NationStates Jolt Archive

Also as I noted in this thread and earlier ones, the 50 State strategy, perhaps may have actually put some of the Blue States into play.

I hope you're not thinking that Obama's campaign pushed Michigan towards McCain. It's been 7 years of recession that have done it.

And voters here are so angry -- about unemployment at 9 percent and some of the country's highest rates of foreclosures and outbound one-way U-Haul rentals -- that no one is certain where they will lash out.

"What's challenging about Michigan is that they've suffered this economy in its worst form," said Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who has studied the state for years. "They blame the Democratic governor and the Democratic Party, and the Republican president and the Republican Party, and an elite they believe sold out their state."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803046.html

I've seen all of maybe one or two Obama commercials in California to date, so I fail to see how this non-50 State policy is news...

In the meantime, someone wake me when Obama wins Texas...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/biden.earmarks/index.html

Seems CNN's Special Investigations Unit is weeks behind NationStates.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/biden.earmarks/index.html

Seems CNN's Special Investigations Unit is weeks behind NationStates.

Is there any wonder why no one takes mass media news seriously?

Well after enduring an ongoing barrage from the Obamalites about Obama's naiive 50 State strategy, it would appear that the Obama campaign is shifting focus. :eek2:

I guess that some States DO matter more than others!!

Obama Scales Back His 50-State Strategy (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843532,00.html)


The following comment echoes what I stated earlier in this thread:


Still more:



I'm really not seeing where you think there's a conflict. The Democrats decided early on not to just try to sit on states they thought they could easily defend, and they've concentrated, instead, on trying to 'get the message out' a little more universally.

If they are finessing that approach in the last few weeks leading up into the election.... okay? And what? That means it's conflicting the whole strategy?


Also as I noted in this thread and earlier ones, the 50 State strategy, perhaps may have actually put some of the Blue States into play.


Or, alternatively, the fact that there's more than just, like, you know, one party running? Or are you honestly pretending you believe that Republicans haven't been trying to make inroads into 'Democrat' territory?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html


McCain suspends his campaign to go help work on the economy. Do we really want "Our economy is strong" himself anywhere near our economy?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html


McCain suspends his campaign to go help work on the economy. Do we really want "Our economy is strong" himself anywhere near our economy?


he is just looking for excuses early as to why he will lose in Nov.

"Oh I cared too much about our economy to continue campaigning"

As if

he is just looking for excuses early as to why he will lose in Nov.

"Oh I cared too much about our economy to continue campaigning"

As if

I figured it's a good way to back out of debating Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html


McCain suspends his campaign to go help work on the economy. Do we really want "Our economy is strong" himself anywhere near our economy?

Its like he is postponing a butt whooping.

I figured it's a good way to back out of debating Obama.

FIrst thing I thought when I saw the article - McCain wants to avoid having to debate with Obama WHILE the economy he JUST said was sound, is exploding in a shitstorm.

Yeah - I'd postpone too.

Said on C&L comments about McCain postponing the debates:

Obviously the McChicken doesn’t have any McNuggets.

Shared for the lulz

*giggles*

I figured it's a good way to back out of debating Obama.

But why? Wouldn't McCain only benefit from a debate at this time? On all other areas than the economy, that is? :tongue:

Obama Opens Up Big Lead In New Poll

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/politics/washingtonpost/main4473434.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4473434

My point is that I hope you guys would act the same way if the boy was against McCain and for Obama.

Sure. If the kid went in with a shirt that said "McCain sucks donkey dick (with a picture of the dem donkey)" I'd say he'd have no case as well.

What school rule or dress code did this student violate? If the Fox News article is to be relied on (and that is the only source cited so far), there is nothing said about a dress code.

And, yes, I do think this violates the young man's freedom of speech. Unlike conservatives like Justice Thomas, I think students retain free speech rights in schools. Including the right to wear political t-shirts of which some may not approve.

I agree with you, but the USSSC ruled in the bong hits for jesus cas that this is not true. This pecedent will apply here.

Obama Opens Up Big Lead In New Poll

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/politics/washingtonpost/main4473434.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4473434
what I find interesting is:
"Whites without college degrees favor McCain by 17 points, while those with college degrees support Obama by 9 points."

so dumbfucks like McCain and anyone with a clue likes Obama.
That makes sense.

what I find interesting is:
"Whites without college degrees favor McCain by 17 points, while those with college degrees support Obama by 9 points."

so dumbfucks like McCain and anyone with a clue likes Obama.
That makes sense.

The past 8 years has been the Revolt of the Village Idiots, and they want 4 more.

Well after enduring an ongoing barrage from the Obamalites about Obama's naiive 50 State strategy, it would appear that the Obama campaign is shifting focus. :eek2:

I guess that some States DO matter more than others!!

Obama Scales Back His 50-State Strategy (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843532,00.html)


The following comment echoes what I stated earlier in this thread:


Still more:


Also as I noted in this thread and earlier ones, the 50 State strategy, perhaps may have actually put some of the Blue States into play.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14018262&postcount=769

Wow, you reposted the same thing you posted a few pages back. good job CH. Are you even trying anymore?

The past 8 years has been the Revolt of the Village Idiots, and they want 4 more.

Cue, Ef, Tee!

You never know. This was actual political speech and thus might be held to be protected.

I doubt it. The court has already ruled to allow administrators to censor political speech in school papers. I say this kid has about a 2% chance of winning. His father is a douchebag for using his child as a political ploy.

I agree with you, but the USSSC ruled in the bong hits for jesus cas that this is not true. This pecedent will apply here.

They were pretty clear in the "bong hits for jesus" case that political speech carried more weight. In fact, the reasoning for the precedent from Tinker not being applicable was to restrict that precedent specifically to political speech. They were quite clear that Tinker was not being overruled and that they simply didn't feel that this particular instance fell under that precedent.

This was political speech. As such, it very well may be held to be protected.

I doubt it. The court has already ruled to allow administrators to censor political speech in school papers. I say this kid has about a 2% chance of winning. His father is a douchebag for using his child as a political ploy.

In what case?

Edit: Ah, I think I found it. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. But it doesn't seem that it would apply. I don't have time at the moment to read the decision itself, but the wiki summary states that the reasoning was that the school is not required to affirmatively sponsor such speech (ie. by actually publishing it). As far as I can tell, Tinker would still hold for this case unless they specifically overturned it.

I doubt it. The court has already ruled to allow administrators to censor political speech in school papers. I say this kid has about a 2% chance of winning. His father is a douchebag for using his child as a political ploy.

Look at the bright side, this will traumatize the kid.

Wait, that didn't sound right. Mmm. Yeah, at a second thought, traumatizing him isn't useful to the goal of keeping Republicans away from the presidency.

So I guess there is no bright side.

But why? Wouldn't McCain only benefit from a debate at this time? On all other areas than the economy, that is?

wild and baseless rumor-mongering speculation here. take a look at this video of mccain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWSFKnBIHg
anyone else notice anything off about mccain's appearance?


in more scientific news, the public thus far ain't buying the "campaign and debate suspension for the good of the nation" shtick
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportUC.aspx?g=54d651a7-a62b-4420-bb32-9dd6b2df8c02

in more scientific news, the public thus far ain't buying the "campaign and debate suspension for the good of the nation" shtick
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportUC.aspx?g=54d651a7-a62b-4420-bb32-9dd6b2df8c02

Good. This type of stuff and the American peoples refusal to buy it rekindles a bit of my faith in the demos.

Wow, you reposted the same thing you posted a few pages back. good job CH. Are you even trying anymore?
Perhaps you didn't recognize the difference?

Try again:

What States Are Really in Play (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/what_states_are_really_in_play.html)?

Obama Scales Back His 50-State Strategy (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843532,00.html)

These articles happen to mirror what I was saying 6 months ago. :eek2:

wild and baseless rumor-mongering speculation here. take a look at this video of mccain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWSFKnBIHg
anyone else notice anything off about mccain's appearance?

Namely?

wild and baseless rumor-mongering speculation here. take a look at this video of mccain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWSFKnBIHg
anyone else notice anything off about mccain's appearance?


in more scientific news, the public thus far ain't buying the "campaign and debate suspension for the good of the nation" shtick
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportUC.aspx?g=54d651a7-a62b-4420-bb32-9dd6b2df8c02
what did you think was "off"? (if it was a rick roll i didnt get to that part since i saw his news conference this morning)

the only thing that has struck me is how very much more alert and shiny he looked on that 60-minutes interview on sunday. compared to that he looks like crap every day.

Namely?

compare eyes

compare eyes
compare them to what?

compare eyes
I've the sound off (at work and no speakers) and I must say his eyes are really creepy looking in that Youtube clip you posted. Like huge black saucers. Think he's on LSD or something?

compare eyes

They lacked symmetry. What else?

I've the sound off (at work and no speakers) and I must say his eyes are really creepy looking in that Youtube clip you posted. Like huge black saucers. Think he's on LSD or something?
yeah

he seems to look like crap every day. look up a youtube from that 60 minutes interview. the difference is dramatic.

although that left eye still looks lazy compared to the right eye but not as pronounced as the video from today.

What States Are Really in Play?

virginia, nevada, florida, ohio, colorado, new mexico, iowa, and maybe north carolina and missouri all went for bush in 2004 and obama is within striking distance (if not already dominanting) in them. other states were surprisingly close this early into the "lets actually try having a political party" strategy until the wingnut excitement levels were boosted. shit, they still are surprisingly bad for mccain.

They lacked symmetry. What else?

the one side looks a little...droopy, no?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html


McCain suspends his campaign to go help work on the economy. Do we really want "Our economy is strong" himself anywhere near our economy?
And bearing in mind he's missed 109 of the past 110 votes in the Senate. So why is this one so important to him? And what's wrong with scheduling the 1st debate in Washington, if he thinks it so important to be there this week?
Hopefully this obvious delaying tactic will come back and bite him on the ass.
He's pretty much telling the US that he can't deal with more than one major problem at a time.
"Sir, Iraq is in turmoil, Iran is just days away from constructing a nuclear weapon and North Korea is threatening to invade South Korea! What shall we do?"
"Can't they all wait until I find my damn slippers?!"

Notice that he wants to postpone it until Oct 2 - 'coincidently', the same date as the 1st VP debate.
Is he getting desperate to get Palin under wraps and away from the media or what?

Is he getting desperate to get Palin under wraps and away from the media or what?

given the utter disaster she is under polite and superficial questioning, yes.

I've become disgusted with the entire election.
I've heard that there's a club... and that they have jackets. :p

Well anyway...

Link (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/24/how-education-is-changing-politics.aspx)

Each presidential election, the pundits tell us, hangs on a crucial variable that divides one party from the other. Once it was income, as working-class people who were union members tended to vote Democratic while wealthier suburbanites voted Republican. Then it became church attendance: Irrespective of income, or even religion, if you went to houses of worship frequently, you were likely to be Republican, and if you stayed home on Sundays (or Fridays or Saturdays), you leaned Democratic.

This year's big dividing point, if a brand-new Washington Post/ABC News poll is to be believed, is education: Whites without a college degree favor McCain by 17 percent while those with one prefer Obama by 9 percent. If this trend continues, the implications for American politics deserve a bit of speculation.

The division this conceivably creates can be policies pushed by respective parties in order to gain the next share of vote.

The Post/ABC poll did not provide data on what kind of college respondents attended, but it is likely that the more selective the college from which one graduates, the more likely one will be to vote Democratic. Anticipating such a result, the younger candidates of both parties in the present election perfectly reflect this development: Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate and Sarah Palin attended five not very distinguished colleges in six years. Expect, if the Republicans win, greater efforts by people such as Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) to regulate the endowments of the most selective colleges and universities.

Here one must note the arguments of the conservative writer Charles Murray who, long before this particular poll was published, began arguing that they are too many college educated people in America. This makes little sense in economic terms in a knowledge-based world, but if you like Republicans in power, it makes a great deal of sense in political terms.

The education gap is likely to exacerbate the tendency of Democrats to speak in policy terms while Republicans appeal to guts, instinct, and emotion. If this trend continues, the Republican Party, which contains both elitist and populist elements, will move more decisively toward the latter and away from the former. If the Palin choice indicates any sense of direction, the Republicans may soon nominate a candidate who never attended college at all.

The problem with forming policies by voter share rather than for the actual good of the country is that it leads you down some strange roads.

Relevance...

[College-educated whites] will be a disproportionate percentage of voters. This is the other way to win. He's actually losing white working-class voters in the poll by the exact percentage that Kerry lost them -- 17%.

But Kerry lost white college grads to Bush -- broke even overall, including people-of-color grads, but lost white college grads. If Obama wins them -- especially in Colorado and Virginia, the two states with the largest percentage of college grads in the country -- he will still win the election.

Perhaps you didn't recognize the difference?

Try again:

What States Are Really in Play (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/what_states_are_really_in_play.html)?

Obama Scales Back His 50-State Strategy (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843532,00.html)

These articles happen to mirror what I was saying 6 months ago. :eek2:

The rcp article is a decent op-ed piece that doesn't rely heavily on numbers. A week ago the numbers were very different. As for the 50 state strategy, when did Obama say he'd give exactly the same effort in every state? He is running a 50 state campaign, speaking, advertising, and putting money and manpower in all states. The fact that he is focusing on certain states only proves that he wants to win. As I stated pages ago and got no response, winning is the goal. I don't expect Obama to change his strategy to please you. It's great that the article from rcp has an opinion, it just doesn't make it completely true.

The states really seem to be changing and the map will likely not look like 2000 or 2004. Take this from fivethirtyeight.com[/URL. It's based on math instead of subjective opinions.

Currently 538 has these states as either "in play" or moving well into Obama's favor.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/2886502770_bac00f8a4a_o.png

States in play:

VA, MD, FL, VA, PA, OH, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR

Like I've said before I really like Nate's trials and numbers. There are far more states in play than you are willing to admit.

You liked electoral-vote.com a lot during the primaries. [URL="http://www.electoral-vote.com/"]Take a look at the numbers they have there. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)

Everything seems to be moving in Obama's favor. Now I know that doesn't make you happy, but it doesn't make it any less true now does it?

Seriously

Full transcript after the jump. This is a rough bit:

COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you.

Am I reading these tables right?

Hawaii is 100% voting for Obama and 0% for McCain.
Similar Wyoming is voting 100% for McCain and 0% for Obama.

Am I reading these tables right?

Hawaii is 100% voting for Obama and 0% for McCain.
Similar Wyoming is voting 100% for McCain and 0% for Obama.

that's percent of the time the state went for a candidate in the model

[QUOTE=Blouman Empire;14037454]Am I reading these tables right?

Hawaii is 100% voting for Obama and 0% for McCain.
Similar Wyoming is voting 100% for McCain and 0% for Obama.

The % that are shown is the likely percentage that each candidate will win the state. It's not saying that 100% of the cote will be going to Obama. The numbers are from 1,000 trial heats done.

Am I reading these tables right?

Hawaii is 100% voting for Obama and 0% for McCain.
Similar Wyoming is voting 100% for McCain and 0% for Obama.

I think those numbers represent the probability that each candidate will win each state.

that's percent of the time the state went for a candidate in the model

right, just as I was typing it.

Am I reading these tables right?

Hawaii is 100% voting for Obama and 0% for McCain.
Similar Wyoming is voting 100% for McCain and 0% for Obama.

No. It's the estimated chance that the state will swing one way or another. Hawaii is considered to have a 100% chance to go Obama, while Wyoming is considered to have a 100% chance to go McCain. It doesn't mean that the state is polling all Democrat or all Republican.

I think those numbers represent the probability that each candidate will win each state.

Indeed you are correct Sir.

Seriously

Full transcript after the jump. This is a rough bit:

COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick, though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about — the need to reform government.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you.



Awesome.

The numbers are from 1,000 trial heats done.

10,000, i think

also, check this out - nate's obama vs mccain map from the end of february
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/2294866571_5723d10f00.jpg
that seems strikingly familiar...

Good night all. The Palin nonsense and the McCain stall tactics are just an Fing sham. Debate on Friday, and then have the VP debate when it's supposed to occur. Biden is going to mangle Palin. I can't wait.

10,000, i think

also, check this out - nate's obama vs mccain map from the end of february
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/2294866571_5723d10f00.jpg
that seems strikingly familiar...

Yes, you are correct. I missed a 0 while typing. Thank you for your help sir.

Good night all. The Palin nonsense and the McCain stall tactics are just an Fing sham. Debate on Friday, and then have the VP debate when it's supposed to occur. Biden is going to mangle Palin. I can't wait.

Yeah, Im out too. And I agree, the debates arent being post-poned, and McCain is going to get boned.

Thanks to all those that answered my question.

Hawaii is 100% voting for Obama and 0% for McCain.
Similar Wyoming is voting 100% for McCain and 0% for Obama.

People also need to remember that Obama has ties to Hawaii. So it's really no surprize that Hawaii is going for Obama. In addition, Hawaii is a very liberal state compared to Wyoming. But 100% isn't compleatly 100%You may have a 0.05% who will go for Obama or McCain.

People also need to remember that Obama has ties to Hawaii. So it's really no surprize that Hawaii is going for Obama. In addition, Hawaii is a very liberal state compared to Wyoming. But 100% isn't compleatly 100%You may have a 0.05% who will go for Obama or McCain.

You're misunderstanding what those numbers mean, despite it being explained in several previous posts. They're not saying that 100% of Hawaiians will vote for Obama, they're saying that there is a 100% chance that Obama will win the election in Hawaii.

http://theedgetostayinrace.ytmnd.com/

From:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001

which is about Bush's appeal to the public over his bail-out plan.
about 1/2 way down the first page, this paragraph caught my eye:
But with the nation facing the biggest financial meltdown in decades, Bush took the unusual step of calling Democrat Obama personally about the meeting, said presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino. White House aides extended the invitations to Republican McCain and to GOP and Democratic leaders from Capitol Hill.
Do ya notice anything there? do ya?
I'll clue ya in:
Bush took the unusual step of calling Democrat Obama personally
and
White House aides extended the invitations to Republican McCain

GWB rings up Obama himself but has a flunky tell McCain. Does anyone think that wasn't delibrate? Even GWB isn't wanting to associate with McCain anymore! What does that tell us about his campaign? :p


On another note guess who said this on July 9th, 2008:
"The economic meltdown is not as dire as it appears...We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."
Was it:
a) Phil Gramm, the man behind the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Bill which led us to this economic debacle and the "Enron Loophole";
b) Phil Gramm, the chief economic advisor to McCain;
or
c) Phil Gramm, the man behind the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Bill which led us to this economic debacle and the "Enron Loophole" AND the chief economic advisor to McCain.

This is the man McCain, a self-confessed ignoramus on the economy, turns to for economic advice, and now McCain thinks he's the only one who can solve this mess?! wtf doesn't even come close!

http://theedgetostayinrace.ytmnd.com/

And for those wondering why I've been rather lacking in the intelligent content as of late: Pretty much everyone keeps saying anything I could think of lately, and there's not much to discuss. We've already covered the issues, and all that's left is to watch McCain's campaign self-destruct and cheer Obama on to victory.

So, I basically lower myself to mild comic relief. No one else around here seems to be doing it.

Zombie: I'm not sure I'd actually take that as literally as you are. I don't think Bush truly wants to disassociate himself from McCain's campaign that much.

GWB rings up Obama himself but has a flunky tell McCain. Does anyone think that wasn't delibrate? Even GWB isn't wanting to associate with McCain anymore! What does that tell us about his campaign? :p

That the canister holding all the wisdom and guidance that Dear Leader has prayed to God for has ruptured and begun to leak onto Dubya's head?

:D

On another note guess who said this on July 9th, 2008:
"The economic meltdown is not as dire as it appears...We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."
Was it:
a) Phil Gramm, the man behind the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Bill which led us to this economic debacle and the "Enron Loophole";
b) Phil Gramm, the chief economic advisor to McCain;
or
c) Phil Gramm, the man behind the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Bill which led us to this economic debacle and the "Enron Loophole" AND the chief economic advisor to McCain.

This is the man McCain, a self-confessed ignoramus on the economy, turns to for economic advice, and now McCain thinks he's the only one who can solve this mess?! wtf doesn't even come close!

Probably because he doesn't want to be seen as a whiner.

And for those wondering why I've been rather lacking in the intelligent content as of late: Pretty much everyone keeps saying anything I could think of lately, and there's not much to discuss. We've already covered the issues, and all that's left is to watch McCain's campaign self-destruct and cheer Obama on to victory.

So, I basically lower myself to mild comic relief. No one else around here seems to be doing it.

Zombie: I'm not sure I'd actually take that as literally as you are. I don't think Bush truly wants to disassociate himself from McCain's campaign that much.
http://www.beaueden.com/MC-Cain--Palin.jpg
There ya go, you're not alone. I've been a touch out of the loop so I don't have anything quality to add either...

http://www.beaueden.com/MC-Cain--Palin.jpg
There ya go, you're not alone. I've been a touch out of the loop so I don't have anything quality to add either...

Ah, thank yew. :)

Zombie: I'm not sure I'd actually take that as literally as you are. I don't think Bush truly wants to disassociate himself from McCain's campaign that much.
I dunno. It seems a pretty big face-slap to me. I'm sure both McCain and Obama's campaign managers noticed.
As to what it means is open to discussion. I was just going for the most obvious! :)

I dunno. It seems a pretty big face-slap to me. I'm sure both McCain and Obama's campaign managers noticed.
As to what it means is open to discussion. I was just going for the most obvious! :)

From what I read in the Aussie press, McCain was backstabbed by Bush staffers when they were running against each other for the presidential nomination inthe 2000 election. The dirty tricks team spread the rumor that McCain's adoptive daughter was really his illegitimate daughter.
If that were true and I was McCain I would never trust or speak to Bush again.

From what I read in the Aussie press, McCain was backstabbed by Bush staffers when they were running against each other for the presidential nomination inthe 2000 election. The dirty tricks team spread the rumor that McCain's adoptive daughter was really his illegitimate daughter.
If that were true and I was McCain I would never trust or speak to Bush again.

You'd think common sense would prevail...

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/BushMcCainArms.jpg

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2008/05/bush-mccain.jpg

http://mccainandbush.com/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/john-mccain-george-w-bush-hug-lead.jpg

You're misunderstanding what those numbers mean, despite it being explained in several previous posts. They're not saying that 100% of Hawaiians will vote for Obama, they're saying that there is a 100% chance that Obama will win the election in Hawaii.Doesn't that mean that 100% of Hawaiians that matter will vote for Obama?

http://www.beaueden.com/MC-Cain--Palin.jpg
There ya go, you're not alone. I've been a touch out of the loop so I don't have anything quality to add either...But Maude died before Grandpa Simpson...

Doesn't that mean that 100% of Hawaiians that matter will vote for Obama?

No. You're misinterpreting(which I also did with this for awhile.)

What it's basically rating is the chance that a candidate will receive a majority of the votes, based on polling, the statistics this guy is running, etc etc.

In other words, there is a 100% chance that Obama will end up with a majority of the votes in Hawaii. Not that he will end up with 100% of the vote--though to be perfectly honest, given that it's Hawaii, I would not be too surprised--but simply that he will gain a majority and thus the electoral votes.

No. You're misinterpreting(which I also did with this for awhile.)

What it's basically rating is the chance that a candidate will receive a majority of the votes, based on polling, the statistics this guy is running, etc etc.

In other words, there is a 100% chance that Obama will end up with a majority of the votes in Hawaii. Not that he will end up with 100% of the vote--though to be perfectly honest, given that it's Hawaii, I would not be too surprised--but simply that he will gain a majority and thus the electoral votes.Ergo the votes of all the Hawaiians that matter. Or as you could put it, 100% of the Hawaiian votes. =P

the one side looks a little...droopy, no?

Yes, they did. What do you think this means? I'm not a doctor, I'm a translator. o_o

Thanks to all those that answered my question.

Glad to oblige Sir.

virginia, nevada, florida, ohio, colorado, new mexico, iowa, and maybe north carolina and missouri all went for bush in 2004 and obama is within striking distance (if not already dominanting) in them. other states were surprisingly close this early into the "lets actually try having a political party" strategy until the wingnut excitement levels were boosted. shit, they still are surprisingly bad for mccain.
I am sure that the McCain camp is fairly happy with the current polls considering that this was to be the year that the Dems got a free pass to the White House?

Also, I think that the McCain camp is very excited by the fact that Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and especially Pennsylvania are all in play.

But Maude died before Grandpa Simpson...

Well, that can easily be solved by Palin being a hideous abomination unto God who steals the life from sleeping babes.

I am sure that the McCain camp is fairly happy with the current polls considering that this was to be the year that the Dems got a free pass to the White House?

Also, I think that the McCain camp is very excited by the fact that Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and especially Pennsylvania are all in play.

So you'd like to give credit and lay praise on areas where Republicans may have a shot, but you don't want to give credit for areas Barack has opened up? Talk about having your cake...

From 528. Out of 10,000 trails the likelihood of Obama winning PA: 79% MI 79%, MN 85% WI 89%. I like those odds. They may be "in play" but they are hardly in line to be picked off by McCain.

From Electoral-Vote.clom

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA NM VA GOP pickups (vs. 2004): (None)

This was the map from 2004 on this date. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Sep25.html) Notice the states that were red, pink, or mildly pink and compare them to the lists of states you gave. Looks pretty damn good.

Ok all, I've got work to do. I'll check back later.

Electoral vote.com also has a good article about the McCain campaign's recent behavior. It also shows Obama is gaining ground and McCain is losing it.

Also, I think that the McCain camp is very excited by the fact that Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and especially Pennsylvania are all in play.

you want to know the difference?

Michigan
2000 - 5.13% dem
2004 - 3.42% dem
current pollster.com average - 3.0% dem

Minnesota
2000 - 2.40% dem
2004 - 3.48% dem
now - 3.2% dem

Pennsylvania
2000 - 4.17% dem
2004 - 2.50% dem
now - 2.4% dem

Wisconsin
2000 - 0.22% dem
2004 - 0.38% dem
now - 4.3% dem


alright, that's those. let's check out some that i mentioned

Colorado
2000 - 8.36% rep
2004 - 4.67% rep
now - 3.7% dem

Iowa
2000 - 0.31% dem
2004 - 0.67% rep
now - 10.0% dem

New Mexico
2000 - 0.06% dem
2004 - 0.79% rep
now - 6.2% dem

Motherfucking North Carolina
2000 - 12.83% rep
2004 - 12.43% rep
now - 3.3% rep

Virginia
2000 - 8.04% rep
2004 - 8.20% rep
now - 1.0% rep

notice anything?

you want to know the difference?

Michigan
2000 - 5.13% dem
2004 - 3.42% dem
current pollster.com average - 3.0% dem

Minnesota
2000 - 2.40% dem
2004 - 3.48% dem
now - 3.2% dem

Pennsylvania
2000 - 4.17% dem
2004 - 2.50% dem
now - 2.4% dem

Wisconsin
2000 - 0.22% dem
2004 - 0.38% dem
now - 4.3% dem


alright, that's those. let's check out some that i mentioned

Colorado
2000 - 8.36% rep
2004 - 4.67% rep
now - 3.7% dem

Iowa
2000 - 0.31% dem
2004 - 0.67% rep
now - 10.0% dem

New Mexico
2000 - 0.06% dem
2004 - 0.79% rep
now - 6.2% dem

Motherfucking North Carolina
2000 - 12.83% rep
2004 - 12.43% rep
now - 3.3% rep

Virginia
2000 - 8.04% rep
2004 - 8.20% rep
now - 1.0% rep

notice anything?

Yeah, one of the states has been renamed.

Well, that can easily be solved by Palin being a hideous abomination unto God who steals the life from sleeping babes.You mean Burns?

you want to know the difference?

Michigan
2000 - 5.13% dem
2004 - 3.42% dem
current pollster.com average - 3.0% dem

Minnesota
2000 - 2.40% dem
2004 - 3.48% dem
now - 3.2% dem

Pennsylvania
2000 - 4.17% dem
2004 - 2.50% dem
now - 2.4% dem

Wisconsin
2000 - 0.22% dem
2004 - 0.38% dem
now - 4.3% dem


alright, that's those. let's check out some that i mentioned

Colorado
2000 - 8.36% rep
2004 - 4.67% rep
now - 3.7% dem

Iowa
2000 - 0.31% dem
2004 - 0.67% rep
now - 10.0% dem

New Mexico
2000 - 0.06% dem
2004 - 0.79% rep
now - 6.2% dem

Motherfucking North Carolina
2000 - 12.83% rep
2004 - 12.43% rep
now - 3.3% rep

Virginia
2000 - 8.04% rep
2004 - 8.20% rep
now - 1.0% rep

notice anything?

Spot on, but...

Not to bring up an old, dead, and oft-beaten horse, but anyone else find this vaguely reminiscent of the "Hey, let's compare the margin of Sen. Clinton wins to the margin of Sen. Obama wins in the primaries" posts that were all-too-common a few months back??

You mean Burns?

Burns gets his life stolen by babes, not the other way around.

Burns gets his life stolen by babes, not the other way around.If I recall correctly, Maggie fails. On the other hand, there was that Simpson's Halloween Special where they go to Pennsylvania...

Spot on, but...

Not to bring up an old, dead, and oft-beaten horse, but anyone else find this vaguely reminiscent of the "Hey, let's compare the margin of Sen. Clinton wins to the margin of Sen. Obama wins in the primaries" posts that were all-too-common a few months back??

only these are general election numbers. they aren't prima facie irrelevant, like those were.

only these are general election numbers. they aren't prima facie irrelevant, like those were.

I'm just saying it seems like arguing the numbers never gets us anywhere. No matter how obvious they are.

I'm just saying it seems like arguing the numbers never gets us anywhere. No matter how obvious they are.Well, they were irrelevant back then because the presidential race would be Dems vs. Reps, not Dems vs. Dems with only registered Dems* voting.


*or independents and Republicans, depending on the state.

Well, they were irrelevant back then because the presidential race would be Dems vs. Reps, not Dems vs. Dems with only registered Dems* voting.


*or independents and Republicans, depending on the state.

Fair point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

Letterman on McCain's campaign canceling on him.

I'm suspending my posting to work on the financial crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

Letterman on McCain's campaign canceling on him.

Ouch.

"Hey, I've got a question for your senator! Do you need a ride to the airport?"

A question for someone who saw the whole show: was Keith Olbermann McCain's replacement, or was he one of the regularly scheduled guests? I got the feeling that he was the person they picked to cover the gap McCain left by canceling, which I find quite funny.

I'm suspending my posting to work on the financial crisis.

But, in reality, you're out getting secks?

But, in reality, you're out getting secks?

Isn't that how it always works?

But, in reality, you're out getting secks?

Great idea! I am suspending working on the financial crisis so I can get more sex.

Great idea! I am suspending working on the financial crisis so I can get more sex.

*reports six hours later*

Polls show that SB's recent suspension of work in order "get more sex" has little support from the American People. Clinton expected to set up press conference in response.

"Now come on people, everyone knows. You can be an effective worker, even a President, and STILL get sex. Tons of it. In the oval office."

*in an interview*

Has there been another financial crisis since I put my plan into action? No, would be the answer. I believe that shows my response to the crisis to be effective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

Letterman on McCain's campaign canceling on him.
i just finished watching the show on my dvr.

wow letterman was pissed.

and he asked the most pertinent question "why not let your vp candidate campaign for you while you are working on this problem?"

and quite a viscious top 10 list:

10) "I just contributed to your campaign -- how do I get a refund?"

9) "It's Sarah Palin -- does this mean I'm Pars'dent?"

8) "Can't you solve this by selling some of your homes?"

7) "Hi, this is Clay Aiken. Is McCain single?"

6) "Do you still think the fundamentals of our economy are strong, genius?"

5) "Are you doing all this just to get out of going on Letterman?"

4) "What would Matlock do?"

3) "Hillary here -- my schedule is free Friday night"

2) "Is this just an excuse to catch up on napping?"

1) "This is President Bush -- what's all this trouble with the economy?"

*in an interview*

Has there been another financial crisis since I put my plan into action? No, would be the answer. I believe that shows my response to the crisis to be effective.

"Sir, it's been six hours since your plan went into action. How do you respond to allegations that there 'simply hasn't been enough time' to see the longterm effects of secksing it up while the economy crumbles?"

i just finished watching the show on my dvr.

wow letterman was pissed.

and he asked the most pertinent question "why not let your vp candidate campaign for you while you are working on this problem?"

and quite a viscious top 10 list:

10) "I just contributed to your campaign -- how do I get a refund?"

9) "It's Sarah Palin -- does this mean I'm Pars'dent?"

8) "Can't you solve this by selling some of your homes?"

7) "Hi, this is Clay Aiken. Is McCain single?"

6) "Do you still think the fundamentals of our economy are strong, genius?"

5) "Are you doing all this just to get out of going on Letterman?"

4) "What would Matlock do?"

3) "Hillary here -- my schedule is free Friday night"

2) "Is this just an excuse to catch up on napping?"

1) "This is President Bush -- what's all this trouble with the economy?"

Funny, I wish I had kept watching. I turned it off when Letterman started talking about how great and brave McCain was because of the whole "He waz tortured!!!111!" thing.

Funny, I wish I had kept watching. I turned it off when Letterman started talking about how great and brave McCain was because of the whole "He waz tortured!!!111!" thing.

He really went all out with the "say something mildly nice, then slaughter him on something serious" method.

Funny, I wish I had kept watching. I turned it off when Letterman started talking about how great and brave McCain was because of the whole "He waz tortured!!!111!" thing.
oh go back to it. as deus says, it was just a "with all due respect" start to ripping him a new asshole.

"Sir, it's been six hours since your plan went into action. How do you respond to allegations that there 'simply hasn't been enough time' to see the longterm effects of secksing it up while the economy crumbles?"

You, sir, are a sexist to ask a question like that. This interview is over.

He really went all out with the "say something mildly nice, then slaughter him on something serous" method.

Definitely. And I must say, that "something serious" that he kept bringing up - the fact that Palin should campaign in his stead, rather than suspend the campaign, was a good point. From my perspective, he flat out embarrassed McCain.

Definitely. And I must say, that "something serious" that he kept bringing up - the fact that Palin should campaign in his stead, rather than suspend the campaign was a really good point. From my perspective, he flat out embarrassed McCain.

Good.

Definitely. And I must say, that "something serious" that he kept bringing up - the fact that Palin should campaign in his stead, rather than suspend the campaign, was a good point. From my perspective, he flat out embarrassed McCain.
and when letterman asked olbermann if he thought that mccain would come on the show later....

noooooo not after that show aired.

i just finished watching the show on my dvr.

wow letterman was pissed.

and he asked the most pertinent question "why not let your vp candidate campaign for you while you are working on this problem?"

and quite a viscious top 10 list:

10) "I just contributed to your campaign -- how do I get a refund?"

9) "It's Sarah Palin -- does this mean I'm Pars'dent?"

8) "Can't you solve this by selling some of your homes?"

7) "Hi, this is Clay Aiken. Is McCain single?"

6) "Do you still think the fundamentals of our economy are strong, genius?"

5) "Are you doing all this just to get out of going on Letterman?"

4) "What would Matlock do?"

3) "Hillary here -- my schedule is free Friday night"

2) "Is this just an excuse to catch up on napping?"

1) "This is President Bush -- what's all this trouble with the economy?"

Yeah, let this be a lesson to future politicians. If you set up an interview, do the interview.

The Hell is going on? :confused:

holy fucking shit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec
they aren't kidding about the speaking in tongues thing

not to worry, the national enquirer is on the job.

their front page story is going to be about how mrs "family values" palin had an affair with her husband's partner in the snowmobile dealership back in '96.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_world_exclusive_sarah_palins_secret_lover_revealed/celebrity/65481

they say they have the story from 3 of the man's family members including one who has signed an affadavit and a family friend who has passed a lie detector test.

Yeah, one of the states has been renamed.

that is funny. Good job H2.

Ouch.

"Hey, I've got a question for your senator! Do you need a ride to the airport?"

A question for someone who saw the whole show: was Keith Olbermann McCain's replacement, or was he one of the regularly scheduled guests? I got the feeling that he was the person they picked to cover the gap McCain left by canceling, which I find quite funny.

Yeah, he was just covering. Dave said so himself, that Olberman comes over to help him out in a pinch.

not to worry, the national enquirer is on the job.

their front page story is going to be about how mrs "family values" palin had an affair with her husband's partner in the snowmobile dealership back in '96.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_world_exclusive_sarah_palins_secret_lover_revealed/celebrity/65481

they say they have the story from 3 of the man's family members including one who has signed an affadavit and a family friend who has passed a lie detector test.

I know it's the national enquirer, but they did get the John Edwards thing right. Who knows if lightning strikes twice.

not to worry, the national enquirer is on the job.

their front page story is going to be about how mrs "family values" palin had an affair with her husband's partner in the snowmobile dealership back in '96.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_world_exclusive_sarah_palins_secret_lover_revealed/celebrity/65481

they say they have the story from 3 of the man's family members including one who has signed an affadavit and a family friend who has passed a lie detector test.

God damn, is it October already?

God damn, is it October already?
almost

but they have just started. if there is any more dirt on anyone in the palin family...welll they have all of october to publish it.

and really, what family is without dirt?

First McCain says he will debate if the financial crisis is at an agreement. Now he's saying he may sack the debate anyhow. Too bad, the debate must go on. I know you're afraid of having Paling debate next week, but deal with it. You chose her for your running mate, now you live and die by it. Son of a slimy bitch this McCain has become.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_financial_meltdown

First McCain says he will debate if the financial crisis is at an agreement. Now he's saying he may sack the debate anyhow. Too bad, the debate must go on. I know you're afraid of having Paling debate next week, but deal with it. You chose her for your running mate, now you live and die by it. Son of a slimy bitch this McCain has become.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_financial_meltdown
hey if he cant make it, bob barr and cynthia mckinney say that THEY are ready willing and able to debate obama on friday!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/09/green_partys_cynthia_mckinney.html

i would LOVE to see that!

hey if he cant make it, bob barr and cynthia mckinney say that THEY are ready willing and able to debate obama on friday!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/09/green_partys_cynthia_mckinney.html

i would LOVE to see that!

Eh, it would be a trap and a shitstorm. It'd be crazy and crazier vs. Obama. You just can't have that much crazy in one room. I'd rather just see McCain show up and hold the damn debate. If Sarah Palin is really ready to lead then she can debate next week and get her pretty little ass handed to her by Biden. It's time to step up to the plate McCain/Palin. Let's see how you hit the Joba Chamberlain fastballs about to be sent your way.

hey if he cant make it, bob barr and cynthia mckinney say that THEY are ready willing and able to debate obama on friday!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/09/green_partys_cynthia_mckinney.html

i would LOVE to see that!

Indeed. McCains polls would plumit if he didnt show up but everyone else did.


Hes just trying to get out of being shown how much of a senile fool he is and how woefully stupid and crazy Palin is. It wont work.


Its cute that McCain thinks he can just say "The debate isnt happening."

Indeed. McCains polls would plumit if he didnt show up but everyone else did.


Hes just trying to get out of being shown how much of a senile fool he is and how woefully stupid and crazy Palin is. It wont work.


Its cute that McCain thinks he can just say "The debate isnt happening."
Yep, almost as cute as the number (10?) of debates in which Obama refused to participate this past summer.

Yep, almost as cute as the number (10?) of debates in which Obama refused to participate this past summer.

Yep, got a source for that?

Yep, got a source for that?
Y'all do live a sheltered life. Either that, or your short term memory just isn't what it used to be... Of course. It's called the MSM (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5021604&page=1).


"Oh, we're definitely going to be doing some town hall debates," Obama told ABC News' Charlie Gibson in an interview the day after clinching the Democratic nomination.

"I look forward, you know, having more than just the three traditional debates that we've seen in recent presidential contests."

The McCain campaign released a letter they sent to Obama asking for 10 debates -- one a week starting on June 12 -- that will lead up to the Democratic National Convention at the end of August.

Did you watch any Obama-McCain debates prior to the DNC Convention? I sure didn't.

Yep, almost as cute as the number (10?) of debates in which Obama refused to participate this past summer.

So McCain's original proposal was to have a greater number of "town-hall-style" debates, and Obama wanted a lesser number of varied-format debates. McCain conceded, and is now sloughing off one of the few remaining debates?

Yet more evidence that the McCain who begain this campaign is not the current McCain, to say nothing of his difference from his pre-candidate style.

So McCain's original proposal was to have a greater number of "town-hall-style" debates, and Obama wanted a lesser number of varied-format debates. McCain conceded, and is now sloughing off one of the few remaining debates?

Yet more evidence that the McCain who begain this campaign is not the current McCain, to say nothing of his difference from his pre-candidate style.
You have your facts a little out of order. Read my above post.

Actually, I would just as soon have all of Congress go home. I'm not at all sure I want the same group that caused this economic crisis to try and solve it.

Yep, almost as cute as the number (10?) of debates in which Obama refused to participate this past summer.

failing to come up with a mutually agreeable plan is hardly backing out of already scheduled events

Y'all do live a sheltered life. Either that, or your short term memory just isn't what it used to be... Of course. It's called the MSM (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5021604&page=1).


"Oh, we're definitely going to be doing some town hall debates," Obama told ABC News' Charlie Gibson in an interview the day after clinching the Democratic nomination.

"I look forward, you know, having more than just the three traditional debates that we've seen in recent presidential contests."

The McCain campaign released a letter they sent to Obama asking for 10 debates -- one a week starting on June 12 -- that will lead up to the Democratic National Convention at the end of August.

Did you watch any Obama-McCain debates prior to the DNC Convention? I sure didn't.

There was disagreement over how to go about this and how many to do, they couldnt agree, and so gave up.

Besides, these were never schedualed. They were proposed and talked about, never schedualed, so he didnt "back out" of anything. This debate that McRambo is trying to weasel his way out of, and get St. Palin out of so Biden doesnt sink her ass, has been schedualed for some time.


But you know, youve never let facts interfere with your little fantasy land before, why start now right?

You have your facts a little out of order. Read my above post.

Actually, I would just as soon have all of Congress go home. I'm not at all sure I want the same group that caused this economic crisis to try and solve it.

Blaming this on Congress just shows how little you understand what exactly is going on.

Y'all do live a sheltered life. Either that, or your short term memory just isn't what it used to be... Of course. It's called the MSM (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5021604&page=1).


"Oh, we're definitely going to be doing some town hall debates," Obama told ABC News' Charlie Gibson in an interview the day after clinching the Democratic nomination.

"I look forward, you know, having more than just the three traditional debates that we've seen in recent presidential contests."

The McCain campaign released a letter they sent to Obama asking for 10 debates -- one a week starting on June 12 -- that will lead up to the Democratic National Convention at the end of August.

Did you watch any Obama-McCain debates prior to the DNC Convention? I sure didn't.

Where does that say (and I quote) "Obama refused to participate"?

Indeed. McCains polls would plumit if he didnt show up but everyone else did.


Hes just trying to get out of being shown how much of a senile fool he is and how woefully stupid and crazy Palin is. It wont work.


Its cute that McCain thinks he can just say "The debate isnt happening."

Out-of-character, I would have thought... but it fits right in with the Letterman thing.

I'm confused. What happened to the "Straight-talk Express"?

He told Letterman he couldn't do campaign activities because he was focusing on the economic problem... and then went and did an interview on a different program? He's made an official statement that he's focusing on the economic problems, in order to absent himself from all campaign activity (including the debate)... but apparently he can still fit in the ones he WANTS to do?

McCain lying isn't new - but previously, it just came across as simple denial... changing your position EVERY interview about taxation, for example. But, this is new. This is calculated.

The reason I don't buy McCain's sudden desperate need to go to the Senate and debate is the fact that he's missed so many votes, more than any other senator.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

I understand that the U.S. is currently in the middle of a major financial crisis, but McCain isn't on any congressional committee that deals with financial issues or is tasked with fixing this sort of thing.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

He also admitted that he didn't know much about economics to a reporter from the wall street journal.

I'm not at all sure I want the same group that caused this economic crisis to try and solve it.

I agree. But I don't see that that has anything implicitly to do with 'Congress'.

Laissez-faire capitalism, coupled with the fact that people, in general, are greedy and selfish little fucks, got us into this crisis. "Congress" were never anything more than tools.

The reason I don't buy McCain's sudden desperate need to go to the Senate and debate is the fact that he's missed so many votes, more than any other senator.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

I understand that the U.S. is currently in the middle of a major financial crisis, but McCain isn't on any congressional committee that deals with financial issues or is tasked with fixing this sort of thing.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

He also admitted that he didn't know much about economics to a reporter from the wall street journal.

Maybe this is the ONE vote that McCain has been waiting all this time for. Coupled with his admitted 'expertise'... Let's not burst his bubble by pointing out that he'd be about as useful as a condom machine in the Vatican.

Maybe this is the ONE vote that McCain has been waiting all this time for. Coupled with his admitted 'expertise'... Let's not burst his bubble by pointing out that he'd be about as useful as a condom machine in the Vatican.

If you fill one with water and freeze it, it fits in places to bring down the swelling. Also, the Swiss Guard counter-sniper unit puts them over their barrels during field excercises. Not to keep debris out of the weapon, its just that shooting holes in condoms makes an important statement at 2,300 fps.

If you fill one with water and freeze it, it fits in places to bring down the swelling. Also, the Swiss Guard counter-sniper unit puts them over their barrels during field excercises. Not to keep debris out of the weapon, its just that shooting holes in condoms makes an important statement at 2,300 fps.

"Safety off"? Or just plain old "You're fucked"?

"Safety off"? Or just plain old "You're fucked"?

Heeheh, yeah... I know a Swiss guy, he's a Raelian, though, not Catholic...he fucks a lot, apparently.

We'll wish we had McCain if that movie "Independence Day" happens...McCain is like Bill Pullman...you know, one notch above narcolepsy...

Heeheh, yeah... I know a Swiss guy, he's a Raelian, though, not Catholic...he fucks a lot, apparently.


Errr.. that's not a "Spirit of Light".... and that's not an "Anal Probe".


We'll wish we had McCain if that movie "Independence Day" happens...McCain is like Bill Pullman...you know, one notch above narcolepsy...

Above?

You might be right, though - there could be one circumstance under which we might end up glad that we had McCain. Admittedly, we're having to look at extinction level events....

There was disagreement over how to go about this and how many to do, they couldnt agree, and so gave up.

Besides, these were never schedualed. They were proposed and talked about, never schedualed, so he didnt "back out" of anything. This debate that McRambo is trying to weasel his way out of, and get St. Palin out of so Biden doesnt sink her ass, has been schedualed for some time.


But you know, youve never let facts interfere with your little fantasy land before, why start now right?



Blaming this on Congress just shows how little you understand what exactly is going on.
You and GNI are ignoring the Community Reinvestment Act that was changed by Clinton in 1995, to allow the loans on banks books to be made based on three factors instead of twelve.

Easier credit, more loans, financial crisis. Besides, at that time, the Clintons were pushing for more home ownership via various means of government coercion. Congress went along, thus they are to blame.

As far as the debates go, if Obama had wanted to debate, he could have arrived at some sort of compromise. Problem is, he's not any good at it.

You and GNI are ignoring the Community Reinvestment Act that was changed by Clinton in 1995, to allow the loans on banks books to be made based on three factors instead of twelve.

Easier credit, more loans, financial crisis. Besides, at that time, the Clintons were pushing for more home ownership via various means of government coercion. Congress went along, thus they are to blame.

As far as the debates go, if Obama had wanted to debate, he could have arrived at some sort of compromise. Problem is, he's not any good at it.

I'm not 'ignoring' anything of the kind. We all know you hate the Clintons, and try to blame anything that happens on them - that's not the issue. Even if the government removed ALL regulation... that doesn't MAKE anyone engage in predatory practise. It doesn't stop businesses regulating themselves.

You seem to be arguing 'allow' means 'force', in this case.

What is it you're saying Obama isn't good at? Compromise, or debate?

Indeed. McCains polls would plumit if he didnt show up but everyone else did.


Hes just trying to get out of being shown how much of a senile fool he is and how woefully stupid and crazy Palin is. It wont work.


Its cute that McCain thinks he can just say "The debate isnt happening."
mrs palin cant even get through an interview with katie couric without making herself look ridiculous. how could she possibly handle a debate?

You and GNI are ignoring the Community Reinvestment Act that was changed by Clinton in 1995, to allow the loans on banks books to be made based on three factors instead of twelve.

Easier credit, more loans, financial crisis. Besides, at that time, the Clintons were pushing for more home ownership via various means of government coercion. Congress went along, thus they are to blame.

:rolleyes: Let me guess, youre one of those people who thinks that everything bad that happens during Dubya's term is Clinton's fault, right?

As far as the debates go, if Obama had wanted to debate, he could have arrived at some sort of compromise. Problem is, he's not any good at it.

Translation: Im once again wrong, and rather then just maning up Im going to just throw out an anti-Obama slam that has no basis in reality!

Just Myrm being Myrm. Do you ever get tired of being this predictable/pathetic?

Just admit that your claim that "Obama backed out of 10 debates" is pure fantasy. You dont have to admit youre a liar, just admit you were wrong.

EDIT: By the way, why wouldnt Obama want to debate? He'll clearly clean McCain up, and even the McCain camp knows this.

:rolleyes: Let me guess, youre one of those people who thinks that everything bad that happens during Dubya's term is Clinton's fault, right?



Translation: Im once again wrong, and rather then just maning up Im going to just throw out an anti-Obama slam that has no basis in reality!

Just Myrm being Myrm. Do you ever get tired of being this predictable/pathetic?

Just admit that your claim that "Obama backed out of 10 debates" is pure fantasy. You dont have to admit youre a liar, just admit you were wrong.

EDIT: By the way, why wouldnt Obama want to debate? He'll clearly clean McCain up, and even the McCain camp knows this.

Town hall debates are less formal, lack a moderator by my understanding and field questions from the peanut gallery. McCain would do better in them with supporters lobbing softballs at him.

Town hall debates are less formal, lack a moderator by my understanding and field questions from the peanut gallery. McCain would do better in them with supporters lobbing softballs at him.

Thats why McCain likes them.

Thats why McCain likes them.

And why Obama was wise to avoid them. They'd of given the impression that McCain was capable. Something I'm afraid passed about four years ago.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/25/politics/p112334D28.DTL&feed=rss.news

On Capitol Hill, Democratic and Republican negotiators emerged from a closed-door meeting to report an agreement in principle. They said they would present it to the Bush administration in hopes of a vote within days.

Rogers said McCain didn't participate in that meeting, but was in talks with Republican leaders afterward. Conservative Republicans were among the holdouts, and there were indications they were waiting for McCain to make a move before they did.

Gee, let's see... McCain is appearing for interviews, doing photo ops and all of his people are still producing talking points, but his campaign is "suspended". Not only that, but he doesn't even participate in the meetings that actually produce the deal in Congress.

Seriously, how stupid is hoping people are?

By the by, did anyone notice that Palin is forbidden from interacting with the press barely at all. She's allowed to go to photo ops and that's about it. Hmmm... yeah, that's not sexism. "Hey, sweetie, just go out there and make me look good. Try not to talk, though."

By the by, did anyone notice that Palin is forbidden from interacting with the press barely at all. She's allowed to go to photo ops and that's about it. Hmmm... yeah, that's not sexism. "Hey, sweetie, just go out there and make me look good. Try not to talk, though."

how dare you be sexist by pointing out the sexist treatment of palin?! don't you know the mccain campaign are POWs?

By the by, did anyone notice that Palin is forbidden from interacting with the press barely at all. She's allowed to go to photo ops and that's about it. Hmmm... yeah, that's not sexism. "Hey, sweetie, just go out there and make me look good. Try not to talk, though."

Did you see her Katie Couric (I spell that right?) interview?

Given her performance there, I'm surprised they even let her tie her own shoes.

Did you see her Katie Couric (I spell that right?) interview?

Given her performance there, I'm surprised they even let her tie her own shoes.

I'm going to ask you again....

Let me get back to you on that.

Hehehehe.

holy fucking shit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec
they aren't kidding about the speaking in tongues thing
wow. She just served up a big helping of moose turd soup for herself, didn't she?

I said "Thanks, but no thanks!" to that Bitch from Nowhere...

By the by, did anyone notice that Palin is forbidden from interacting with the press barely at all. She's allowed to go to photo ops and that's about it. Hmmm... yeah, that's not sexism. "Hey, sweetie, just go out there and make me look good. Try not to talk, though."
In fairness, it could be Palin herself is intelligent enough to avoid answering any questions.

I'm going to ask you again....

Let me get back to you on that.

Hehehehe.

did you see the part in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec) i linked to earlier?

"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation."

that's not even coherent enough to be wrong

did you see the part in
that's not even coherent enough to be wrong
I think that's the NYSE's new motto right there.
"Trade: Opportunity, not competitive, scary thing."

I'm going to ask you again....

Let me get back to you on that.

Hehehehe.

In her defence, she kept her cool pretty well, and she put a brave face on it, even managing a pretty convincing winning smile as Katie nailed her.

But - and I don't know, maybe it's just me - winning smiles and verbal diarrhea... not a combination that tingles my tastebuds.

from the youtube comments:
"Me Sarah. Me have boobies. Me see Russia. Tyrannosaurus favorite Jesus-horse. Go Sarah Go! News people ask mean questions. You vote for Sarah now. Vote Sarah Vote. Why liberals hate boobies and America? John good, name mean he like to pay to see boobies. Drill, baby, drill. USA! USA! USA!"
:tongue:

interesting: read through the Youtube comments. Out of close to 200 comments, just two are pro-Palin - and one of those is a definite joke (I'm 50-50 on the other one being a joke as well).
The tide is certainly turning.

that's not even coherent enough to be wrong

Reminds me off a youtube video that circulated earlier this year about US Americans being able to find Iraq on a map...

Indeed. McCains polls would plumit if he didnt show up but everyone else did.


Hes just trying to get out of being shown how much of a senile fool he is and how woefully stupid and crazy Palin is. It wont work.


Its cute that McCain thinks he can just say "The debate isnt happening."
Here's Nate Silver's theory (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/mccain-doubling-down-on-debate.html)...
Perhaps, however, rather than trying to postpone the debate, McCain is instead seeking to increase its importance. Surely the drama of the past 30 hours has made it an even more captivating event, probably leading to increased viewership. Moreover, with the subject matter likely to be expanded to include the economy, and the candidates having had less time to prepare, the entire exercise becomes less predictable, with gaffes more likely to occur, but also the potential for "clutch" performances.

So perhaps instead of gambling two polling points on the debate -- the average magnitude of the shift in opinion following one of these things, McCain would instead like to gamble four. A two-point swing probably would not be enough to put McCain ahead (though it would be close); a four-point swing probably would.

It's an interesting theory. Aside from being a drama queen about the debate and backing out of Letterman, I don't know in what way he has 'suspended' his campaign...

notice she kept looking down all the time. Think she had some cue cards on her lap? It sure looked like she was reading something.
Which makes it even more embarrassing, if all she had to do was read off some cards and this was the result. It seems her handlers have stuffed too much information into her pretty head and nwo it just falls out higglety-pigglety in random order.
The little, "um...heliping...oh! It's got to be about job creation too" was classic. A thought just pushed to the front of the queue there.

from the youtube comments:
"Me Sarah. Me have boobies. Me see Russia. Tyrannosaurus favorite Jesus-horse. Go Sarah Go! News people ask mean questions. You vote for Sarah now. Vote Sarah Vote. Why liberals hate boobies and America? John good, name mean he like to pay to see boobies. Drill, baby, drill. USA! USA! USA!"
:tongue:

interesting: read through the Youtube comments. Out of close to 200 comments, just two are pro-Palin - and one of those is a definite joke (I'm 50-50 on the other one being a joke as well).
The tide is certainly turning.

That's a good one. My current sig is some Digg commenter on the same kind of riff. I like "Also, moose!" as the coup de grace of any argument -- sort of an updated "Furthermore, so's your face!"

notice she kept looking down all the time. Think she had some cue cards on her lap? It sure looked like she was reading something.
Which makes it even more embarrassing, if all she had to do was read off some cards and this was the result. It seems her handlers have stuffed too much information into her pretty head and nwo it just falls out higglety-pigglety in random order.
The little, "um...heliping...oh! It's got to be about job creation too" was classic. A thought just pushed to the front of the queue there.

A kind of scary thought if she was reading that... what's she using for cue-cards? Alphabet Soup?

Here's Nate Silver's theory (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/mccain-doubling-down-on-debate.html)...


It's an interesting theory. Aside from being a drama queen about the debate and backing out of Letterman, I don't know in what way he has 'suspended' his campaign...
interesting, but not very likely imo. I think McCain panicked after the last poll results came in, which gave a big advantage to Obama. I don't think it was coincidence that his pull-out came after the polls.
Considering his 'The economy is strong' gaffe last week, I think his handlers realised he was going to get creamed in the debate and looked for an out.
Also, it's obvious they don't want Palin fronting up to a debate - and it's obvious why they don't want that.

My theory is: They decided the best option was for McCain to get all 'Presidential' and noble, declare the campaigning off until the financial crisis was solved. Then go hang around Washington doing photo-ops, while making it look like he's doing something and then taking the credit for solving the problem (which GOP would back, as they're hardly not going to)
Then doing the debate next week - a full two weeks after his strong-economy fubar (and so a distant memory for the mouth-breathers in TV land), coming off a positive 10 day Washington performance AND stopping Palin from making a total fool of herself by taking over the VP debate time.

That's a good one. My current sig is some Digg commenter on the same kind of riff. I like "Also, moose!" as the coup de grace of any argument -- sort of an updated "Furthermore, so's your face!"
I really like the phrase, "Tyrannosaurus favorite Jesus-horse". Instant classic there!

interesting, but not very likely imo. I think McCain panicked after the last poll results came in, which gave a big advantage to Obama. I don't think it was coincidence that his pull-out came after the polls.
Considering his 'The economy is strong' gaffe last week, I think his handlers realised he was going to get creamed in the debate and looked for an out.
Also, it's obvious they don't want Palin fronting up to a debate - and it's obvious why they don't want that.

My theory is: They decided the best option was for McCain to get all 'Presidential' and noble, declare the campaigning off until the financial crisis was solved. Then go hang around Washington doing photo-ops, while making it look like he's doing something and then taking the credit for solving the problem (which GOP would back, as they're hardly not going to)
Then doing the debate next week - a full two weeks after his strong-economy fubar (and so a distant memory for the mouth-breathers in TV land), coming off a positive 10 day Washington performance AND stopping Palin from making a total fool of herself by taking over the VP debate time.

Possible. Considering what a mockery the GOP convention was, though... I wonder if America is finally seeing through GOP drama-queen-omg-it's-an-emergency tactics?

Also:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_s_gambit


"WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain's self-portrait as a bold leader willing to set politics aside to save an endangered financial bailout plan took a pounding Thursday from top Democrats and even some fellow Republicans.

His efforts to re-energize his presidential campaign will partly turn on who wins the public relations battle, destined to play out for days.

Top Democrats in Congress ridiculed McCain's claim Wednesday that negotiations were going nowhere, necessitating his hasty return to Washington to intervene while suspending his campaign.

"It was somewhat stunning" to receive McCain's phone call with that message, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Talks were proceeding fine without him, Reid said.

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chief House Democrat on the bill, said, "all of a sudden, now that we are on the verge of making a deal, John McCain airdrops himself to help us make the deal."

Even the House's Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio, passed up a chance to praise McCain's leadership powers shortly before the two men met in the Capitol at midday Thursday. Asked by reporters if McCain could help win House Republican votes for the proposed package, Boehner shrugged and said, "Who knows?""

Being attacked for his dramatics by Democrats AND Republicans? Not a good sign.

interesting, but not very likely imo. I think McCain panicked after the last poll results came in, which gave a big advantage to Obama. I don't think it was coincidence that his pull-out came after the polls.
Considering his 'The economy is strong' gaffe last week, I think his handlers realised he was going to get creamed in the debate and looked for an out.
Also, it's obvious they don't want Palin fronting up to a debate - and it's obvious why they don't want that.

My theory is: They decided the best option was for McCain to get all 'Presidential' and noble, declare the campaigning off until the financial crisis was solved. Then go hang around Washington doing photo-ops, while making it look like he's doing something and then taking the credit for solving the problem (which GOP would back, as they're hardly not going to)
Then doing the debate next week - a full two weeks after his strong-economy fubar (and so a distant memory for the mouth-breathers in TV land), coming off a positive 10 day Washington performance AND stopping Palin from making a total fool of herself by taking over the VP debate time.
It's not like Biden isn't prone to some off the ranch statements...how bad can she be that they'd be that scared? If she's worse than we expect...yikes...I'm still of the impression that in short attention span-land she's going to really excel in the debates...but then, I haven't watched the Couric interview yet...

Holy shit! I speak English better than Sarah Palin!

The reason I don't buy McCain's sudden desperate need to go to the Senate and debate is the fact that he's missed so many votes, more than any other senator.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

I understand that the U.S. is currently in the middle of a major financial crisis, but McCain isn't on any congressional committee that deals with financial issues or is tasked with fixing this sort of thing.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

He also admitted that he didn't know much about economics to a reporter from the wall street journal.
Yes, those are good reasons not to buy into McCain's "OMG!! I gotta debate right now!!" act.

Another one is that he spent over 20 hours campaigning in NY after he announced he was dropping everything to rush right on down to DC. Yep, look at him rush. 22 hours before he finally set off, and then he arrives about an hour after a tentative deal was already announced and succeeds only in derailing that deal. I wish he'd taken his time.

It's not like Biden isn't prone to some off the ranch statements...how bad can she be that they'd be that scared? If she's worse than we expect...yikes...I'm still of the impression that in short attention span-land she's going to really excel in the debates...but then, I haven't watched the Couric interview yet...

I didn't see the bit they're describing till just now. It was incoherent. Seriously incoherent. I don't even know what to say. This has gone from cynical to just surreal.

It's not like Biden isn't prone to some off the ranch statements...how bad can she be that they'd be that scared? If she's worse than we expect...yikes...I'm still of the impression that in short attention span-land she's going to really excel in the debates...but then, I haven't watched the Couric interview yet...
That's very true about Biden. His latest one was a classic, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed"
Best one can say about that was that there was another crash late-30s when Roosevelt was Pres. Such a shame he wasn't talking about that crash, but the 1929 one, when there was perhaps 5 TVs in the world and Hoover was the pres.

Still, his experience in debates shd tell, esp if he stresses how much foreign affairs xp he has.

Watch the Palin-Couric interview. Prepare yourself for the worst before-hand. And still be gob-smacked.

Reminds me off a youtube video that circulated earlier this year about US Americans being able to find Iraq on a map...
I think you mean this one:

SPOILER ALERT: VP Debate Preview:

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

I guess it's a beauty queen thing. At least this poor girl can feel a little better about herself. She was just trying to win a tiara, not claiming to be able to run a country.

Holy shit! I speak English better than Sarah Palin!

Wholey Ships! I are speak England better then Sarah Plain, also is, too! And job creation!

I think you mean this one:

SPOILER ALERT: VP Debate Preview:

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

I guess it's a beauty queen thing. At least this poor girl can feel a little better about herself. She was just trying to win a tiara, not claiming to be able to run a country.
naw. I think he means the Aussie clip where they went round asking Americans who they wanted to invade next and asked them to point out where countries were on the map. The map itself had been renamed so Oz was renamed either Iraq or North Korea. None of the ones shown noticed the mistake. classic stuff.

Wholey Ships! I are speak England better then Sarah Plain, also is, too! And job creation!
and uh, not scary competitive, uh....stuff!

I think you mean this one:

SPOILER ALERT: VP Debate Preview:

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

I guess it's a beauty queen thing. At least this poor girl can feel a little better about herself. She was just trying to win a tiara, not claiming to be able to run a country.

Yes! That's the one.

Same speech writer?

I stand corrected. my apologies

I stand corrected. my apologies

There are so many examples to choose from. :)

Like this one: - same writer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EO4nYqAOfM

;)

That video was incomprehensible... How can she fail that badly? I always got the impression that, batshit insane and wrongheaded as she was, she could at least string a couple of sentences together. They don't have to be logical, factual, or knowledgeable, but I expected them to be comprehensible!

I now sympathise with the McCain campaign's managers. They have the hardest job in the world.

That video was incomprehensible... How can she fail that badly? I always got the impression that, batshit insane and wrongheaded as she was, she could at least string a couple of sentences together. They don't have to be logical, factual, or knowledgeable, but I expected them to be comprehensible!

I now sympathise with the McCain campaign's managers. They have the hardest job in the world.
They brought it on themselves.

I've watched some of the videos of the interview, and now I have to say there is a reason for McCain's campaign to be concerned about her and debates...when you're pinned by Katie fucking Couric...yeesh...

That's very true about Biden. His latest one was a classic, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed"
Best one can say about that was that there was another crash late-30s when Roosevelt was Pres. Such a shame he wasn't talking about that crash, but the 1929 one, when there was perhaps 5 TVs in the world and Hoover was the pres.

Still, his experience in debates shd tell, esp if he stresses how much foreign affairs xp he has.

Watch the Palin-Couric interview. Prepare yourself for the worst before-hand. And still be gob-smacked.
you know that the mccain campaign sucks when biden can say something like that and its NOT The story everyone is talking about.

That video was incomprehensible... How can she fail that badly? I always got the impression that, batshit insane and wrongheaded as she was, she could at least string a couple of sentences together. They don't have to be logical, factual, or knowledgeable, but I expected them to be comprehensible!

It's sorta why I said my English is better than hers. And quite frankly I don't doubt it IS.

Edit: Scratch that.

She has no structure to her sentences.

I, a Brazilian, am saying this now: My English is better than Sarah Palin's.

The reason I don't buy McCain's sudden desperate need to go to the Senate and debate is the fact that he's missed so many votes, more than any other senator.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

I understand that the U.S. is currently in the middle of a major financial crisis, but McCain isn't on any congressional committee that deals with financial issues or is tasked with fixing this sort of thing.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

He also admitted that he didn't know much about economics to a reporter from the wall street journal.

Right, the guy who hasn't voted since April is suddenly in a rush to get back and do his duty when his poll numbers are in the shitter. The guy who up until a week ago was still saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong is the guy to fix the mess? The guy who admitted to the WSJ that economics is not his strong point suddenly needs to go back and fix the economy. Say what you want about "town hall style" meetings myrm, this is straight duck and cover. It's mean to take a little of the heat off of McCain at the current time, and to allow more time to prep his vp candidate in the meanwhile. It is now, more than ever that we need these debates. In less than 40 days we will be electing a President. I'd like to think my President can handle more than one major task at a time. We sure as shit know the one we have now can't. Before you go blaming Clinton for all the woes of the economy as you have tried to do, I'll point out that the party in power of the congress at the time had a veto proof majority by which to thrust their economic plan forth. Lucky for me I still have a memory and "the Google."

You and GNI are ignoring the Community Reinvestment Act that was changed by Clinton in 1995, to allow the loans on banks books to be made based on three factors instead of twelve.

Easier credit, more loans, financial crisis. Besides, at that time, the Clintons were pushing for more home ownership via various means of government coercion. Congress went along, thus they are to blame.

As far as the debates go, if Obama had wanted to debate, he could have arrived at some sort of compromise. Problem is, he's not any good at it.

AHEM, you're ignoring who had a veto proof majority in congress at the time and actually passed the legislation. Save the Obama can't compromise for someone who can't see through it. Obama compromised when he worked with Lugar and Coburn. Obama worked across party lines in his entire tenure in the state senate. Obama was even willing to compromise on a comprehensive energy bill that allowed for drilling and nuclear facilities. At the time I believe he was attacked for "flip flopping." You can't have it both ways. You can't get angry when he holds firm and hold it against him when he is willing to work together. Can you remember what party controlled congress at that time?

Right, the guy who hasn't voted since April is suddenly in a rush to get back and do his duty when his poll numbers are in the shitter. The guy who up until a week ago was still saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong is the guy to fix the mess? The guy who admitted to the WSJ that economics is not his strong point suddenly needs to go back and fix the economy. Say what you want about "town hall style" meetings myrm, this is straight duck and cover. It's mean to take a little of the heat off of McCain at the current time, and to allow more time to prep his vp candidate in the meanwhile. It is now, more than ever that we need these debates. In less than 40 days we will be electing a President. I'd like to think my President can handle more than one major task at a time. We sure as shit know the one we have now can't. Before you go blaming Clinton for all the woes of the economy as you have tried to do, I'll point out that the party in power of the congress at the time had a veto proof majority by which to thrust their economic plan forth. Lucky for me I still have a memory and "the Google."
i was just watching the daily show....

so mccain announces that he is suspending his campaign and rushing to washington to take a leadership role in solviing this mess


and arrives 22 hours later

im not buying his story.

i was just watching the daily show....

so mccain announces that he is suspending his campaign and rushing to washington to take a leadership role in solviing this mess


and arrives 22 hours later
Took him 10 hours to find his glasses (they were on top of his head) and another 10 to fit his Depends.

Took him 10 hours to find his glasses (they were on top of his head) and another 10 to fit his Depends.
and the other 2 looking for his car keys.

getting older is a bitch.

i think i've figured out where the russian foreign policy experience thing came from. sarah palin lived in moscow. she just forgot that there is a difference between moscow, russia and moscow, idaho. and by the time she figured it out, it was too late to turn back, so she just pressed on with it.

So you'd like to give credit and lay praise on areas where Republicans may have a shot, but you don't want to give credit for areas Barack has opened up? Talk about having your cake...
No, you missed my point entirely? First off, this was supposed to be the year that the Dems would win by default? The very fact that McCain has a shot at some blue states suggests that the "50 State strategy" is failing to bolster the existing base, either that or the Republican strategy is trumping the Dem strategy in those States?

From 528. Out of 10,000 trails the likelihood of Obama winning PA: 79% MI 79%, MN 85% WI 89%. I like those odds. They may be "in play" but they are hardly in line to be picked off by McCain.
Those are just numbers. The fact that McCain is polling within the MOE on many of those States. If there is a tipping balance later on in this race, those numbers go out the window. Take today's Gallup numbers show a tie. Five days ago, it was a 5% lead by Obama.

Let's call it volatility?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5rmRNk6y1UAhTcV9YNk82s5XtTwD93E3NR00

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Sarah Palin felt so strongly about the public corruption indictment of a Republican state senator this summer that she urged him to resign — but not strongly enough to return the $1,000 he gave to help elect her governor.

The donation from John Cowdery was one of two from Alaska legislators who contributed to Palin's 2006 campaign weeks after the FBI raided their offices. The sprawling public corruption scandal that followed became a rallying point for candidate Palin, who was swept into office after promising voters she would rid Alaska's capital of dirty politics.

One of the donors is awaiting trial and Cowdery was indicted in July on two federal bribery counts. Palin, now GOP presidential nominee John McCain's running mate, has not returned their donations, according to campaign finance disclosures reviewed Thursday.

Palin's campaign said it was looking into the matter Thursday following repeated requests for comment from The Associated Press.

Over the years, both McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama have returned campaign donations tied to corruption, expressing regret in both cases. Obama's campaign says he's given to charity $159,000 tied to convicted Chicago real estate developer Antoin "Tony" Rezko. In the early 1990s, McCain returned $112,000 from Charles Keating, a central figure in the savings and loan crisis, after a Senate ethics inquiry.


Where are all those conservatives who were shitting their pants over Obama's financial ties to corrupt politicians? Oh right, I keep forgetting its ok for Republicans to do it.

No, you missed my point entirely? First off, this was supposed to be the year that the Dems would win by default? The very fact that McCain has a shot at some blue states suggests that the "50 State strategy" is failing to bolster the existing base, either that or the Republican strategy is trumping the Dem strategy in those States?


Those are just numbers. The fact that McCain is polling within the MOE on many of those States. If there is a tipping balance later on in this race, those numbers go out the window. Take today's Gallup numbers show a tie. Five days ago, it was a 5% lead by Obama.

Let's call it volatility?

I don't care what data you think you can extrapolate from the polls, the fact is that support for John McCain is dropping dramatically.

Sarah Palin is simply not the salve she was expected to be.

Unless something dramatic happens, or the debates are startlingly against expectations...

...it's over.

No, you missed my point entirely? First off, this was supposed to be the year that the Dems would win by default? The very fact that McCain has a shot at some blue states suggests that the "50 State strategy" is failing to bolster the existing base, either that or the Republican strategy is trumping the Dem strategy in those States?


Those are just numbers. The fact that McCain is polling within the MOE on many of those States. If there is a tipping balance later on in this race, those numbers go out the window. Take today's Gallup numbers show a tie. Five days ago, it was a 5% lead by Obama.

Let's call it volatility?

Right, those are just the statistical numbers garnered from 10,000 mock trials using a complex set of variables. Those aren't as good as the one set of numbers from the Gallup poll today you pointed out. Really?

Listen, there's not going to be a runaway election in this country for quite a long time. It should be no surprise that a race that was settled by 2% points or less in 2000 and 2004 would be close. Even 1992 and 1996 were close and Bill Clinton was miles above his opponents. It should be no surprise that a race where a black man is the major candidate might be close, because after all racism is dead in America. Barack Obama has done what everyone said he wouldn't. Everyone said he couldn't beat Hillary Clinton. For months and months we heard about how it was going to be a blowout and we might as well just coronate Hillary. Hell, even pundits on Fox said not only would Hillary win the primaries, but she would be unstoppable in the general. Still Barack Obama found a way to come out on top. I'd go with intense statistical analysis over a 1 day gallup poll where polls had Obama up by 9 points nationally the other day.

Washington Post-ABC poll puts support for Democratic presidential candidate at 52% compared with rival's 43%

That was yesterday. Which numbers do you think hold more power? Does a snapshot poll do better or a meta-analysis of statistical data?

No, you missed my point entirely? First off, this was supposed to be the year that the Dems would win by default? The very fact that McCain has a shot at some blue states suggests that the "50 State strategy" is failing to bolster the existing base, either that or the Republican strategy is trumping the Dem strategy in those States?


People that are hardcore Republican voters are not going to vote for Obama no matter what strategy he uses. My mother-in-law is the perfect example, she can't stand McCain, but won't vote for a black man.

There are a number of voters that are not going to be 'in-play', on either side.. so I'm really not sure WHY you keep pretending this is a 'whoever-runs-the-best-campaign-wins' election.


Those are just numbers. The fact that McCain is polling within the MOE on many of those States. If there is a tipping balance later on in this race, those numbers go out the window. Take today's Gallup numbers show a tie. Five days ago, it was a 5% lead by Obama.

Let's call it volatility?

Why is it - when the numbers jump in favour of McCain, you're just tee-totally SURE it's because Obama's campaign is such a shitstorm, and it's 'evidence' that Obama's campaign is not working.... but when the numbers swing in favour of Obama... it's "just numbers" and it's "volatility"...?

First off, this was supposed to be the year that the Dems would win by default? The very fact that McCain has a shot at some blue states suggests that the "50 State strategy" is failing to bolster the existing base, either that or the Republican strategy is trumping the Dem strategy in those States?

so how are the house and senate races doing?

and do you have a response to the actual numbers i posted awhile back? i don't really expect anything intellectually honest out of you, but if you are going to hang out here, at least offer a pretense.

Right, those are just the statistical numbers garnered from 10,000 mock trials using a complex set of variables. Those aren't as good as the one set of numbers from the Gallup poll today you pointed out. Really?


Yeah, but his numbers back up his Pancake Tuesday fantasy and so while they're just a single poll of daily tracking poll and yours is a compilation of polls and statistical trends that has proven reliable over 50 elections and continuously refined, yours is 'just numbers' and his is a clear and unarguable sign that the sky is falling.

'Fear-based tactics' would imply that McCain wouldn't try to overturn Roe vs Wade, and would further suggest that McCain was somehow being attributed values he doesn't have.

The problem is - McCain has said he WANTS to overturn Roe vs Wade, that he would work - as president - specifically to overturn Roe vs Wade, and that he would (ab)use his position specifically to change the balance of power in the courts, to overturn Roe vs Wade.

'Fear-based tactics' are called 'reality' when they refer to something real.
Fact remains that 7 out of 9 SCOTUS judges were appointed by Republicans and the staus quo remains.

BTW: When asked this question back in 2004:

"What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how you voted for president?"

Only 3% stated abortion.

Which is lovely, but unfortunately, it's bullshit.

It implies there's some kind of conspiracy in government to maintain the conflict, and I'm going to want some kind of evidence to accept that kind of conspiracy theory.
Nader provided the evidence?

Sorry... you YOURSELF said you found yourself identifying with the Republicans (one candidate for which is practically a clone of Bush/Rove policy, and the other of which is a theocratic extremist) in this election.

If you don't want people to assume you have some kind of rapport with it, don't SAY you do.
No, I said I find myself getting more in touch with my conservative side. There is a big difference.

So... 'shooting yourself in the foot' (which, let's face it - is a nonsense phrase) is a good reason to 'not deserve' to win?

I'm curious - in what way (apart from constant bleating about Hillary not being on the ticket) have the Democrats 'shot themselves in the foot'?
1. Picking Obama over Clinton.
2. Obama picking Biden over Clinton.
3. Obama picking Patti Doyle as VP campaign manager.
4. The whole Michigan/Florida fiasco start to finish.
5. Undemocratic caucuses, especially Texas where you get to vote twice.
6. Obama dissing Clinton's record.
7. Obama praising the accomplishments of Republicans.
8. The "war we need to win" rhetoric.
9. Obama playing the race card.
10. Obama throwing his grandmother under the bus.
11. Obama throwing his preacher under the bus.
12. Obama flip flops (http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2008/07/09/comprehensive-obama-flip-flop-list).
13. His comment regarding people clinging to religion and guns (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3740080.ece). I wonder how those bitter people will vote on Nov. 5th?
14. Over zealous Obama supporters spewing out anger, hatred, and whatever else is require to defend "The One". Perhaps they should actually read Obama's speech from the DNC convention in 2004 (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm)?

Why? Because you say so?
Well you know me, I just make up shit all the time. :rolleyes:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.[5,6]
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_6_34/ai_96377477

Some 45 of every 1,000 women aged 15-44 in the United States had an unintended pregnancy in 1994 (the latest year for which data are available). (1) The high level of unintended pregnancy can be attributed to three factors: the failure of couples at risk of unintended pregnancy to practice contraception, incorrect or inconsistent use of contraceptive methods, and method failure among those practicing contraception correctly and consistently.

Approximately one-half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. (2) A substantial minority of women having abortions--42% in 1994-1995 (3) and 49% in 1987 (4)--became pregnant because they and their partners were not using a contraceptive method.

She supports more than her Republican counterparts.
You are kinda bastardizing the point that was made?

Thanks for clarifying: "...my position is pretty clear? Yes, the Dems should have chosen Hillary on the ticket". Down our way, this would be called a 'one-trick-pony'.
No, the "one-trick-pony" that you refer to was the "anbody but Clinton stance" that Dems pursued relentlessly, which I believe will ultimately result in a Republican win.

Did you see her Katie Couric (I spell that right?) interview?

Given her performance there, I'm surprised they even let her tie her own shoes.

I'm surprised Gov. Barbie can tie her own shoes.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/dafdd1aa7b

I was in Starbucks today (I normally don't drink coffee, but I feel I've got a cold coming on and I've found a nice jolt of caffiene seems to keep it at bay) and read the WSJ for lack of any other paper available.
Despite the pg 3 slobberfest about McCain this and McCain that, I found the editorial interesting. They slagged McCain off totally for his, 'drop everything and split to the Capitol' hissyfit. Slagged McCain and praised Obama for his political nous.
When the WSJ starts slagging the GOP candidate and praising the Dem one, the writing might not be on the wall, but the graffitti guy is definitely shaking his spray can and getting ready.

Gov. Barbie

We could go with that, yes.

I've watched some of the videos of the interview, and now I have to say there is a reason for McCain's campaign to be concerned about her and debates...when you're pinned by Katie fucking Couric...yeesh...

I don't think Katie is a real lightweight. I think she'll go for the throat given the chance. Notice today's Electoral-vote.com map. Shows Obama gained ground in: Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Missouri. McCain has gained in.. West Virginia.

McCain has gained in.. West Virginia.

Ah, the State Where It's All Relative. "Vote for McCain or I'll beat ya, kid! I may be your brother, but I'm also your father!"

i was just watching the daily show....

so mccain announces that he is suspending his campaign and rushing to washington to take a leadership role in solviing this mess


and arrives 22 hours later

im not buying his story.If you watched the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, it gets even better. Apparently McCain cancelled talking to Letterman, only to talk with Couric instead.

I know the Couric beatdown of Palin has been posted a few times already, but this quote I just found...hilarious.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia26-2008sep26,0,3542588.story

"We have trade missions back and forth," Palin told Couric. "We, we do, it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to, to our state."

Certainly, Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, has demonstrated his willingness to invade its small neighbors. But have I missed news of recent provocations by Russian bombers over Kiwalik or Aleknagik? And if Palin has been intensely interested in her neighbor across the Bering Strait, that also has escaped the reporters who follow her most closely.

In fact, a veteran reporter from her home state, Hal Bernton, reported in the Seattle Times this month how Russian politicians had sought more contact with Palin, but in vain. The governor cut funding and her office's participation, it seems, in the Northern Forum, which promotes relations between regional governments in the Northern Hemisphere.


The bolded Palin quote is just very amussing.

I know the Couric beatdown of Palin has been posted a few times already, but this quote I just found...hilarious.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia26-2008sep26,0,3542588.story
The bolded Palin quote is just very amussing.The unbolded parts drive tears to my eyes.

Fact remains that 7 out of 9 SCOTUS judges were appointed by Republicans and the staus quo remains.


And how many of those judges were appointed following a specific statement of intent to employ judges for the purpose of overturning Roe vs Wade?


BTW: When asked this question back in 2004:

"What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how you voted for president?"

Only 3% stated abortion.


So? What do you think that proves? It DOES prove that you can immediately gain at least 3% of the vote by claiming to be pro-life. It also suggests that there are a number of people for whom it's not the TOP issue... but I'm not seeing how many of them there are, or what agenda items they consider more important.


Nader provided the evidence?


If an opinion piece is evidence...


No, I said I find myself getting more in touch with my conservative side. There is a big difference.


Only because (fortunately) you don't have a vote.


1. Picking Obama over Clinton.
2. Obama picking Biden over Clinton.


Picking Clinton for VP would have been a kiss of death for the Democrats campaign, even if it might have been the best choice. The Republicans would have capitalised on it like you couldn't have believed. Picking Obama over Cliton for President... hard to be sure - she wouldn't have attracted swingvoters the way Obama has, but she would have maintained more of the base. Maybe.


3. Obama picking Patti Doyle as VP campaign manager.
4. The whole Michigan/Florida fiasco start to finish.
5. Undemocratic caucuses, especially Texas where you get to vote twice.
6. Obama dissing Clinton's record.
7. Obama praising the accomplishments of Republicans.


So - praising Republicans that do good things is bad, in your playbook?


8. The "war we need to win" rhetoric.
9. Obama playing the race card.
10. Obama throwing his grandmother under the bus.
11. Obama throwing his preacher under the bus.


Throwing under the bus, eh? That phrase gets even less sensible with repetition. What do you think this is, a hockey game? If I wanted brainless sports-commentary euphemisms I'd watch sports instead of politics.


12. Obama flip flops (http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2008/07/09/comprehensive-obama-flip-flop-list).


Great. A blog by the sort of idiot that considers 'Nuclear power needs regulation' and 'I'm not a proponent of nuclear power' to be contradictory.

Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my life. I'd kind of hoped for something that would be evidence.

Curious also - you don't link to a site that is critical of McCain's far greater reversals...


13. His comment regarding people clinging to religion and guns (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3740080.ece). I wonder how those bitter people will vote on Nov. 5th?
14. Over zealous Obama supporters spewing out anger, hatred, and whatever else is require to defend "The One". Perhaps they should actually read Obama's speech from the DNC convention in 2004 (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm)?


Blaming the candidate for their supporters (even if your argument wasn't hysterical fearmongering) is not a fault in the candidate - UNLESS the candidate specifically called for the actions of the support.


Well you know me, I just make up shit all the time. :rolleyes:


On this, at least, we may agree. Curious really that your bile has managed to make such disagreement with one of the few people who previously stood shoulder-to-shoulder with you on the Clinton prospect.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_6_34/ai_96377477


Okay - what you SAID was:

"It appears that abortion has become more like a means for contraception, and clearly that should change."

Your first source points out that this is hysterical fearmongering, quite explicitly:

"Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated."

So - only 8 of every hundred people getting abortions COULD realistically be claimed to be using abortion as birth control, and those are the most disadvantaged persons, with least access to birth control education, and least access to birth control.

Perhaps more importantly - you don't address WHY this even matters. Why should a woman NOT use it as birth control?


You are kinda bastardizing the point that was made?


Which is ironic, because I think YOU were bastardising the point, and I was pointing out the important factor you were leaving out.


No, the "one-trick-pony" that you refer to was the "anbody but Clinton stance" that Dems pursued relentlessly, which I believe will ultimately result in a Republican win.

No, the one-trick pony would be the ongoing petulance, months after the primary, that someone without a vagina somehow 'stole' the rightful claim that Clinton had.

Since I have CH on ignore I can't tell, but did he ever answer TCT's (I think) question of why he thinks Nader would be the best choice for President?

I don't think Katie is a real lightweight. I think she'll go for the throat given the chance. Notice today's Electoral-vote.com map. Shows Obama gained ground in: Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Missouri. McCain has gained in.. West Virginia.

I wasn't really aware of some of the talking-heads, I admit. Having seen Palin get fucked by Couric (*shudders at the mental image*) I decided to learn some more about the weapon of choice... and saw her give Obama almost the exact same treatment, without Obama soiling his diapers quite the way Sarah did.

Similarly, I'll admit I came to this clueless about Bill O'Reilly. And, now having seen what Bill O'Reilly is normally like... I'm even MORE impressed by how Obama had him... well, whipped.

I wasn't really aware of some of the talking-heads, I admit. Having seen Palin get fucked by Couric (*shudders at the mental image*) I decided to learn some more about the weapon of choice... and saw her give Obama almost the exact same treatment, without Obama soiling his diapers quite the way Sarah did.

Similarly, I'll admit I came to this clueless about Bill O'Reilly. And, now having seen what Bill O'Reilly is normally like... I'm even MORE impressed by how Obama had him... well, whipped.

O'Reilly is the sort who if you dare to disagree with him he'll just keep talking louder and louder and interrupting you until you sit in stunned silence of his toddler like behavior. I apologize to all toddlers for the association.

If you watched the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, it gets even better. Apparently McCain cancelled talking to Letterman, only to talk with Couric instead.
i loved his monologue on mccains suspending his campaign

its worth watching the rant by a new citizen who dislikes the idea of subverting the democratic process of his new country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DT3Dest47U

which I believe will ultimately result in a Republican win.

so what will you do if obama wins? i think you should have something at stake here, if we're going to have to keep looking at your illogical, ungrounded, pure and refined bullshit.

13. His comment regarding people clinging to religion and guns (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3740080.ece). I wonder how those bitter people will vote on Nov. 5th?

I hope they vote for McCain. In fact, I hope a every single republican supporter out there shows up at the polls to vote on Nov. 5th.

so what will you do if obama wins? i think you should have something at stake here, if we're going to have to keep looking at your illogical, ungrounded, pure and refined bullshit.

I can honostly see CH denying that Obama won.


"Nu-uh! McCain won! Stop lying!"

I hope they vote for McCain. In fact, I hope a every single republican supporter out there shows up at the polls to vote on Nov. 5th.

*hug*

O'Reilly is the sort who if you dare to disagree with him he'll just keep talking louder and louder and interrupting you until you sit in stunned silence of his toddler like behavior. I apologize to all toddlers for the association.

Yeah, I'm aware of what Bill O'Reilly is now. Which is why I'm even more impressed.

I was watching him cut off people that argued with him... yelling at people... being insanely ianppropriate to people they invited on to his show. Insane.

I can honostly see CH denying that Obama won.


"Nu-uh! McCain won! Stop lying!"

Sounds familiar, huh?

Yeah, I'm aware of what Bill O'Reilly is now. Which is why I'm even more impressed.

I was watching him cut off people that argued with him... yelling at people... being insanely ianppropriate to people they invited on to his show. Insane.

It's the sort of thing you have to see though. If someone told you there was a "legitimate" talk show host that acted like that you'd be inclined to disbelieve.

Sounds familiar, huh?

"McCain won the states that matter! Obama is too much of a n*gger to win!"

:p

"McCain won the states that matter! Obama is too much of a n*gger to win!"

:p

Only these states count. They voted the right way!

"McCain won the states that matter! Obama is too much of a n*gger to win!"

:p

And you know what they say, "As [insert state just won] goes, so goes the nation!"

Only these states count. They voted the right way!

"They didn't vote for the n*gger! N*ggers don't have the right to be Presidents, McCain wins by default!"

And so on.

The blatant racism of the anti-Obama crowd is appalling.

"They didn't vote for the n*gger! N*ggers don't have the right to be Presidents, McCain wins by default!"

And so on.

The blatant racism of the anti-Obama crowd is appalling.

To be fair, I have seen few instances of racism outside of West Virgina and New Mitani.

To be fair, I have seen few instances of racism outside of West Virgina and New Mitani.

The beauty of identity politics is, they didn't have to care about the facts when calling me sexist, so I don't have either.

The beauty of identity politics is, they didn't have to care about the facts when calling me sexist, so I don't have either.

I usually avoid being at the same level as conservatives so the world knows that Im sane and live in reality.

I usually avoid being at the same level as conservatives so the world knows that Im sane and live in reality.

It must be nice to be a person for which that ship has not sailed. ;)

Please tell us, oh great one, why exactly Ralph Nader is the most qualified and best candidate for President of the United States. Because I have the strong feeling you don't actually know that much about Nader's candidacy.

I know he doesn't have a vagina, so he doesn't meet your usual criteria for high office.

Still waiting for an answer from CH.

Still waiting for some proof that his views regarding the Presidential race are anything other than a temper tantrum over Senator Clinton.

Since I have CH on ignore I can't tell, but did he ever answer TCT's (I think) question of why he thinks Nader would be the best choice for President?

Nope, of course not.

CH has also not responded to any of my various posts about his alleged disenchantment with the U.S. Democratic party or about his ridiculous views on abortion.

Perhaps CH has me on ignore -- or is just deliberately ignoring points that are inconvenient.

Nope, of course not.

CH has also not responded to any of my various posts about his alleged disenchantment with the U.S. Democratic party or about his ridiculous views on abortion.

Perhaps CH has me on ignore -- or is just deliberately ignoring points that are inconvenient.

oh please TCT, how can you argue with CH's nuanced and reasoned analysis of the presidential debate? We ALL know how those people will vote on november 5th, he told us so himself.

In the interest of keeping the nominees the topic of the thread and not CH, McCain to the rescue! (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4b44697a-2b2c-4cf5-aaae-39097e9c6d96)

He lamented that "partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges." But for days, bipartisanship has been the rule on both sides of this argument. Republicans and Democrats alike were highly critical of President Bush's proposal to inject $700 billion into the financial system. Yet leaders of both parties were trying hard to negotiate an agreement with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. That's why they were close to an agreement in principle even before the two presidential nominees arrived for yesterday's White House meeting that McCain thought was so important.

"I need to go disrupt the thing I'm there to fix, or something..."

McCain on theater-
If you doubt that McCain's moves were about rescuing his candidacy rather than our economy, consider how his proposal to suspend the presidential campaign came about.

McCain had just finished a phone call with Obama on Wednesday in which they discussed a joint statement of principles and McCain broached the idea of suspending the campaign. Obama said he'd think about it, but McCain didn't give him time. To Obama's surprise, McCain appeared on television shortly after the conversation to announce his unilateral pause in campaigning and a call for postponing Friday's debate. This is bipartisanship?

Is he just playing to the base at this point and hoping that will be enough? Because I don't know that anyone outside the base is buying this.

In the interest of keeping the nominees the topic of the thread and not CH, McCain to the rescue! (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4b44697a-2b2c-4cf5-aaae-39097e9c6d96)



"I need to go disrupt the thing I'm there to fix, or something..."

McCain on theater-


Is he just playing to the base at this point and hoping that will be enough? Because I don't know that anyone outside the base is buying this.

Considering that Reid and Bush are in agreement that the bailout must pass it looks like it's Republicans holding it up. McCain shows up and things go to hell after a deal had already been agreed upon. Good job John! Way to fix our economy!

More news from CNN:

(CNN) — Barack Obama – who gained a small edge in the CNN poll of polls this week – is gaining ground on the CNN Electoral Map as well.

CNN is altering its Electoral Map, shifting Michigan and its 17 electoral votes from tossup to “lean Obama.”

With the shift of Michigan, CNN now estimates that if the presidential election were held today, Obama would win 240 electoral votes and John McCain 200. There are 98 electoral votes up for grabs; 270 electoral votes are needed to win the White House.

Nope, of course not.

CH has also not responded to any of my various posts about his alleged disenchantment with the U.S. Democratic party or about his ridiculous views on abortion.

Perhaps CH has me on ignore -- or is just deliberately ignoring points that are inconvenient.

He has carefully responded to only the parts of (several of) my posts that he could bounce back as softballs. If it can't get a canned answer, or it would require actually proving a point (or admitting it can't be done)... your post probably won't get an answer.

I've been waiting for his responses to your posts too...

Considering that Reid and Bush are in agreement that the bailout must pass it looks like it's Republicans holding it up. McCain shows up and things go to hell after a deal had already been agreed upon. Good job John! Way to fix our economy!

It was either that... or a debate.

Considering that Reid and Bush are in agreement that the bailout must pass it looks like it's Republicans holding it up. McCain shows up and things go to hell after a deal had already been agreed upon. Good job John! Way to fix our economy!
It's like he wanted (http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/how-john-mccain-destroyed-compromise-save-his-skin) to be the ship too late to save a drowning witch...

All week, Democratic and Republicans congressional negotiators had been working toward a compromise, while McCain had been out campaigning. In fact, as recently as Tuesday, McCain hadn’t even read Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s three-page bailout proposal. And now, after he’d shouted his intention to (belatedly) throw himself into the discussions, it looked like there was nothing left to discuss. The dispute had been resolved, and McCain hadn’t even made it to town yet. So much for his campaign “suspension” – and his demand that Friday night’s debate be postponed because of the (supposed) congressional stalemate.

At a press conference just after noon, influential congressional Republicans and Democrats joined together to declare that a basic agreement was at hand.

Robert Bennett, a top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said that “I now expect we will indeed have a plan that can pass the House, pass the Senate, be signed by the president” and labeled this week’s bipartisan negotiations “one of the most productive sessions” of his legislative career.

“We focused on solving the problem, rather than posturing politically,” he said.
...
What was McCain to do? Well, here’s what it looks like he did: Ally himself with conservative Republicans in the House and encourage their resistance to the deal in an effort to blow it up – and, thus, create the kind of drama and suspense necessary for McCain to assume the heroic role he carved out for himself on Wednesday.

This wasn’t that hard to do. House Republicans were represented at Thursday’s bipartisan news conference (by Spencer Bachus, the ranking Republican on the Financial Services Committee), but the House G.O.P. Conference is filled with conservative true-believers, ideologically inflexible types who are less common in the Senate.

Among this crowd, the idea of any kind of a government-funded bailout is philosophically unacceptable, and the Republican Study Committee – basically, the most conservative Republicans in the House – drafted their own alternative plan, one that included no taxpayer-funded bailout. Their objections were neither new nor unknown as congressional negotiations unfolded this week – and when the bipartisan compromise was announced on Thursday afternoon.

What was new was that McCain on Thursday afternoon – after the deal was announced – met with John Boehner, the House G.O.P. leader, and, according to one report, began gauging support in the House for the Study Committee’s plan. In other words, he breathed new life into the House conservatives’ bailout opposition.
...
When the meeting broke up, it was obvious that progress toward a resolution had dramatically regressed over the course of Thursday afternoon – a regression that coincided with McCain’s arrival in Washington and his insertion of himself into the negotiations. With Boehner and the House G.O.P. balking, passage of the bipartisan deal seemed doubtful, since significant Republican support would be a prerequisite for Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivering most of the House Democratic Caucus. With the election six weeks away, Pelosi hardly wants her party to own the bailout.
...
And now McCain has the drama that he came to Washington to capitalize on. Now, he can either emerge as the savior of the suddenly-broken compromise by winning a few concessions and coaxing enough House Republicans into backing it. Or he could simply declare himself the face of bailout opposition and team up with the House G.O.P. (and a few Republican senators, like Shelby) to fight a compromise plan. (Whether they’d succeed in stopping the bailout is almost immaterial; McCain’s opposition would be aimed at capitalizing on popular sentiment against the bailout, something that is not difficult to foment.)

Looks like Dodd was right-
“What this looked like to me,” a visibly angry Chris Dodd told a television reporter after the White House meeting, “was a rescue plan for John McCain.”

First off, this was supposed to be the year that the Dems would win by default? The very fact that McCain has a shot at some blue states suggests that the "50 State strategy" is failing to bolster the existing base, either that or the Republican strategy is trumping the Dem strategy in those States?

I wouldn't necessarily say that. First, the assumption that the Democrats were supposed to "win by default" is just that, an assumption. While I can understand the basis for this assumption (backlash against Bush and the effects of his administration), that shouldn't mean that everyone in the nation was just going to turn away from anyone labeling themselves Republican. Again, I think that's an incorrect assumption. There are plenty of reasons that people who voted Rep. in previous elections would continue to do so. And yes, there may be reasons that people in "blue" states might even vote Republican (I might disagree with those reasons, but surely they exist; e.g., Palin).

That being the case, citing the fact that Republicans are actually polling decently well in some "blue" states shouldn't necessarily be taken as a failure on the part of the Democrats to simply walk away with an election that was "supposed" to be theirs. Unless you think that the Republicans have nothing to offer, and thus the fact that Republicans are garnering any support at all is a sign of impotence amongst the Democrats, and not a sign that Republicans have something to offer some voters?

It's like he wanted (http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/how-john-mccain-destroyed-compromise-save-his-skin) to be the ship too late to save a drowning witch...


Hey, now - be fair. If McCain hadn't saddled-up and got his hands dirty, the situation would have considerably deteriorated, and we'd be looking at the fallout continuing to expand.

Call me back when something suggests that to be the case.

And if it's anything less than.. I don't know... Washington Mutual... imploding with 300 billion dollars of 'debt asset', it doesn't count.


Looks like Dodd was right-

Unfortunately, yes. It really does.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/dafdd1aa7b

I love Sarah Silverman. She's such a quirky little beyotch. She a great set of... tabletop coasters.

lol Palin. Are they kidding with loon?

lol Palin. Are they kidding with loon?

new theory - mccain secretly did become a democrat back in 2004ish, only he remained in the republican party as a deep cover operative to make them look even worse than usual

That theory seems amazingly familiar. Almost like something I might say. http://www.urban75.net/ubb/hmm.gif

That theory seems amazingly familiar. Almost like something I might say. http://www.urban75.net/ubb/hmm.gif

i don't like your implication that i am secretly you. everyone knows its actually the other way around

I am implying nefarious plagiarism, you heinous fiend.

I am implying nefarious plagiarism, you heinous fiend.

it wouldn't be the first time

Want to call it a draw?

It's back on (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/26/mccain-to-attend-debate-at-university-of-mississippi/), to I suspect no one's surprise.

And of course, what he was going for-
Though McCain had pledged to suspend his campaign while he worked in Washington, politics could not be avoided. The McCain camp claimed that Obama’s refusal to look seriously at the House Republicans’ proposal was to blame.

“It is not enough to cut deals behind closed doors and then try to force it on the rest of Congress — especially when it amounts to thousands of dollars for every American family,” the McCain campaign said in a statement.

“The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama’s priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners.”
I'm going to repeat my favorite part...
The McCain camp claimed that Obama’s refusal to look seriously at the House Republicans’ proposal was to blame.
That's just awesome. "You're being stung because of this beehive I'm whacking with a stick, surely you can see how this is your fault."

It's back on (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/26/mccain-to-attend-debate-at-university-of-mississippi/), to I suspect no one's surprise.

And of course, what he was going for-

I'm going to repeat my favorite part...

That's just awesome. "You're being stung because of this beehive I'm whacking with a stick, surely you can see how this is your fault."

My god I feel bad for McCain, he's clearly lost touch with reality. Obama will eviscerate him in a debate.

*snip*

Jesus Fucking H Christ.

The only issue right now is that banks are not lending to each other because of unknown debt. The simple plan is for the government to cover the debt and allow banks to feel safe to lend short term loans.

For anyone not to take decisive action, to deliberate on whether one's electoral base disagrees with taxpayers money bailing out banks, is simply insane. We now go into a weekend with a market that doesn't know the deal, and that is basically the worst situation.

It's really not about the right decision for votes right now.

This banking situation is serious, it really, really is.

Perhaps someone with 7 houses and 13 cars can't understand that.

It's a damn tragedy.

It's back on (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/26/mccain-to-attend-debate-at-university-of-mississippi/), to I suspect no one's surprise.

And of course, what he was going for-

I'm going to repeat my favorite part...

That's just awesome. "You're being stung because of this beehive I'm whacking with a stick, surely you can see how this is your fault."

At least McCain can claim responsibility for them finding a bipartisan solution.... err, right?

"This financial version of 'deal or no deal' is not conducive to restoring badly-needed confidence," said Martin Slaney, head of derivatives at GFT. "The ongoing discord is massively unsettling and the fact that we now have Washington Mutual added to the list of casualties is escalating the cynicism. If a deal hasn't been signed and sealed over the weekend, expect massive market turmoil. Monday will be a bloodbath."

We're sleepwalking through history - that phrase so resonates right now.

Damn it, and Im going to be unable to watch the debates tonight too. I hope its on Youtube by 11 pm tonight...

Meh, Ill just record it.

Damn it, and Im going to be unable to watch the debates tonight too. I hope its on Youtube by 11 pm tonight...

Meh, Ill just record it.

At 11pm PST (the only timezone that matters...) CSPAN will likely rerun the debate.

Palin should step down, conservative commentator says (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/):

Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, said Friday recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

The criticism in Parker's Friday column is the latest in a recent string of negative assessments toward the McCain-Palin candidacy from prominent conservatives.

It was fun while it lasted," Parker writes. "Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league."

Palin's interview with Couric drew criticism when the Alaska governor was unable to provide an example of when John McCain had pushed for more regulation of Wall Street during his Senate career. Palin also took heat for defending her foreign policy credentials by suggesting Russian leaders enter Alaska airspace when they come to America. Palin was also criticized last week for appearing not to know what the Bush Doctrine is during an interview with Charlie Gibson.

“If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself," Parker also writes. "If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."

Parker, who praised McCain's "keen judgment" for picking Palin earlier this month and wrote the Alaska governor is a "perfect storm of God, Mom and apple pie," now says Palin should step down from the ticket.

“Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves," Parker writes. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."

Parker's comments follow those by prominent conservatives David Brooks (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/16/opinion/edbrooks.php?WT.mc_id=rssmostemailed), George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202441.html), and David Frum (http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=756704) who have all publicly questioned Palin's readiness to be vice president.

"Sarah Palin has many virtues," Brooks wrote in a recent column. "If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."


(emphasis added)

Note: The CNN story also had links to the articles by Brooks, Will, and Frum, which I have replicated in the story.

Here is the Parker editorial at the National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=):

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.

Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

(emphasis added)

The shine is definitely off the apple.

The debate is on...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26900453/?GT1=43001)

The debate is on...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26900453/?GT1=43001)

Flip-flopper!



:p

Flip-flopper!



:pYou mean like every other elected politician?

damn it cat tribes, you beat me again!

The debate is on...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26900453/?GT1=43001)

So many choice nuggets...

By Friday morning, it appeared McCain was looking for a face-saving way to get to the debate even though a deal had not been reached. He met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, before heading to his campaign headquarters and issuing a statement that blamed others in Washington for the failure to reach an agreement.

"John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis," the statement said. "In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. [b]At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money to bail out bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices."
Awesome...
McCain had also said he would suspend all campaign activities, but in reality the campaign just shifted to Washington while the work of trying to win the election went on.
Even the Huckster wasn't buying it-
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a McCain supporter, said the Republican made a "huge mistake" by even discussing canceling the debate.

"You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything,'" Huckabee told reporters Thursday night in Alabama before attending a benefit for the University of Mobile. He said it's more important for voters to hear from the presidential candidates than for them to huddle with fellow senators in Washington.

Is this gambit going to work for anyone?

damn it cat tribes, you beat me again!

My purpose in life is fulfilled!! :)