 15% to 20% and 28%. That's a quick way to eliminate revenue. Just as an example of how tax cuts work, Bill Clinton cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20% in 1997, which he signed because his pollster Dick Morris told him to do it. In one year, revenue from capital gains doubled from about $50 billion to $110 billion as capital was freed up and investments increased. According to Keynesians, that shouldn't be possible. That $50 billion should have fallen to $40 billion or less according to leftist theory.

Reagan had done the same thing with his tax cuts taking all income tax rates down from a maximum of 70% to 28%. Revenue in 1980 was $550 billion. By the end of the Reagan Administration, revenue topped $1 trillion.

As a perspective on how American companies are not very competitive in the world market, France has the highest capital gains taxes in Europe at 5%. American businesses pay 20%.

Clinton also recognized that his tax on yachts in 1993 meant to soak the rich didn't work the way he thought it would. Rich people stopped buying yachts and tens of thousands of workers were thrown out of work. The tax was abolished a few years later without fanfare, a tacit admission that raising taxes lowered revenue, in this case to zero, as an entire industry vanished and many people lost their jobs. Remember, J-O-B-S is a very important three-letter word, according to Joe Biden. He wants to raise taxes on employers so that people will have more jobs.

BTW, I'm still waiting on the Clinton middle class tax cut. I remember distinctly when Clinton campaigned on that, hitting President Bush (#41) for raising taxes. I also remembered that one month after his inauguration, Clinton abandoned his middle class tax cut and raised taxes by record amounts, retroactively, including regressive gasoline taxes and the boosting of the taxable level of Social Security benefits, hurting the elderly.

The only taxes he ever cut were capital gains, and that was because his pollster told him to sign the bill that the Republican Congress passed.

The most devastating of Obama's tax increase proposals will be the lifting of the Social Security tax ceiling, currently at $105,000 in income. That translates to an immediate 6.2% tax increase on top of what people already paid, but it becomes double for small businesses who file as S-Corps, Proprietorships, and Partnerships. They'll end up paying an additional 12.4%, an enormous tax increase on top of income tax increases, since they pay both the employer and employee portion. Can we say bye bye to J-O-B-S?

I should also remind people that the deficit had grown to over $400 billion in the aftermath of the dot com bust and 9/11. The Bush tax cuts reduced the deficit to $146 billion in fiscal year 2006, the last Republican budget. In 2007, with a Democratic Congress and Bush's budgets DOA, we have over a $450 billion deficit, more than double. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Now it's 2008. I've heard this story before. Whenever a Democrat promises a middle class tax cut, it's time to hide your money under the mattress since it never happens. You can probably count on a big tax increase coming your way. Oh I'm sure the EITC will be boosted, giving money to people who pay no taxes, but if you do pay any, I wouldn't hold your breath. The last time a Democrat cut anybody's income tax was in 1963 under supply-sider John F. Kennedy. They've all promised it, though. Somehow the follow-through never happens.

On the issue on the availability of abortion doctors, I read an article back in 2002 about the South Dakota Senate race and how abortion was an issue back then. It said that essentially the lack of demand made it non-viable for any abortion doctor to actually practice in the state. In red states where abortion is considered bad, there aren't that many clinics since not many people have them as compared to blue states. In South Dakota, there was a single doctor who came from a neighboring state (I forget which one) who was brought in once a month by Planned Parenthood.

So women who wanted to have an abortion either had to wait for the doctor to arrive and then drive a long distance to get to the doctor's office or they would have to drive to another state where there were many more doctors who would perform abortions.

I can't attest to the accuracy of the article, but it makes sense.

I should mention another potential tax increase that will strongly hit the middle class that has been proposed by Democrats in Congress, but has not been mentioned by the Obama campaign.

Congressional Democrats want to change how 401K retirement contributions work. Instead of allowing people to put money in the investments of their choice, the Congressional Democrats want all 401K money to be invested in US government bonds. Since Ted Kennedy is likely not going to last in the Senate for much longer, Congressional Democrats are proposing this in his name.

The net effect of the bill, first, is to take away choice from anyone who wants to create a retirement fund and makes all retirements dependent on government.

Second, Congress would take away the deductibility of 401K's. Today, all contributions up to 15% of gross income is done with pre-tax money with all taxes deferred until distribution. The new proposal would take away that tax deductibility, making the contributions after-tax money.

So for those who contribute money to a 401K, they would now be taxed on that money immediately.

Congress does not have the votes now to pass such a travesty, but they likely will if they get 60 votes in the Senate. That makes it vitally important to keep the Senate more balanced. Undoubtedly, Obama would sign this legislation as it vastly increases the power of government, so a filibuster would be the only way to stop it.

As Johnny Horton sang, "North to Alaska."

Sorry. I know better than to go there.

Ethnica, I know we've had back-and-forth debate on this thread, but for the most part people have been respectful, both to each other and to the candidates. I think this comment of yours crosses a line. I'd like to invite you to edit it, please.

Thank you.

Wendy
Boards Administration Team

ETA: Thank you for editing

Thank you Wendy.

CM

Roger, this information about what Congressional Democrats want to do about 401Ks is news to me. May I ask what your sources are?

There are probably economic complexities here that I don't comprehend, but it really doesn't make sense to me that any party would want to do that. AFAIK, BOTH parties agree that Social Security is a mess right now, and that when all the Baby Boomers retire there won't be enough money coming in to fund current payments. So people are told NOT to count on the government and Social Security. If the pre-tax contribution advantage is removed, most people will probably make smaller contributions to their own accounts, which makes them even less prepared.

If this is just a tax grab by the Democrats, as you might be arguing, I would think that there are better ways to go about it. Canada faced a major fiscal crisis with an ever-mounting budget deficit in the 1990s, but as far as I know, they never made any similar threats about RRSPs, which serve a similar role to the 401K/403B plans. It certainly would have brought in some easy revenue for the government, in a climate that is used to higher taxation and bigger government. I would have thought they would be more likely to attempt it than any US political party.

Truthfully, no matter how far left one feels that the Democrats are leaning, I do find it hard to believe that they would contemplate such a move with the rising senior population.

Kathy

Here are a couple of sources:


House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks


Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?


Since the proposal is offering a mere $600 subsidy, that means there's a tax increase on anyone making more than $12,000 a year as everyone would be FORCED to join this government-run program for their 401(k) and FORCED to contribute 5% of their gross income. If you currently don't contribute to a 401(k), that's essentially 5% of your money they're taking away without you being allowed to choose not to participate. People who now get employer matching of their 401(k)'s will likely see that disappear, too.

Basically what we'll have is Social Security II. The first one doesn't work and will go bankrupt in just a few years. Now the Democrats want to do it again.

This is socialism. It is government taking over people's private investments and eliminating the choice of those people.

Why would they want to do such a thing? These people believe in big government and government taking over as much of our lives as possible. They define success as how many people are dependent on government while conservatives believe that success means how many people no longer need government.

If the Democrats choose to push this through, this will have further repercussions. With a $4.5 trillion 401(k) system essentially taken away, that means a tremendous amount of capital will leave the stock market and into government coffers.

Since companies use much of this capital to invest in growth, this portion would disappear.

If you think the stock market is low now, it will go even lower with so much 401(k) money disappearing.

It seems the stock market just loves Obama, seeing as 10% of its value has disappeared in just two days.

Yup because we haven't seen the stock market dip that drastically at all in the last month or so. Nope that was the first time and it's ALL Obama's fault!

Actually it was Barney Frank's, Christopher Dodd's, Franklin Raines', and Jim Johnson's fault, among other Democrats.

I only give Obama credit for the last two days' worth of carnage.

I take it you support Social Security II and the loss of all of our 401(k)'s?

Oh you silly kids making assumptions. This is why most of us don’t come in this thread to discuss things. Instead of talking like a normal human being would about a subject you spend most of your time on the attack. Maybe if you stopped trying to think for others and trying to make assumptions about what they believe you would have a better discussion going on here than it is.

Of course that sounds a whole lot like this campaign went.

I haven't been called a kid in 30 years. I'm in my 40's, btw. I notice I keep getting attacked personally (re: "normal human being") every time I ask a hard question, and the question never gets answered. Interesting.

Still, what's the answer to my question? Do you support a second Social Security system and the abolition of 401(k)'s? That question is hardly an attack on anyone. it's just a simple yes or no.

Reading this with some puzzlement - isn't the budget cycle in the US something like a year long, like most other nations? Accordingly, won't it be most of a year before any major changes that the new government makes come into effect?

Looking at what has been happening to e.g. the stock market, banking etc. internationally over the last few weeks, I can't help thinking that any change in government pensions policy will be relatively small potatoes. The BIG change will be that your pension buys far less than you expected, because the dollar will be worth a lot less. But that's being driven by the collapse of the banking system, not by any government.

A change of this kind would not fall under the budget, but rather can be implemented at any time. It may have impact on the budget but it can take place on whatever date the law specifies.

The dollar is actually much higher now than it was before the crisis hit a month ago. The dollar now buys 1.27 Euros.

Kudos Roger! Keep putting out the facts.

IMO, your information is always put out there with polite, logical simplicity. If FACTS challenge or contradict the assumptions of some, making them feel insecure, "attacked" and angry... what what can you do?

Please keep up your informative posts. With the "media" who used to claim to be impartial journalist (just reporting the facts) now openly abandoning the PRETENSE of such, it's harder to get both sides of an issue.

Thanks.

Marcus, your question about government pensions is valid, and I don't think it's been answered yet.

What we call Social Security is a payment from the government once we retire. The size of the payment depends on how long we've paid into the system (unless one gets in on a free political pass), how much money we make on our investments and savings and other retirement programs, whether we're married, if we're disabled, and so forth. That money comes from each taxpayer, goes into a common fund (which is usually raided by Congress - whole other story), and is paid out on a monthly basis.

The 401(k) funds Roger referred to earlier are completely separate from Social Security. A person with a 401(k) voluntarily pays into the fund and the employer usually matches a portion of that payment. The money is invested in one or more mutual funds or savings programs or bond funds or other financial vehicles, and the person who is paying in chooses where the money goes. This gives the individual a great deal of latitude in his or her retirement investments.

The most attractive part of the 401(k) program is that the contributions are not taxed. This means that if I contribute five hundred dollars to my 401(k), the Federal and state governments do not take taxes out of that money. They will tax it when the individual takes it as income after retirement, but by that point the retiree is usually living on a lower income, and therefore would pay less in taxes then than at the point when the money is actually earned.

If Congress takes over this program, the management of my money will end up in their hands, not mine. I will have little if any choice over where the money is invested and how much return I can generate over the years. And that means that my taxes will go up and my retirement nest egg will shrink because I won't be able to afford to sock that much money away.

The worst part, to me, is that it would break an implicit contract that Congress made with American workers when the program was first implemented. They don't tax my retirement savings now, and I'll save more. It has, for the most part, worked out well, despite a number of negative experiences by individuals. This program was never meant to guarantee anyone a rich retirement. It was set up to give each person some leeway in building for that retirement.

Thanks, Terry. I guess I didn't remember that not everybody knows what a 401(k) program is. 401(k) refers to section 401, subsection k of the Internal Revenue Code.

As Terry says, it's a program that's not managed by the government, but rather is a tax exemption on funds individuals invest for their own retirement. A 401(k) can be invested in almost anything, with the exception of insurance policies and a few other minor instruments. I've seen cases where a person declared his car a 401(k) investment. It does not have to be a mutual fund or any other type of financial fund, though a vast majority of 401(k) funds are invested in such to a total of about $4.5 trillion currently in 401(k) funds.

Companies often offer a selection of funds that employees can invest in. If an employee chooses to do so, the employer will often match some or most of that investment, giving an even bigger boon to an employee's savings. My company, for instance, offers a number of Fidelity Mutual Funds for my 401(k). An employee by no means has to invest in those funds. That's just a perk employers often give. An employee may choose to invest in almost any outside instrument. The matching is a big incentive to invest in the funds recommended by the employer. Note that the employer does not manage those plans, but merely offers them for matching purposes as an employment incentive. Fidelity Investments has a big family of mutual funds, not all of which are offered by my company for matching purposes.

The attraction in the 401(k)'s, besides tax-deferral, is the control an individual has in the funds. It is your choice to invest nothing or up to 15% of your gross income. You are free to invest more than 15% in retirement funds, but those additional funds are not considered a 401(k) and would be taxable as a standard investment. And you can invest in virtually anything you choose. It's the freedom of choice that's good. You can choose to be aggressive by investing in stocks, bonds, or commodities when you're young. Or you can play it safe by investing in a safe money market fund or dividend-paying Treasury bond fund if you're nearing retirement age. The bottom line is that you make all the decisions. This new proposal would take away that choice and make retirement exclusively a government-run business. And we all know how wonderfully Social Security has been run. It'll start going bankrupt in 2017 since the "trust fund" has been raided by the government and all of its funds spent in the general budget. There is no trust fund. Polls frequently show that more people believe in UFO's than believe that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Mark me as one of those who doesn't believe Social Security will be there when I retire. Therefore, I'd consider Social Security II to be as solvent as Social Security I. It's just another 5% tax hike plus the loss of deductibility of 15% of my income to be spent in the general fund.

The only involvement government has in these plans is in its taxability. Normally, government will tax any gross income. The 401(k) provision of the tax laws exempts up to 15% of an individual's gross income from taxation if it's invested in a 401(k) plan that grows tax deferred until it is drawn upon at retirement. If an individual draws from a 401(k) before age 59 1/2, the government penalizes the individual 10% of the proceeds, plus any taxes owed on that money.

The government does not manage any 401(k) plans at all. I think that's where the confusion came in. Sorry, Marcus, for the misunderstanding.

Actually I came in here to point out your absurd statement about Obama being the cause of the stock crash was just that, absurd. The stocks markets have done exactly what stock market analysts said it would do and it's really no surprise in that area. Analyst have also said that Obama's long term effects on the market will be very good as his solution are long term solutions that will help to bolster the economy.

You however decided to jump topics to something you felt I didn't agree with you on, even though you know nothing about me, just so you could pick a fight and choose the topic you actually wanted to talk about.

I'm sorry that I didn't play your baiting game so that you could try to trounce on me and make yourself feel superior. You and captivated can go back to high fiving each other now. The rest of us are going to go enjoy the prospect of our new president and actually wait to see what he is going to do instead creating doomsday theories.

What analyst is that who says Obama is good for the long-term economy? Virtually every economist will tell you it's very bad policy to raise taxes in a recession, so I'd say that analyst would be in a distinct minority. What parts of Obama's economic plans would you call pro-growth?

Again, as I predicted, the question doesn't get answered. What does it hurt to answer it? I'm not baiting anything. I'm just seeing if you agree with Congressional Democrats on their new version of another Social Security plan. That was the topic, btw. The comment on the stock market was an aside. So I was merely continuing the topic at hand.

You're right. I don't know anything about you, but since you jumped into the conversation about the Congressional plans to take away 401(k) deductibility and its potential effects on the stock market, I posed it to you as a question. I made an assumption, but posed it as a question for you to say yay or nay on in case my assumption was wrong. So what's your answer? The worst question I'd come back with if you do support it is why?

I'll answer you, Roger. No, I don't think that 401K plan is a good idea, and as we've established, I lean far more left than right. Based on the information from the links, I don't support it.

I will make the caveat, however, that since I know nothing about the partisanship of the links, it's possible that they have made the scenario out to be more dire than it is. I guess I also have to trust that if this were indeed put up for a vote, that some of the Democrats might also view it as a bad idea.

I also don't share your exceptionally negative view that the Democrats are going to make the economic situation worse than it is. But I have no facts and figures to argue with you, so I am prepared to leave that as we agree to disagree.

Kathy

I don't know much about the first link, but the second is to US News and World Report, a very well-known, slightly left-leaning magazine.

I don't have a problem with disagreement. Thank you for your comments, Kathy.

It's so frustrating... people forget the economy was doing relativley well until a liberal policy (low income mortgages) caught up with it. People habitually use Bush as a scape goat (unjustified) and connected McCain with him.

Obama spoke in glittering generalities... like “ the audacity of hope,” “change we can believe in, " "yes we can," and this real head-scratcher, "we are the ones we've been waiting for!"

(OK... I swear BO must have studied Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" http://www.erichoffer.net/ )

But because of his vague rhetoric, vast numbers of Obama supports have projected their own values and poured their own meaning into his words. And now he has a problem. He has a cult-like following of unrealistic "fans."

The Hopemeister is already trying to LOWER expectations. In his acceptance speech Tuesday, Obama said he might not be able to accomplish everything he wants to do in one term... (Ya think?)

"Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve. .."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2308539/US-Election-Senior-aide-to-Barack-Obama-says-Obamamaniacs\'-hopes-unrealistic.html

But... He has already changed his tune on issues like the war and I dare to hope that in reality he will wise up on his economic theories and that some of his "bright" ideas (like raising taxes and government run health care) will be soundly defeated.

Obama is a very eloquent man, but he just told people what they want to hear and it worked. Soon we'll have a clearer picture of what we've actually bought into.

Since we're stuck with him now, I hope he moves more to the "center" and wish him the best.

I've heard audio clips of people so excited that he won because now they wouldn't have to worry about buying gas or making their house payments because he was going to do it for them or something like that. I didn't understand that then or now... And it was more than one person...

/shrug/

At his press conference today, he was asked if any of the information he's received since the election... surprised him or something to that effect and he didn't comment on that.

Part of what I think about Iraq and other national security things is that it's easy to 'Monday morning' quarterback all kinds of stuff, but once you know the whole truth about intelligence etc. the ballgame changes. I think that's true of most presidents as they take over. For instance, Truman didn't know about the Manhattan Project when he became president and he was the VP. How much less do those outside the administration know and how much could their minds change when they find out?

Just a couple thoughts .

Carol

Captivated, I hope that you're not stereotyping anyone who voted for Obama as part of this cult-like following. Your disapproval with Obama's election is obvious to all, and you have your right to your opinion, but do remember that others of us may feel differently. That doesn't make the vast majority of us part of a cult.

I also wanted to address this statement from one of your earlier posts. To me, a fact is a statement like "Ronald Reagan won the presidential election in 1980." That is a fact - it happened, no one can bring any evidence to say that it didn't.

But for me, not everything that Roger says are facts. He always presents very lucid explanations, well thought-out and supported by sources that he finds credible. If you believe in what he says 100%, that's fine.

However, it's very possible that the "other side" could take some of his statements as to why something happened, present some different supporting evidence, and suddenly the picture doesn't look quite so clear-cut anymore. Therefore a "fact" from Roger would look very different from a "fact" from the left side of the aisle. Maybe Roger would think this fact from the left side is wrong, maybe you would think so too. But maybe I wouldn't - and that wouldn't automatically make me wrong because I believe in something different than you do.

So I definitely encourage Roger and anyone else to continue to post their opinions. I've found them to be very informative, even when I don't agree. But please don't act like any conservative is stating "facts" that us insecure liberals can't bear to read. That's insulting.

Kathy

As for the facts that Roger presents...

This is one such 'fact' that I myself found extremely mystifying. Is Alan Greenspan a Democrat? Why have I never heard that before?

I googled Alan Greenspan and read the Wikipedia post about him. Wikipedia didn't mention Greenspan's political affiliation. But there was someone on these boards who said that you can learn about a person's convictions by looking at his friends, so let's look at the some of the people that Wikipedia lists among Greenspan's friends:

Ayn Rand's philosphy was that government is evil and the individual is good. Her philosophy inspired such things as deregulated banking and supply side economics. Remind me, isn't supply side economics a Republican specialty?

Hmmm. Richard Nixon. Remind me, wasn't he a Republican?

Gerald Ford. Remind me, wasn't he a Republican?

Ronald Reagan. Wasn't he a Republican?

Wikipedia points out that Greenspan served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve under four Presidents, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. That means he served under three Republican presidents and one Democratic president. Well, that clinches it, doesn't it? Anyone who has had any associations with any Democrats at all must be a Democrat himself, no matter how many Republican friends he has got. Right?

You cite Greenspan's marriage to Andrea Mitchell as proof that he himself is a Democrat. Well, I don't know about you guys in America, but in Sweden it is not unknown for married couples to agree to disagree on matters of politics. Besides, according to Wikipedia Mitchell and Greenspan were married in 1997, eleven years ago, and they may have grown apart politically since then. Mitchell certainly seems to have some 'not-so-Democratic' credentials, as she was apparently involved in the Valerie Plame case. But in any case, Mitchell is twenty years her husband's junior, and her relative youth just might mean that she has an easier time evolving politically than her husband does. And personally I just don't consider the political leanings of a person's spouse sufficient information to draw conclusions about the party affiliation of the person himself.

(I'm not sure I absolutely believe that Andrea Mitchell is 'ultra-liberal' in the first place, Roger. We have only your word for it that she is, just as we have only your word for Greenspan's supposed affiliation with the Democratic Party.)

I would say that on balance, Alan Greenspan looks a lot more Republican than Democratic.

Ann

I think this is my first post on this board but I've been lurking for a long time. Just had to correct Roger on this 'fact':

http://newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Alan_Greenspan.php

A list of Greenspan's political contributions between 1982 and 1987 (I assume he had to stop making political donations when he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987.

He made a total of $6500 in political donations in this period - $6000 to the Republican Party and $500 to special interest groups. Not one cent to the Democratic Party.

Of course, he could have changed his political affiliation since 1987 but I doubt it - he's too closely associated with neo-con ideology.

Bec